[ewj]

---

So, what would people call now?

1♦ could be a weak NT with 4♦, X showed exactly 4♠

X now would be pretty take out.

[cherdano]

I would bid 4♠, I don't think partner has denied 4 spades, and he should pull with 3. Sure double is takeout, but we'd have to double with a balanced 12 count as well.

[mcphee]

opening hand is not balanced and does not hold a strong NT hand. If I dble again partner may pass expecting more defensive values, he may indeed have 4S but I feel that double, not wonderful, should offer best options. Second choice is 4S and hope he pulls with 3.

[billw55]

Hm, interesting. 4♠ seems unilateral to me. I would prefer to retain the option of penalizing if possible. Game our way is far from certain, and partner could still have four decent hearts, which might be totally wasted on offense. At the table I think I would double. But maybe I will learn something from this thread

[gszes]

I hate our chances of defeating the opps in 4h when they have at least
9 hearts and one has a short diamond so doing something seems right. OTOH
partner did not x 4d which means there is a really good chance we will
lose 2d and possibly a dia ruff before we even get started (if we manage
to play 4s from our side). This bodes poorly for our chances of surviving
any further bidding on our part. The risk vs reward seems squarely in the
risk side and at these colors it is just plain too dangerous.

PASS

[whereagles]

Pass. You need something special in pard to act, and with that something he might have acted.

Plus, he didn't dbl 4D... odds are there is some diamond wastage on opponents' side.

[aguahombre]

 gszes, on 2014-April-17, 09:17, said:

OTOH
partner did not x 4d which means there is a really good chance we will
lose 2d and possibly a dia ruff before we even get started (if we manage
to play 4s from our side).
PASS

In order to use Partner's Double of 4♦ or, in this case, Pass of 4♦ in our decision making process, we first have to know what that Double would have meant.

It is a tool, certainly, but however standard it might be for the Double to just show a quality Diamond suit, that might not be optimal.

It might also be relevant whether our original Neg double showed exactly four spades. We can assume it did here, to make Cherdano's 4S bid now a workable idea. This problem would be a lot different for us, where x denied spades and we would have had to respond 1S; the snowball effect of that might require opener to use the Double of 4♦ as a weak 4-card support double for Spades.

[Jinksy]

Pass. I think the honours are lying such that this is their hand, and I fear going for a number.

[Fluffy]

If acting it is clear to bid 4♠ as Arend has explained, but I think I would pass, too much danger to bid on this vulnerability. Specially if the scoring is MPs where -500 is a big fat bottom. At IMPs it would be closer.

[dake50]

Pass. I think the honours are lying such that this is their hand, and I fear going for a number. -- Jinksy

*** Yup.
Set your hopes on 2xC +2xS to set 4H.
The offense tricks just aren't there.

[neilkaz]

Wow...another hand posted where we have to guess the type of scoring!!

Anyhow..pd could've bid 4♠ or X'd 4♦ and did neither. This vul looks wrong to me to get active and start hoping so I pass.

A poll here in this expert forum would've been nice for this hand as posted opinions are quite varied.

[nige1]

 ewj, on 2014-April-17, 06:28, said:

So, what would people call now?
1♦ could be a weak NT with 4♦, X showed exactly 4♠
X now would be pretty take out.

---

IMO 5♦ = 10, Pass = 9, Double = 8, 5♣ = 5.

[mfa1010]

Pass. Bidding is too dangerous when they have advertised that whatever they have in diamonds, it is likely off side. 5♦ could be extremely expensive, if we are unlucky, say xxx, AKx, AQxx, xxx. That is likely to be -1100 against nothing.
Pard might have doubled if we belonged in 5♦.

[mikeh]

I think it useful to bear in mind that LHO made a slam try. I don't think he promised a huge hand, but he has to have extras, and they rate to include black cards. I think we have the perfect hand for a slow pass, but unfortunately that convention was outlawed some 50 years ago, so I think we are stuck with an in tempo pass.

