[jillybean]

---

Or X and take your plus?

IMPs

[smerriman]

Perhaps 4♣ last time? With both sides bidding I'd take this as showing values on the way to 4♥ so partner can help with this decision.

[akwoo]

My answer depends on how confident you are that 4♠ is actually going down, and that depends on how weak partner can be for their 3♥ bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would go with pass, as it is we are red vs. green.
If they make 4S it is 420, I dont believe in making 5H, and since I will most likely
get doubled, I will concede at least 200, ... this will be only time I may make a profit.

Change the vul. and it may get more interesting.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

I agree with smerriman that 4♣ would help involve partner in this decision which, from your perspective, is highly likely to arise.

I also agree with Marlowe that we should not be sacrificing at red vs green. This is a losing strategy so bidding 5♥ should be to make.

In an expert bidding panel, double always wins these polls. It is seen as the most flexible action, but in reality only allows partner to bid if they've misbid earlier.

Here I think double is probably right. They are not making an overtrick and it is not the end of the world if they make 4♠ doubled; whereas losing -500 in 5♥ may be.

The opponents bidding would be more interesting in an expert forum: the 3♠ is normally just competing, not a game try, and the 4♠ bid rare.

Finally, as I've said before, only David Burn gets these right all the time:
- The five-level belongs to the opponents
- When in doubt, bid one more
- Choose the correct option

[bluenikki]

paulg, on 2025-February-02, 04:43, said:

I agree with smerriman that 4♣ would help involve partner in this decision which, from your perspective, is highly likely to arise.

I also agree with Marlowe that we should not be sacrificing at red vs green. This is a losing strategy so bidding 5♥ should be to make.

In an expert bidding panel, double always wins these polls. It is seen as the most flexible action, but in reality only allows partner to bid if they've misbid earlier.

Here I think double is probably right. They are not making an overtrick and it is not the end of the world if they make 4♠ doubled; whereas losing -500 in 5♥ may be.

The opponents bidding would be more interesting in an expert forum: the 3♠ is normally just competing, not a game try, and the 4♠ bid rare.

Finally, as I've said before, only David Burn gets these right all the time:
- The five-level belongs to the opponents
- When in doubt, bid one more
- Choose the correct option

I thought "the five-level belongs to the opponents" referred to (not) bidding 5-over-5.

[jillybean]

---

Easy 5, 6 when you pick up ♣Q

I agree 4♣ is a much smarter way to game. After a 4♣ bid, what would you do as East?

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-February-02, 07:37, said:

---

Easy 5, 6 when you pick up ♣Q

I agree 4♣ is a much smarter way to game. After a 4♣ bid, what would you do as East?

Pass.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-February-02, 09:19, said:

Pass.

And back to you, West

[akwoo]

For me, this not being a forcing pass situation, I think East should double 4♠, with a 4♣ bid by West or not. East has to let partner in on having the balance of power, since East might have bid 3♥ on xxx Qxxx Qxxxx x.

Knowing East has a good hand, West can consider bidding on to make.

[jdiana]

Trying to figure out why the results don't match what I expected from the bidding and I think it's because North overbid his hand. I think the standard bid from North would have been 3♠.

I've just started reading Larry Cohen's book on the LoTT (which has been sitting on my bookshelf for about 5 years). In theory, that should help with these kinds of decisions, but I have to confess that I'm struggling with really understanding it.

I'd be interested to know what the LoTT or LTC would have suggested, from aficionados of either approach. (And, yes, I know we should use bridge judgment not mechanical rules, blah blah blah. Indulge me.)

[shyams]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-February-02, 09:19, said:

jillybean, on 2025-February-02, 07:37, said:

---

Easy 5, 6 when you pick up ♣Q I agree 4♣ is a much smarter way to game. After a 4♣ bid, what would you do as East?

Pass.

This assumes North will still bid 4♠. I am not so sure about it.

4♣ makes it clear to North as well that the strength lies with E/W. Despite the favourable vul, the strong bid by West makes North less likely to raise to 4♠. For example,
* North may not be so sure the diamonds will pull through in a 4♠ contract
* North might worry that partner will find a shadow sacrifice over a potential 5♥ bid by opps.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-February-02, 09:35, said:

And back to you, West

I look at the East hand and I see a bal. 8 count, 2 working cards, 1 def. trick,
I see no reason to pull the X.
I think X of 4S is better than my pass, although it is close.
I am also not certain I would have made the 4C bid, I dont want to sac. against
4S given the vul. And I am not certain I did bid 4H to make.

[paulg]

The advantage of bidding 4♣ is that it should establish a forcing pass over 4♠, whereas not bidding it does not.

After West's 4♣, I think East is likely to bid 5♥ to make given the doubleton fit, two key cards and nothing wasted in spades.

But if West just bids 4♥, then I agree that double is best from East to show that they had their bid (and were close to 4♥ themselves).

