[Fluffy]

MPs, nobody vulnerable south is dealer

♠KQx
♥AJx
♦109x
♣AK8x


1NT-(ps)-2♥-(X)
2♠-(3♥)-4♦-(4♥)
ps-(ps)-6♦-(6♥)
??


Pick up partner, no agreement upon what 2♠ shows or denies, you made a dubious forcing pass the round before (feel free to coment if you don't like it) what now?

[ArtK78]

Sorry. I voted before I truly appreciated the problem on this hand.

Double insures a plus score, but 6♠ makes more sense, and that is the choice I want to make.

Change one vote in the poll from double to 6♠.

[helene_t]

I think my previous forcing pass was fine given my good spades but with these lousy diamonds I will double now.

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Mar 24 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

I think my previous forcing pass was fine given my good spades but with these lousy diamonds I will double now.

As I voted for double in the poll but changed my mind and now vote for 6♠, perhaps helene can vote for 6♠ as she wants to double. In that way, the poll results will reflect our votes properly.

[helene_t]

Good idea, Art, I voted 6♠ so now it's 1-1 as it should be

[Codo]

I have 12 HCPs in the suits partner does not hold and no points in diamond. So I double and take the sure plus.

[jjbrr]

I don't think the lousy ♦ are the issue, but rather that they're getting a ♦ ruff. I'd still bid 6♠ though. Partner's 4♦ then jump to 6♦ suggests that he has a really good hand.

Small rant: I don't understand the forum's obsession with forcing passes. I mean obviously they have some benefits, but in an auction like this opposite a random, it just seems silly not to support partner's suit. What chances do you give him to actually work out what you were trying to do? I put it at exactly 0%. Even if he does figure it out, he can't be certain that that's what you intended, so there is still some degree of uncertainty, which I think undoes any gains you might have gotten from it.

[jdonn]

Obvvvvv 6♠. We made a forcing pass the round before instead of bidding 4♠. In that context our offense is good. What is partner's hand supposed to be where slam isn't good? Axxxxxx - Kxxxxx -? I'll pay off.

[mikeh]

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

Had we involved partner more, but telling him more, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation...altho maybe we would. But, had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

As it is, if we pass, there is little chance that partner will bid 6♠...why should he expect great support? If I were him, I'd take the FP as showing the heart Ace and a hand that likes diamonds!

So we have endplayed ourselves into 6♠. I expect it to work out well more times than not, but I would be happier allowing partner to make that valuation...which he could had I bid 4♠ and now passed....showing the heart Ace in addition to the real spades...and slam interest.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

Had we involved partner more, but telling him more, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation...altho maybe we would. But, had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

As it is, if we pass, there is little chance that partner will bid 6♠...why should he expect great support? If I were him, I'd take the FP as showing the heart Ace and a hand that likes diamonds!

So we have endplayed ourselves into 6♠. I expect it to work out well more times than not, but I would be happier allowing partner to make that valuation...which he could had I bid 4♠ and now passed....showing the heart Ace in addition to the real spades...and slam interest.

A big "yep" to that. That would be the "partnership bridge" solution, reducing the need to be the stabber at the right guess later. It would allow partner to make the last mistake, which I always prefer.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

Had we involved partner more, but telling him more, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation...altho maybe we would. But, had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

I beleive you think that 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass is it?, I believed completelly the opposite

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Mar 24 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

Had we involved partner more, but telling him more, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation...altho maybe we would. But, had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

I beleive you think that 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass is it?, I believed completelly the opposite

No.

Our pass of 4♥ was forcing, due to 4♦ committing us to game. But...since we have NOT shown any real spade support, my view is that our pass strongly implies diamonds at this stage.

While fp's are good for defining degrees of slam interest, they are best used (imo) once we have established trump...and we haven't done that.

So 4♠ should be real spade support but with no real message about slam, other than that we don't think defending 4♥ is a good idea...which will send some information his way.

Of course, the reason we have this problem is the (odd...to me) failure to agree that our 2♠ promised 3+ support. Had we had that agreement, then the fp of 4♥ would bear your meaning. Absent that agreement, it is in my view more important to show my spade support over 4♥ than it is to create ambiguity.

Please note that after our fp, had LHO passed, partner could not bid 4♠ and hope that we'd correct with short spades. He hasn't limited his spade length, nor even the relative lengths of his spade/diamond holdings. 4♠ by him shows 6...or a very strong 5 and we know he doesn't have a very strong 5 card suit.

