[benlessard]

---

Casual partnership, 5D is undiscussed but 4D is 100% forcing.

[cloa513]

benlessard, on 2012-October-13, 15:33, said:

---

Casual partnership, 5D is undiscussed but 4D is 100% forcing.

Pass- partner has xx KJxx KQJxx KQ

[nigel_k]

I would have doubled last time but definitely pass now. I've done enough.

[PhilKing]

I'm wondering which grand slam try to make. 5♥ seems best.

Ax KJTx AKJTxxx -

Clearly we can make at least six.

[aguahombre]

Yes, of course 4C must have been a brain freeze. But 4D is clearly forcing, so I have no idea what 5D should mean. However, we don't double with as many odd one-suited hands as others do, so it might be to play. Partnership bidding went out the window when we didn't double 3S, so we also have no idea what partner thinks we have shown already, either.

[gnasher]

It may be right to bid slam. but I wouldn't say it's guaranteed. x KJ10x AKQJxx Ax and Kx KJx KQJ10xxx A are both possible hands.

By the way, what kind of "casual partnership" knows that 4♦ is 100% forcing? Some people will bid like this on a 1462 13-count

[FrancesHinden]

4♣ was a very strange call, what was wrong with double?
The only explanation for 5♦ is that partner didn't know that 4♦ was "100% forcing" or was worried that it would be a cue bid for clubs or something else strange.

[MrAce]

cloa513, on 2012-October-13, 16:29, said:

Pass- partner has xx KJxx KQJxx KQ

I ♥ this bar !

[benlessard]

X would have been optionnal not responsive (add a King and a spade and X is ok, my definition of a optionnal double is that you can pass with a minimum balanced hand).

Quote

By the way, what kind of "casual partnership" knows that 4♦ is 100% forcing? Some people will bid like this on a 1462 13-count

We didnt discuss ELC (and its not very popular here anyway) so a X and bid vs a free bid = game.

[aguahombre]

benlessard, on 2012-October-14, 09:22, said:

X would have been optionnal not responsive (add a King and a spade and X is ok, my definition of a optionnal double is that you can pass with a minimum balanced hand).

Is this in context of random direct doubles of 1♠ showing 13 cards and 12 points? I thought responsive doubles were commonly played thru about the same levels as negative doubles.

[PhilKing]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-14, 04:38, said:

4♣ was a very strange call, what was wrong with double?
The only explanation for 5♦ is that partner didn't know that 4♦ was "100% forcing" or was worried that it would be a cue bid for clubs or something else strange.

Well that's two explanations already ...

I think they may have been turned off by the club bid, so did not want to bid 4♦. If partner hates clubs our hand is huge!

[dake50]

Partner didn't double to get to a measly 4m did he?
What hands for partner would not start with 4D force?
Even though 4C accented a 5-suit to the J??
I think he hopes we see D+C galore tricks. Grand may be on!

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-October-14, 03:31, said:

It may be right to bid slam. but I wouldn't say it's guaranteed. x KJ10x AKQJxx Ax and Kx KJx KQJ10xxx A are both possible hands.

The first hand is possibly consistent with partner's bidding, but total trick muppets will have bid up to Four Spades on the opponents cards.

If they fit the profile, pard is usually 2461 or 2470.

I wouldn't double on the second hand, but I guess most(?) would.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-October-14, 03:31, said:

By the way, what kind of "casual partnership" knows that 4♦ is 100% forcing?

Jeans and T-shirt, presumably. I think same-level correction should be flexible; it is more important to be able to bid most hands reasonably than some hands perfectly after they pre-empt. I would pass here, without a great deal of confidence. And I would also have doubled 3S.