I suspect, in an expert game, that North would have bid 4♠ at their first turn. This may lead to an auction like

(1♠) 2♥ (4♠) Pass
(Pass) Dbl (Pass) 5♥ All pass

[mycroft]

Interesting. I don't consider 4♣ to be "telling partner we have balance of power"; I consider it to be "showing where my power lies, so that when they bid 4♠, partner has a better idea what to do". If that means they *don't* bid 4♠, more power to me; but "if they have a double fit, we have a double fit" (and it does look like that from North's view) and maybe it will prompt a 4♠ call.

That's one of the downsides of (legally) passing information to partner; the opponents are listening. But I'm doing it here - that suit is the key to who can make what, and somebody needs to be able to guess right. Certainly won't be me.

I, too, wonder about what 3♥ shows. I could see akWoo's 4 count; I could also see Qxxx xxx Axxx Jx (which might be worse, but don't you want to show your fit? Don't you want to actually have them compete now?) I think the natural wide range of "I, too, have hearts, and don't want them to play 2-of-a-fit when we have one too" means that West has to tread carefully, and that's why I bid 4♣; clarify my hand and partner should be able to guess right.

I think if, after 4♣-4♠, partner passes, so do I. Double could easily be right, but we're doing the 5-2 odds thing (except in the rare case we get it two. Which is possible, but how many of those hands does East pass?) But I also thing that after 4♣-4♠, East bids 5♣ (or 5♥). Sure, my shape isn't great, but double-fit, and vulnerable, and surely there aren't two spade losers? I don't expect -800; -500 should be -2 against -420; it could easily make; frankly the worst case is -200 into a potential +100 (or worse yet, -170 from the other table, when our teammates don't compete them into 4).

I agree that North's actions are unexpected, and read like "weak player didn't want to preempt, but now that the weaksauce raise didn't work (which more experienced players could tell them it wouldn't), has to cover for pushing them into game." But I'm not responsible for my opponents' bidding, and some people don't push as hard as I would. Maybe North thought that all 3♠ would do is guarantee pushing them into a making game, and maybe 2 wouldn't. I don't know.

Matchpoints I think this is a very different decision tree; now frequency (and quality) of competition rears its head. What are you scoring for +50? How much more is +100? How much more is +650? How much less is -100? Only now can you think "what's the chance we're making it?"

[DavidKok]

Modern competitive bidding is, to a large degree, about avoiding the last guess. It is the title of the very first subchapter in Robson & Segal, and with good reason. In a competitive auction we want to combine applying maximum pressure, to put our opponents to a guess, with descriptive bidding so we will not be the ones guessing.

On this auction North has kindly granted you some extra rounds of bidding space by bidding low. As mentioned by smerriman, and greatly supported, West should make use of that space. On hearing the 3♠ bid West's thoughts should be as follows:

• I know I am always bidding game. I have an extra heart and extra playing strength, and even though partner can be quite weak for the 3♥ bid under pressure, it pays to bid vulnerable games.
  
• The opponents are not vulnerable, have a spade fit, and I have a singleton. They might bid 4♠ over my 4♥, though it is surprising to take four bids to get there when I am planning on bidding a game to make. Usually weak hands bid more quickly.
  
• If they do bid 4♠, I am not sure what to do. A case could be made for pass, double and 5♥. Some partnerships also play forcing passes on some of these auctions, and I should think about setting one up or not for our side. Is it costly to lose the ability to defend 4♠ undoubled? And how do I best involve partner?

So far it's mostly a recap of what others have already pointed out. My own minor contribution here is that I think that it is somewhat fine to say that the question as posed has no good answer. Of course some particular action is the highest expected value conditional on freezing the auction up to West's third bid - something must always be best on average. But this exact problem is so pervasive and difficult to solve that we make entire lists of agreements to avoid it. Any decision in passout seat over their 4♠ is very committal. My position is that we simply do not have the information required to get this right reliably, or even a good amount of the time. And the reason we do not have enough information is that we failed to listen to the auction on the past two-and-a-half rounds of the bidding, and did not make use of alternatives when we had the chance.

There are many ways to play changes of suit in competition, though my personal experience is that most people will have no agreements about them. In the style I prefer 4♣ does not need to be slammish (though this is also not ruled out), does not guarantee the balance of strength, is not lead directing (especially not since partner won't be on lead. But even if that might be the case, it is not lead directing), does not set up a forcing pass and does ask partner to evaluate the prospective double fit and bid 5-over-4 with club support.

As East I would definitely bid on over 4♠ on hearing 4♣. We have four card support in clubs, an extra trump, an outside ace is always good, and a maximum for our previous bid. Our spades are also encouraging - on the auction it seems likely that North-South have 10 spades (even though this time they only have 9), meaning West has a void. Having zero spades wastage is a plus, or, being slightly more precise, the lack of values in the opponents' trump suit activates the '30 point deck' argument and also should lead us to decrease our estimate of our defensive prospects. All signs are green, it's time to go go go! Bid one more.