We boxed ourselves in by this agreement about 2♠, and then further boxed ourselves in by making a fp that surely implies diamonds! I took the fp over 4♥ as suggesting (if we pass a double) indecision between the reds or (if we pull the double) real slam interest in diamonds.

We are now still in the same box over 6♥...a fp now says, I think, that the reason for our fp over 4♥ was that we were intending to pull the double in order to play in diamonds. Once again, responder's spade length is undefined....so he cannot bid 6♠ on a 5 card suit, especially since it would be AJ10xx at best and we really, really don't want to hear 7♦ on this auction...because he will bid it not only when it is cold but also when he needs, and expects, primary diamond support from us.

[quiddity]

Voluntary acceptance of a transfer suggests 3 trumps. I don't think an explicit agreement is required to infer real spade support.

Partner's 6D bid is interesting - surely he has a good hand, but he couldn't find a 5-level cuebid? Maybe he's 5152 or 6151 with solid diamonds.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 11:18 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Mar 24 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

Had we involved partner more, but telling him more, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation...altho maybe we would. But, had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

I beleive you think that 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass is it?, I believed completelly the opposite

No.

Our pass of 4♥ was forcing, due to 4♦ committing us to game. But...since we have NOT shown any real spade support, my view is that our pass strongly implies diamonds at this stage.

The problem, as often is: you don't know yet if partner knows we have fit or not. I assumed before making the forcing pass he understood that I had one, since that is what I believe standard (although I play the opposite with my regular partner)

I also had no clue if 4♦ was meant to be a description towards competing over 5♥ or a slam aproach, I think standard is that it is ambiguous, so by passing I though was encouraging slam in case he was trying for one.

[aguahombre]

mikeH's posts still rule, IMO. Both of them.

If you think you already guaranteed 3+ spades by the original acceptance of the xfer, you certainly haven't guaranteed 2/3 top honors, so 4S was still right instead of the FP at that point.

Note: Although not accepting the doubled Xfer denies 3S, it is not everyone's agreement that accepting it promises 3S. Some play that a Pass of the double both denies 3S and denies a full stopper in the suit doubled, whereas, acceptance is either support or green light for NT. This would leave redouble as 2 card support and a suggestion to play the redoubled contract.

[billw55]

mikeh, on Mar 24 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

why we passed 4♥ is a mystery.....were we ever intending to let partner know we hold KQx in spades?

had we bid 4♠ earlier, we could pass now, and leave the decision to partner.

Agree strongly. My hand could hardly be better if I had made it up after hearing the bidding! ♠KQx, secondary diamond support, control rich including hearts, max count for 1NT. The forcing pass shows uncertainty, which I do not have: I want our side to declare this hand.

OK so I already showed three spades by accepting the transfer freely, but KQx is big deal! I would even rather bid 5♥ than pass.

[Fluffy]

bill, again, you think 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass?, I really think the opposite, but it is worth debating.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Mar 25 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

bill, again, you think 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass?, I really think the opposite, but it is worth debating.

But that means you passed in order to pull to 4♠. While mikeh was assuming that the previous pass was made with the intention of passing a double of 4♥.

[billw55]

Fluffy, on Mar 25 2010, 08:17 AM, said:

bill, again, you think 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass?, I really think the opposite, but it is worth debating.

Yes, I do.

To me, pass says "we might want to defend 4♥x, you decide", which is not really the message I want to send. Even our opponents seem to agree, they do not want us declaring

But as I also said, if you want to look at slam but are not confident that 4♠ is forward moving enough, there are cuebids like 5♣ or 5♥.

Hmm now .. this gives me a thought. Am I 100% sure that 4♦ is a suit? Is it possible to take the position that accepting the transfer freely absolutely set trumps, and so 4♦ is a cue?

[Fluffy]

billw55, on Mar 25 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Mar 25 2010, 08:17 AM, said:

bill, again, you think 4♠ is more encouraging towards slam than pass?, I really think the opposite, but it is worth debating.

But as I also said, if you want to look at slam but are not confident that 4♠ is forward moving enough, there are cuebids like 5♣ or 5♥.

the problem about cuebidding is that, if partner is just showng his secondary suit so we can make a better decision if they bid 5♥ over 5♠, we are going to the 5 level without being forced to.