[FrancesHinden]

It's IMPs, 24-board match converted to VPs

[jallerton]

It could easily be right to bid here, but pass might also be the winner. This awkward guess is partly self-inflicted. With 5-card support and a void in RHO's suit, it must be quite likely that LHO is about to raise hearts to the 3- or 4-level, so is it really right to double 1♥ on the first round? I'd prefer to raise diamonds. Whilst none of 3♦, 2♥, 3♥ or 4♦ is ideal, my preference is to make a fit jump of 3♣ which describes the hand quite well and helps partner to judge over the expected heart raise from LHO.

I know I'll sometimes miss a 4-4 spade fit, but that doesn't have to be a disaster. Diamonds will often make an extra trick and at IMPS 5♦= is fine even when 4♠ was making. Opposite a good hand like Axxx xx AKxxx Ax, the fit jump will make it hard to get to 4♠, but we might find 6♦.

[ewj]

 jallerton, on 2014-April-18, 09:47, said:

It could easily be right to bid here, but pass might also be the winner. This awkward guess is partly self-inflicted. With 5-card support and a void in RHO's suit, it must be quite likely that LHO is about to raise hearts to the 3- or 4-level, so is it really right to double 1♥ on the first round? I'd prefer to raise diamonds. Whilst none of 3♦, 2♥, 3♥ or 4♦ is ideal, my preference is to make a fit jump of 3♣ which describes the hand quite well and helps partner to judge over the expected heart raise from LHO.

I know I'll sometimes miss a 4-4 spade fit, but that doesn't have to be a disaster. Diamonds will often make an extra trick and at IMPS 5♦= is fine even when 4♠ was making. Opposite a good hand like Axxx xx AKxxx Ax, the fit jump will make it hard to get to 4♠, but we might find 6♦.

Yep you're right about 3♣, that's a nice bid really. I did briefly consider it but just went with a straight double to keep spades in the game. Like you say, it was hardly a surprise when it was my turn again at 4♥....And my spades aren't very good anyway. It was part of why I didn't want to double again, as partner would probably think shortage in spades was pretty good for defending, when really that's exactly what I was looking for in offence.

I bid 5♦ which was a terrible bid. Obviously ♦ will lie badly if it is possible for them to and if I were so desperate to bid, I could always double, which is what I think I would do if I were to have my time again...not impossible for both games to be making of course, with partner probably passing but if he holds nothing in ♥, he'll likely bid.

5♦ was 2 off, while 4♥ has no play on a ♣ lead.

[jallerton]

 ewj, on 2014-April-18, 11:35, said:

Yep you're right about 3♣, that's a nice bid really. I did briefly consider it but just went with a straight double to keep spades in the game. Like you say, it was hardly a surprise when it was my turn again at 4♥....And my spades aren't very good anyway. It was part of why I didn't want to double again, as partner would probably think shortage in spades was pretty good for defending, when really that's exactly what I was looking for in offence.

I bid 5♦ which was a terrible bid. Obviously ♦ will lie badly if it is possible for them to and if I were so desperate to bid, I could always double, which is what I think I would do if I were to have my time again...not impossible for both games to be making of course, with partner probably passing but if he holds nothing in ♥, he'll likely bid.

5♦ was 2 off, while 4♥ has no play on a ♣ lead.

I don't think 5♦ was terrible. The problem with doubling 4♥ is that it will be difficult for partner to judge when to pull. Wouldn't you also double on a 4=2=3=4 12-count? What do you expect partner to do with say x Qxx KQJxx Axx?

[ewj]

 jallerton, on 2014-April-18, 14:02, said:

I don't think 5♦ was terrible. The problem with doubling 4♥ is that it will be difficult for partner to judge when to pull. Wouldn't you also double on a 4=2=3=4 12-count? What do you expect partner to do with say x Qxx KQJxx Axx?

Yes, you're right. It's the killer spade shortage which partner probably views as a decent defensive asset but can contribute to both games making. And is why 3[♣] is such a better call on the previous round.

It's all well and good to say that we play X as very take out but of course I would double on a 4234 12 count as well, which makes life tough for partner. It's not inconceivable that the opponents only have a 4-4 fit.

[mfa1010]

Disagree with not showing spades on the first round. This could easily have been a normal deal, where we belong in 4♠.