[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jun 28 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

Perhaps I was harsh since I did know you understood partner can have 5 hearts. I guess then where I'm confused is this. If a 4-4 fit is dangerous at the 5 level on this auction, and we make a bid showing 6 clubs and 4 of a red suit, and partner is 4-4 in the red suits, why are we worried he will choose the 4-4 fit instead of 5♣? Surely we aren't the only member of the partnership who possesses this knowledge of how 4-4 fits play.

Now yes, partner might be 4-5 (or 5-4!) in the red suits and then bid 5♦. But the longer he is in the red suits the shorter he is in clubs. Surely with 3 clubs he will choose the known 9 card fit over a possible 8 card fit, so it seems to me the one real gain of bidding 5♣ is partner being 2452 or 1462. Now even though playing hearts opposite those hardly has to be a disaster it's true I would get to hearts when I'd tend to prefer clubs. That is a reason to bid 5♣ which is hardly a nullo bid. But I would rather make the bid that finds more 9 card heart fits and fewer 7 card club fits than the bid that chooses what I think will be the better of two 8 card fit. Maybe it's just my general nature to choose the flexible bid even if both options have winning cases.

how would opener rebid with 0=4=4=5? Admittedly a low percentage holding, but clearly a 4N bid. And the likelihood of this hand type is increased by the 4♠ bid. Or with 5=6 red/clubs? Admittedly, on this last, finding a 6=3 club fit is usually going to be ok, even if not perfect, compared to a 5=4 or 5=5 red suit fit.

However, I agree that responder should generally choose 5♣ with 3 card support.

I guess it really comes down to my feeling that a unilateral 5♣ call is less prone to a bad outcome than 4N, since I think that we rate to hold 8+ clubs even when we hold 8+ hearts, and when we hold exactly 8 card fits, clubs will be safer than hearts. I can't quantify this feeling, in terms of frequency.

I freely admit that 5♣ can be a disaster (partner has 2=5=5=1 is one possibility) but I know you'd admit that 5♥ can be inferior even if he holds 4 of them.

I don't think a simulation would help because of uncertainty about 4♠, double, and how he'd advance over our 4N.

[gnasher]

I don't think opener's 4NT promises six clubs: he could well be 1(43)5. Hence with 3442 responder will usually bid 5♦.

I also don't think responder can be 3361 - it hardly takes a psychic to predict what will happen if you double 4♠ with that shape.

When will it cost to reach 5♥? We have ♦A, so they're probably not going to be able to cut us off from the clubs. I think that the two main risks are:
(1) - Partner is 3442 or 2452; we have one or more trump losers in hearts, partner has sufficient diamond winners to throw the heart loser(s) away if they aren't trumps; in 5♣, they couldn't have arranged to take a heart ruff.
(2) Partner is 3442 or 2452 with ♣10x; clubs are 4-1 so that they can take a club ruff against 5♥.

When will it gain to bid 4NT? When partner has a singleton club - 2551 or 3(45)1, clubs don't break, and he passes 5♣. (I'm not sure how often he'd remove to 5♦ with 2551; possibly never.)

The singleton club doesn't seem that likely to me, so I think the risks of 4NT outweigh the risks of 5♣, but I changed my mind whilst writing this post. I'm not sure if that means that it's close, or just that I can't think coherently without writing things down.

[mikegill]

Quote

I don't think opener's 4NT promises six clubs: he could well be 1(43)5. Hence with 3442 responder will usually bid 5♦.

Would we really always pull the double with 1(43)5? Surely this is less likely at least. With defensive high cards I think I would pass.

Quote

I also don't think responder can be 3361 - it hardly takes a psychic to predict what will happen if you double 4♠ with that shape.

What else can you do with a 3361 and bad diamonds? You can't bid e.g. KTxxxx by yourself at the 5-level when partner's shape remains essentially unknown.

