[Fluffy]

---

[helene_t]

I will follow up on my standard preempt with a standard lead of ♣J

[the_clown]

5♣. They can probably make 5/6♠, but they dont know it. I would expect to go -300 when we get doubled.

Pushing them to slam is my only concern, but it will be tough to bid it and sometimes it may go down, especially after partner told me what to lead.

[Zelandakh]

the_clown, on 2013-November-28, 07:31, said:

5♣. They can probably make 5/6♠, but they dont know it.

They will know it after 5♣ though, since you just announced the big double fit. I do not think we want to involve partner in a 6 level decision here so if we are bidding it seems to me clear that 5♦ is better.

[the_clown]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-28, 08:30, said:

They will know it after 5♣ though, since you just announced the big double fit. I do not think we want to involve partner in a 6 level decision here so if we are bidding it seems to me clear that 5♦ is better.

I am also not thrilled about announcing our double fit, but I fear that clubs may play a lot better. Partner may have something like x xxxx Kx AQxxx and meant to bid 4♣ mainly as lead directing (I would certainly bid 4♣ holding that hand). Another danger in 5♦ are club ruffs.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-28, 08:30, said:

They will know it after 5♣ though, since you just announced the big double fit. I do not think we want to involve partner in a 6 level decision here so if we are bidding it seems to me clear that 5♦ is better.

After 5♦ they know pretty much the same. Unless you are trying to muddy the waters, you will bid 5♦ when the 4♣ bid increased your ODR, which is typically when you have a fit for clubs.

I would prefer to let partner play in clubs. If we play in diamonds we can predict a club ruff. If we play in clubs, they might try for a diamond ruff, but most likely there won't be one since our preempt was ... well err ... standard (for lack of a better word ).

Rik

[helene_t]

Is it possible that p would bid 4♣ on a void? It is not like he needs fitting honors in clubs, any club finesse is likely to work anyway.

[WGF_Flame]

the bidding in this situation are:
5 something - i got much better shape then I showed. ex 7-4
double - I have same or less shape than I showed before, and I got extra strengh
pass - I dont have much to add.


bidding 5 - when i already showed more shape then I got is very strange to me.
double - make sense if I believe parters 4C to be a strong hand.
pass - probebly what I would choose unless I really trust partner to be strong.

[WGF_Flame]

helene_t, on 2013-November-28, 09:50, said:

Is it possible that p would bid 4♣ on a void? It is not like he needs fitting honors in clubs, any club finesse is likely to work anyway.

imo partner is likely to have club lengh not shortage for his bid

[the hog]

Both the problem and some of the comments could easily be a figment of Lewis Caroll's fevered imagination. Alice at the bridge table? Actually we have a double fit. Partner would not bid 4C without a fit in Ds. If you hover over the 4C bid you will also see that it is described as a fit bid, so I do not understand the comments of those who think it might be made on shortness anyway. Regardless, my D bid was very childish- the sort of pseudo expert bid made by someone trying to be smart and failing badly - and partner certainly has a right to expect more. (A 5 card suit coupled with appalling shape). I will pass.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2013-November-28, 19:47, said:

Both the problem and some of the comments could easily be a figment of Lewis Caroll's fevered imagination. Alice at the bridge table? Actually we have a double fit. Partner would not bid 4C without a fit in Ds.

Your last sentence is clear, partner will have diamonds.

I can certainly follow people who are not sure whether partner has clubs. There is a big difference between:

---

---

---

In the first case, 4♣ is often a lead director since the 4♣ bidder will never be on lead.
In the second case, 4♣ will never be a lead director since the 4♣ bidder will be on lead.
In the last case (the actual one), it is unclear who will be on lead and I could imagine that one could play 4♣ as a lead directing fit bid, rather than a suit showing fit bid. (Both are fit bids.) It is even easier to imagine that a partnership may not have firm agreements about this.

Rik

[jogs]

What does E-W have? What's 1♣? Natural or forcing club? What's X of 3♦? What's 4♠?

[the hog]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-29, 08:16, said:

Your last sentence is clear, partner will have diamonds.

I can certainly follow people who are not sure whether partner has clubs. There is a big difference between:

---

---

---

In the first case, 4♣ is often a lead director since the 4♣ bidder will never be on lead.
In the second case, 4♣ will never be a lead director since the 4♣ bidder will be on lead.
In the last case (the actual one), it is unclear who will be on lead and I could imagine that one could play 4♣ as a lead directing fit bid, rather than a suit showing fit bid. (Both are fit bids.) It is even easier to imagine that a partnership may not have firm agreements about this.

Rik

Rik, the bid was defined as a fit bid in the auction. A fit bid means I have C and a D fit. If I asked in a ftf game and was told a "Fit bid" and found tht pd had shortness, the director would be called.

[the hog]

jogs, on 2013-November-29, 15:29, said:

What does E-W have? What's 1♣? Natural or forcing club? What's X of 3♦? What's 4♠?

Look at the bidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jogs]

the hog, on 2013-November-29, 18:18, said:

Look at the bidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looked at the bidding. Concluded that it is totally unclear.

[the hog]

Did you bother to click on the yellow boxes to get the exact explanation. eg 1C might be 2 if bal, etc etc?

[Fluffy]

Probably my definition of fit bid was not best, in fact partner had more lead directing purposes this time than fit showing since he has ♣AQxx, nevertheless the important thing is that 4♣ shows the will to compete in diamonds.

On this hand I didn't know what to do and made the worse: a slow pass. Partner passed although with ♦Kxxx he had a point for bidding on, not enterily clear though. 4♠ made 10, 5♦ would make 9 tricks in the minors.

EDIT; 5♦ makes 10 tricks, parter is 1444

[dake50]

Is it possible that p would bid 4♣ on a void? It is not like he needs fitting honors in clubs, any club finesse is likely to work anyway. --helene_t

*** I play lead-director included in what must be labeled "fit bid". (you must have some pithy for the bidding diagram)
Partly to clarify later 'Lightner' doubles, eg: if I cudda shown my void, I wudda, so sumpin' else.
So, yes that is possible for me - unusual conception of this hands layout, but possible, how are clubs sitting? 5 in 1C opener, partner void, 4 with 1H xfer.
My question for any 'nuther' act is how much may partner have for his pass over 1C? 'trap pass' 17 bal? C-void with 9, but 2card spade?
I can conceive no hand for him good enough to even suggest 5C-X-2 is cheap. I've already sky-rocketed over my hands value. I'm done.!

[jogs]

the hog, on 2013-November-29, 22:31, said:

Did you bother to click on the yellow boxes to get the exact explanation. eg 1C might be 2 if bal, etc etc?

No, didn't know the yellow boxes could be clicked.
Still don't know if opponents' patterns are flat,
meaning no singletons or voids, or skewed.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on 2013-November-30, 03:05, said:

Probably my definition of fit bid was not best, in fact partner had more lead directing purposes this time than fit showing since he has ♣AQxx, nevertheless the important thing is that 4♣ shows the will to compete in diamonds.

On this hand I didn't know what to do and made the worse: a slow pass. Partner passed although with ♦Kxxx he had a point for bidding on, not enterily clear though. 4♠ made 10, 5♦ would make 9 tricks in the minors.

Was this a joke game, Fluffy? I cannot believe anyone would bid 3D in a serious match?