[655321]

MFA, on Feb 17 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

You have agreed to play a ghestem variation, so 3♦ was not an option (would be ♠+♦). Therefore you decide to push it to 4♦. Ok? Ok!

OK, I like 4♦!

I don't know whether or not I should be allowed to rip 5♠ to 6♦.
Anyway, the good news is that if we play 5♠X in our 4-2 break and go for 1400 or so, we might be able to talk partner out of playing Ghestem in future.

[MFA]

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.
So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

1) We don't trust partner
2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

It has merit for sure that partner's pass is only a mild suggestion that requires a big spade fit to be left in. But it is a rather subtle agreement. For all we know partner might have a flawed hand for a preempt. Aces, voids etc. For some people there could even be a gap between a preempt and a 1-bid, if they preempt so aggressively NV vs V that they can't stand to do it also on a 10-count or some such.

Surely partner won't be suggesting 5♠ that often, so it's fair to assume he don't have an everyday hand.
If this came up with my regular partner, I would pass 5♠X. Playing with an unfamiliar partner, I would probably pull to 6♦.

As you have guessed by now the actual north was all-in on finding partner with spades+diamonds and south chose to pull.

When deciding if pass is a logical alternative, it must be so to trust partner. Here we have an ok hand for spades. I think the "very weak suggestion to play 5♠X" is relatively far-fetched and it can't overturn that judgement. If a strong partnership can handle this expert interpretation at the table, fine, but please no silly UI jibberish-explanation underway .

[hotShot]

MFA, on Feb 18 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.
So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

I think that logic is flawed. The 4♦ bidder accepted to play 5♠, why should the player who suggested to play ♠ in the first place now remove himself? Only his partner can judge if he prefers to play ♦ or ♠.

Quote

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

1) We don't trust partner
2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

After the double there is reason to assume that the estimated missing ♠ don't split 3-3 or 2-3 this makes a ♠ contract a lot less attractive. Since everybody except me thinks that 5♠ includes ♦ support, playing 6♦ is a lot more attractive.

[MFA]

hotShot, on Feb 18 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

MFA, on Feb 18 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.
So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

I think that logic is flawed. The 4♦ bidder accepted to play 5♠, why should the player who suggested to play ♠ in the first place now remove himself? Only his partner can judge if he prefers to play ♦ or ♠.

Quote

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

1) We don't trust partner
2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

After the double there is reason to assume that the estimated missing ♠ don't split 3-3 or 2-3 this makes a ♠ contract a lot less attractive. Since everybody except me thinks that 5♠ includes ♦ support, playing 6♦ is a lot more attractive.

The 4♦-bidder accepted to play 5♠ undoubled. No surprise, since he is NV vs V and the opponents are in a forcing, slamgoing sequence (5♥ was a slam try). We can deduce little about the 4♦-bidder's degree of spade fit, when he passes 5♠ undoubled. This could have been done on a void if he thought it would be clever for tactical reasons.

After the double, business are serious. The 5♠ bidder must tell his partner, if 5♠X is a possible final contract or not facing a 4♦ preempt. Passing shows that 5♠X is in the picture, which means that he has some kind of a real spade suit, not just a lead director.

I don't think that there is a particular reason to think that spades breaks badly because 5♠ got doubled. The opponents' primary concern is to judge whether or not they should bid the slam. When they stop to double they will usually just be short of values for bidding on.