I think a third major risk of 4NT isn't just that hearts has more losers that clubs, but that when things are breaking badly it will frequently be doubled (give RHO KJT8 or something behind whatever dummy has) and down 2.

[gnasher]

mikegill, on Jun 29 2010, 01:53 PM, said:

Would we really always pull the double with 1(43)5?

I would, except perhaps with a singleton ace of spades. But I probaby play the double as more takeout-oriented than you do.

Quote

What else can you do with a 3361 and bad diamonds?  You can't bid e.g. KTxxxx by yourself at the 5-level when partner's shape remains essentially unknown.

You pass and wait to see if partner makes a takeout double. If he doesn't, it's unlikely that you've missed a game.

[mikegill]

Quote

You pass and wait to see if partner makes a takeout double. If he doesn't, it's unlikely that you've missed a game.

Well yes, but what if you have a good enough hand that passing is obviously wrong.

[whereagles]

I'll let it float. That's my best guess. Pard is probably stuck for a bid with his featureless 11-count.

[gszeszycki]

while no strong scientific way to explore some thought on scoring might help with our decision.

MP
since merely setting 4s 1 trick x gains more mp than setting 4s w/o x the x by partner can be done on a small amount of power p will probably x 4s with as little as Kxx xxxx Qxxx Axx---opposite this I should be more than happy to collect my (hopefully positive score) and pass.

IMP
We do not worry about collecting a small extra + score for setting 4s 1 trick (r/w)thus the X by partner has to be much better either expecting to beat 4s 2 or more tricks or expecting us to make at the 5 level or higher when we have an average hand.
The distributions are not balanced thus responder can only count on us for 1 1/2 tricks for our opening bid. This means partner has around 3 1/2 tricks in order to set 4s at least 2. Since it is almost impossible for P to be looking at 3 1/2 tricks on defense (we have too many controls) we can only assume they have a hand with sufficient values where making something at the 5 level is reasonable opposite a balanced minimum.
Our hand is anything but balanced and any reasonable x by p must give us great play for 6 or even 7 (with 7 being very tough to discover) the process of elimination would make it seem that

5N

is the standout bid which should be fairly obvious pick a slam btn clubs and hearts.

I must admit some sympathy for 5c bidders since playing 5c will almost surely score more IMPS than defending 4s x. But the mathematics on minor suit slams
1370 to 620 vs -100 to 600 favors bidding even a 50% slam 750-700.

[gnasher]

mikegill, on Jun 30 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Quote

You pass and wait to see if partner makes a takeout double. If he doesn't, it's unlikely that you've missed a game.

Well yes, but what if you have a good enough hand that passing is obviously wrong.

So you have a 3361 shape that is strong enough to think it likely that you were making some game, but with such poor diamonds that it doesn't feel right to bid them at the five level? Something like Axx AKx K10xxxx x ?

That's not a very attractive problem - double will often lead to a minus score in 5♣ or 5♥, but pass will sometimes miss game or slam in diamonds. It would be unfortunate to defend 4♠ undoubled opposite x Qxxx AQx Axxxx. I suppose we have to double and then live with the consequences.

I think you'd have to be pretty strong to double with this shape though, and I don't think we should let that possibility affect our decision on the originally posted hand.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-July-01, 08:26

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Jun 29 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

When will it gain to bid 4NT? When partner has a singleton club - 2551 or 3(45)1, clubs don't break, and he passes 5♣. (I'm not sure how often he'd remove to 5♦ with 2551; possibly never.)

I would go with something close to never.

I'd probably just bid 5C on this hand, but I don't mind 4NT as obviously it can work well.

There's also a (somewhat subtle) possible inference, I think, that 4NT is on average a slightly stronger hand than a 5C bid so may get us to a slam that 5C won't. We'd bid 5C on lots of weakish opening bids with very long clubs, but as others have pointed out we will pass on the double on some minimum 2-suiters. that's an argument for 4NT.

I don't understand driving slam. OK, I understand it, but if this is a slam force then your partner isn't doubling 4S often enough.