[gnasher]

---

Matchpoints.

1♠ was a one-round force, and promised five clubs.

[jjbrr]

I wouldn't. We have bad trumps and bad hearts. The auction suggests a trump lead, which might be bad for us in game.

[semeai]

I pass bid 3S (thanks jjbrr). Partner is likely 4-3-1-5. Easiest to think in terms of LTC here. Just about any hand with a LTC of 4 except KQxx KQx x KQxxx (good, of course) would just bid game. Most hands with a LTC of 5 are unlikely to be better than 50%, even if one of the losers is in AKxxx of clubs. Either major opposite a single K or Q may also do poorly unless partner has some 10's.

[jjbrr]

If you think partner is likely 4315, why wouldn't you correct to 3S?

[jogs]

gnasher, on 2011-June-23, 14:41, said:

Matchpoints.

1♠ was a one-round force, and promised five clubs.

Why does it promise five clubs?
4=2=3=4 What do you rebid with that pattern?

3♠. If partner can make game opposite this hand,
he should have just bid game.

[jjbrr]

jogs, on 2011-June-23, 15:23, said:

Why does it promise five clubs?
4=2=3=4 What do you rebid with that pattern?

It's pretty normal to bid 1NT with balanced hands, especially when you play conventions to uncover 4-4 ♠ first after 1m-1♥-1NT

[semeai]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-23, 15:16, said:

If you think partner is likely 4315, why wouldn't you correct to 3S?

Indeed, I meant 3♠, decline invite, do not bid game, but said pass.

[nige1]

gnasher wrote
Matchpoints. 1♠ was a one-round force, and promised five clubs.

IMO 4♠ = 10, 4♦ = 9, 3♠ = 7.
Partner will have at least ♠ AT9x ♥ KQx ♦ x ♣ A9xxx. Even at MP, 3♠ is a narrow target.

---

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2011-June-23, 16:09, said:

gnasher wrote
Matchpoints. 1♠ was a one-round force, and promised five clubs.

IMO 4♠ = 10, 4♦ = 9, Pass = 7.
Partner will have at least ♠ AT9x ♥ KQx ♦ x ♣ A9xxx. Even at MP, 3♠ is a narrow target.

---

3♠ would be a narrow target if you bid it with the goal of making exactly 9 tricks.

However, if you decide that the hand is not likely to make 10 tricks, being in 3♠ is better than being in 4♠ at any form of scoring. Whether the hand makes 9, 8 or 7 tricks, it is better to be in 3♠ than in 4♠.

I would not bid game on these cards.

I assume that the grade assigned to pass was meant to be the grade assigned to 3♠.

As for 4♦, that is a totally irrational call. Are you making a slam try?

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2011-June-23, 16:21, said:

3♠ would be a narrow target if you bid it with the goal of making exactly 9 tricks. However, if you decide that the hand is not likely to make 10 tricks, being in 3♠ is better than being in 4♠ at any form of scoring. Whether the hand makes 9, 8 or 7 tricks, it is better to be in 3♠ than in 4♠. I would not bid game on these cards. I assume that the grade assigned to pass was meant to be the grade assigned to 3♠. As for 4♦, that is a totally irrational call. Are you making a slam try?

• ArtK78 may be right about 3♠ being quite high enough. It's a matter of judgement.
• ArtK78 is also right, 3♠ = 7 was intended, Not Pass = 7. Corrected above.
• The narrow target argument: If opener's try is pushy, most of the field may stop in 2♠. That may be the likely limit of the hand and 3♠ may already be too high. Both 3♠-1 and 4♠-2 will be below average compared with 2♠=. If 4♠ is a lucky make, however, then 4♠= will be above average, while 3♠+1 will score the same as 2♠+2.
• The rationale for considering 4♦ is that opener is unlimited. His interest may be in slam as well as game. He may hold say...♠ AKQx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AKQxxx. When you accept his try, he may expect you to cue-bid if possible. ArtK78 is right again -- it is probably folly to encourage him.

[andy_h]

3S for me

[MrAce]

Unless there is someone watching me that i want to impress by bidding game and show how brave and different than others i am, i will settle with 3♠.

Depends on style but my 2♠ was a stretch for me anyway.

[mtvesuvius]

I'd bid 3♠, there seems like too much work to do in 4♠, not to mention we may be ruffing with very high trumps in dummy. Something as little as the ♠T may convince me to do otherwise.

[matmat]

at imps i probably just punt 4♠. at MP i'll take my chances at 3 and expect a decent board since p is an exquisite declarer. If we play invitational hesitations, now is the time to employ them.

[gnasher]

jogs, on 2011-June-23, 15:23, said:

Why does it promise five clubs?
4=2=3=4 What do you rebid with that pattern?

We were playing 4-card majors, so would have opened 1♠.

Even playing 5-card majors, I usually play that the 1♠ rebid promises five clubs. That ocasionally loses a 4-4 spade fit, but I think that the gains from having better defined rebids make it worthwhile.

[whereagles]

If a 4315 is a certainty, our hand is golden and I'd bid 4♠ thus.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2011-June-23, 22:52, said:

Even playing 5-card majors, I usually play that the 1♠ rebid promises five clubs. That ocasionally loses a 4-4 spade fit, but I think that the gains from having better defined rebids make it worthwhile.

Its a matter of taste i guess. I play this 1♠ promissing only 3 cards ♣. If we are going to slam or if my shape is relevant to pd to determine which game to play, we have tools for it but i can see showing it at 1st round wld have advantages. But if it is irrelevant and we are going to play 4♠ or 3 NT regardless, i gain a lot in long run by not drawing the map of my hand for defense.

[han]

nige1 said:

Partner will have at least ♠ AT9x ♥ KQx ♦ x ♣ A9xxx. Even at MP, 3♠ is a narrow target.

If partner has that hand then I'd rather be in 3S, and also if partner has more highcards but fewer useful spots such as Axxx KQx x AQxxx.

nige1, on 2011-June-23, 18:25, said:

He may hold say...♠ AKQx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AKQxxx.

Or, only slightly less likely, perhaps partner has pulled out the opening bid by accident, has decided to continu the deception, and as a baby was dropped on earth from a nearby galaxy.

[nige1]

han, on 2011-June-24, 05:18, said:

If partner has that hand then I'd rather be in 3S, and also if partner has more highcards but fewer useful spots such as Axxx KQx x AQxxx.

To some extent it's a matter of partnership-style but, not vulnerable at pairs, partner is normally reluctant to try for game over a two-level raise, without reasonable aspirations.

han, on 2011-June-24, 05:18, said:

Or, only slightly less likely, perhaps partner has pulled out the opening bid by accident, has decided to continue the deception, and as a baby was dropped on earth from a nearby galaxy.

Andromeda Bowles.

[benlessard]

My hand is pretty great with nothing wasted in D, i dont see why i woulndt bid game. JT of clubs is only 1 pts but these are great cards when partner showed a 5 card suit. Also 1S is forcing so ill be forced to bid 2S with any subminimum response.

I consider that if you only bid 3S there is a hole in your bridge.