[jillybean]

---

NV vs. V

I am always thrilled to pick up a hand like this, with any sign of life from partner I know I am going to play in one of the black suits.
If I'm disciplined and count my LTC, I have 5, that's good. The ♦ Q is bad but the other honours are in the long suits, I only have long suits.
I only have 2 controls but my suits are good, KQT, KT98.

Sometimes it's an easy auction and the opponents don't compete above the 4 level, this time they did.
These high level pass or pull decisions are often tricky. Partner is a passed hand, he doesn't know I have a mediocre 10 hcp and I have opened my hand on shape, I have no defence against the opps heart contract.

[mikeh]

Here’s a sometimes useful principle:

When, in this sort of auction, opener jumps to game, he or she is in charge of later decisions. Responder should make a further call only with a very unusual hand for the earlier bidding. Here, double would, if this principle is part of your methods, show an unexpected trump holding: maybe AJ9x

If opener, instead, wants input from partner, opener bids something other than 4S. For example, here you want partner to bid 5S over 5H if his values are in clubs and spades, so you’d bid 4C over 3H

This principle is like almost all bridge ideas: not without cost.

The cost is that 4C is NOT a slam try. You are not looking for slam. Now, when one opens 1S and partner can muster only a single level raise, slam is a distant and unlikely target no matter what opener holds, so it is not usually a big deal to use a new suit over 3H as showing a marked 2-suiter (5-5/6-4 or wilder), but partner needs to be on the same page.

On some hands, there is an additional cost in that here you’d be giving west the chance to apply the same principle (re bidding 5H over 4S) by bidding 4D over 4C.

So here, if this principle is in play, partner has at least two heart tricks and thus won’t likely cover your losers. While 5H may still make, the smart money says that 5S is getting hammered and has no play, while 5H will usually fail.

However, this principle is likely unknown to most non-experts, and in that case I’d bid 5S.

[Cyberyeti]

I would have seriously considered bidding 4♣ rather than 4♠ so that partner doesn't rate his club honours so much for defence and rates them for bidding on.

[Winstonm]

All you say is true but consider the problem from your partner’s POV. He or she passed then only made a simple raise - so how can he or she now make a penalty double? It can’t be-it is a warning double that the hand has wasted values and is strongly defensive in nature. I would expect something like xxx, QJ10x, Kxx, Jxx or similar.

[LBengtsson]

the 2♥ vul overcaller will probably have stiff ♠A or void to go to 5♥ here, six card ♥ suit maybe seven which leaves zilch for partner.

your hand is 6/5 and poor for defense. the 6/5 shape makes it look good for offence but for defense it it lacking aces. you need quick tricks to put down this contract or partner to have very good trump holding. you have neither. will partner have enough beans to defeat 5♥ after fail to open the bidding and giving you a single raise? I do not think that.

I agree with mikeh that 5♠ will go down, maybe bad, but except if you trust partner honestly 5♥X has good chance to make.

[jillybean]

I would usually bid 4♣ and keep partner in on the decision. Here I decided not to let the opponents have an easy 4♥ bid and hoped we could end the auction in 4♠.
Yep, masterminding again.

---

Q♣ led, -1

[mikeh]

5H is a truly remarkable red v white call.

[Winstonm]

IMO north has no business doubling over 4H

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-April-23, 17:04, said:

5H is a truly remarkable red v white call.

Club Bridge. Hopefully I will have some more realistic hands after an Open Tournament tomorrow.

[akwoo]

This is one of those situations where it really depends on your relationship with your partner.

If this is a one-off partnership with a not particularly competent partner, 5♠ it is.

If this is somewhat of a mentoring relationship, I pass, and partner learns the lesson of passing with a nondescript hand in direct seat.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2021-April-23, 17:04, said:

5H is a truly remarkable red v white call.

Not only 5♥. All 3 of West's calls and half of North's look questionable.

[DavidKok]

Multiple mistakes on a single deal, most already mentioned by others. 4♣ is superior to 4♠. The issue is not so much them bidding 4♥ (which you are happy to take out), but bidding 5♥. You want partner to have a good clue of your hand, so that you don't have to second guess their decision as you did here.
I can live with West's 2♥, though I suppose others would prefer 4♥ (or even 3♥?). North's 2♠ is extremely unhelpful and in my opinion is the most grievous error on this deal - two spades are insufficient to show support. East's 3♥ is also not a great bid (I would prefer 2NT/X, whichever shows an invitational raise in your methods), and as mentioned 4♣ by South is better than 4♠. I think West lost the plot a bit after that and bid 5♥, which you could have punished had you trusted your partner (or made a more descriptive bid earlier).

[DavidKok]

akwoo, on 2021-April-23, 18:14, said:

This is one of those situations where it really depends on your relationship with your partner.

If this is a one-off partnership with a not particularly competent partner, 5♠ it is.

If this is somewhat of a mentoring relationship, I pass, and partner learns the lesson of passing with a nondescript hand in direct seat.

If your partnership plays forcing passes in this position mikeh's explanation still applies, but sitting `to mentor partner' seems highly unproductive.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-April-24, 03:27, said:

I think West lost the plot a bit after that and bid 5♥, which you could have punished had you trusted your partner (or made a more descriptive bid earlier).

How are you intending to punish 5♥? it's cold with Q♦ dropping

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-April-24, 03:49, said:

How are you intending to punish 5♥? it's cold with Q♦ dropping

Good point, I completely missed that for some reason. I hope the rest of my bidding advice was not equally silly.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-April-25, 03:11, said:

Good point, I completely missed that for some reason. I hope the rest of my bidding advice was not equally silly.

It's conceivable you could play it off, depends how much you know at the time you have to make the decision but you could play him for 10x instead. To give you a losing option S needs you to believe he has ♣AK.