[pigpenz]

Phil, on 2012-July-25, 10:53, said:

constraints??

east 6♥ honors in ♥,s at least one 3-10hcp
west 4♥0-40chp basically whats left


north
12+hcp
0-4♠
0-4♥
0-3♦
0-7♣


south hand as pictured
I can change constraints for north to tighten it up some
so don't think they would have 5 spades or 4 diamonds, but can also put that option in

[gnasher]

I think 3♦ is game-forcing, pass would have been forcing, partner's double is discouraging, and 4NT by us would be both minors. I'm quite surprised at the other views expressed here - I would have assumed everyone played them like that, in the absence of special agreements.

To me "discouraging" doesn't mean KJxx xx Kxx AJxx or QJxx, xx, Kx, AJxxx. Why on earth should he want to discourage me with either of those hands? I expect partner to have something like KQxx Qx xx AJxxx, so I pass and take a plus score. And it won't surprise me at all to find that the opponents have made a mistake. My opponents make mistakes all the time.

If I were to bid, I agree with 4NT.

[Hanoi5]

Mike's comments fit the actual hand perfectly, though I don't necessarily agree with 4NT not being KC because we could have KC earlier and some of the other stuff, but in this case opener held:

♠Axxx
♥Tx
♦Kx
♣A9xxx

I reckon some might not open that, but is that 'encouraging' for Gnasher?

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on 2012-July-25, 11:23, said:

♠Axxx
♥Tx
♦Kx
♣A9xxx

I reckon some might not open that, but is that 'encouraging' for Gnasher?

Yes. Or at least it's not "discouraging", which is what double means.

[RunemPard]

Far too much offense and defense to discourage. What were the full hands if you have them?

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-July-25, 11:17, said:

To me "discouraging" doesn't mean KJxx xx Kxx AJxx.

True, I was attempting to come with a hand that fit our hand, and our partner's and (assumed to be sane) opponents bidding.

[phil_20686]

I would bid 4N I think. If this is FP then partners double can often be based on just having a hand with no diamond support. What is he to do with a 4315 shape? Even 3316 might be forced to double. For that reason keeping the clubs in play is a pretty good idea.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2012-July-25, 12:25, said:

What is he to do with a 4315 shape?

Personally I'd like him to lead his singleton. Do you really want to reach 5♣ opposite AQJx xxx x AJxxx when you have 500 or 800 against 4♥?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-25, 11:17, said:

I think 3♦ is game-forcing, pass would have been forcing, partner's double is discouraging, and 4NT by us would be both minors. I'm quite surprised at the other views expressed here - I would have assumed everyone played them like that, in the absence of special agreements.

To me "discouraging" doesn't mean KJxx xx Kxx AJxx or QJxx, xx, Kx, AJxxx. Why on earth should he want to discourage me with either of those hands? I expect partner to have something like KQxx Qx xx AJxxx, so I pass and take a plus score. And it won't surprise me at all to find that the opponents have made a mistake. My opponents make mistakes all the time.

If I were to bid, I agree with 4NT.

I don't understand this post at all. QJxx, (Q/x)x, Kx, AJxxx more than likely makes absolutely nothing at the 5 level and may or may not beat 4♥, "KQxx Qx xx AJxxx, so I pass and take a plus score" what plus score, opps have bid like they might easily have:

Ax, KJ10xxx, x, xxxx opposite J109xx, xxxx, AKx, x, which is solid, and might make an overtrick if you lead a club, and they have to find their ruff to beat 5m by 2 which they should manage.

[pigpenz]

I did some further sims for you eternal pessimists
this time gave North 11HCP
now
4♥40%
4♥-1 23%
5♣21%
5♦27%

so yes partner with a weak hand makes things better for opps worse for us, question
is where does 4♥x-1 +100 place us.


just changing north to 12-13hcp
5♣43%
5♦65%

number of tricks for EW in hearts

8 86%
9 53%
10 17%

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-July-25, 14:25, said:

Personally I'd like him to lead his singleton. Do you really want to reach 5♣ opposite AQJx xxx x AJxxx when you have 500 or 800 against 4♥?

Me, too...but I have already decided to lead my duce of diamonds to avoid a director call.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-25, 15:24, said:

I don't understand this post at all.

Reading it a second time might aid your comprehension.

Quote

QJxx, (Q/x)x, Kx, AJxxx more than likely makes absolutely nothing at the 5 level and may or may not beat 4♥

I didn't say that we could make something at the five-level opposite QJxx xx Kx AJxxx: I said that partner wouldn't have this hand when he made a discouraging double. And I didn't discuss QJxx Qx Kx AJxxx.

Quote

"KQxx Qx xx AJxxx, so I pass and take a plus score" what plus score, opps have bid like they might easily have:

Ax, KJ10xxx, x, xxxx opposite J109xx, xxxx, AKx, x, which is solid, and might make an overtrick if you lead a club, and they have to find their ruff to beat 5m by 2 which they should manage.

Yes, they might have those two hands (with ♦10 added somewhere), but I'm not going to take a five-level save with a combined 24-count on the off-chance that the opponents can make game.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-25, 16:44, said:

Me, too...but I have already decided to lead my duce of diamonds to avoid a director call.

Now that I know who's on lead, I'd lead ♥A.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-25, 23:54, said:

I didn't say that we could make something at the five-level opposite QJxx xx Kx AJxxx: I said that partner wouldn't have this hand when he made a discouraging double.

I can't think why you don't want to discourage on this, minimum with horrible major suit holdings (they turn out to only have 9 hearts between them every time I pass on this sort of holding).

Quote

Yes, they might have those two hands (with ♦10 added somewhere), but I'm not going to take a five-level save with a combined 24-count on the off-chance that the opponents can make game.

My point is that I don't think this pass should be forcing on the balance of probabilities (although it will be for almost everybody), there are too many hands where you just want to defend 4♥ and not be forced to up the stakes. People tend to stretch with 10-11 counts and 6 diamonds to bid 3♦
and unless partner's opening bids are very sound, you will go overboard too often or concede 4♥x, sometimes +1.

[ggwhiz]

Yeah on further thought I agree that 4nt should be pick a minor. So should 5♥ for those that are bullish on the hand.

My decision to pass is a personal preference to accept 500 and the small loss (3 imps against 600) vs. the big gain (12 imps) potential.

I may very well be wrong here but certainly think that slamming is disrespecting pards double under my partnership agreements, thoroughly discussed but my no means standard.

Under those agreements North has 12 to a max 14 and you can throw out the 14's with good controls.

[gszes]

i agree wholeheartedly that the x is a warning from p that
bidding on may be hazardous to our imp health. At MP I think
it might be a reasonable decision to pass merely because it
increases our chances of a + score. At IMPS however it is
just far too dangerous to pass in a contract the opps may
have a fair chance of making. This is especially true when
the opps might make 4h and we can also make 5d (or maybe
5c). I do not agree with the opinion that 4n is asking p to bid
the minors since there are far too many hands I would have
wanted 4n to be key card for diamonds and the only way to
get there was to bid 3d first.

Our 7 card dia suit is huge opposite a partner that will almost
never have 1 dia. Bidding 5d here is needed at IMPS mostly
because it is a reasonable form of insurance. Searching for
slam after this x seems like a very low % shot.