[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

---

Is there any case not to raise to 4♠?

In particular does the following reasoning have any merit?

4♠ is just likely to offer the opponents some free 100s. It might be difficult for the opponents to get to their best fit (clubs) and with the bad breaks it might be hard to make 5♣ so sit quietly and hope for a plus score?

Or do you just raise and force them to make their tough decision one-level higher.

If it matters you are playing against close to the best pair in the room (past internationals).

[Walddk]

4♠ is automatic in my view.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

I've given up trying to be clever on these hands. For every time it works, there are at least as many times when it doesn't and partner gets cross that you didn't make the 'obvious' raise.

[joshs]

In my opinion, taking away a low cue-bid is always a good idea if they are in the slam zone, and with you having 3 trumps and a void, they are unlikely to be defending, and if they defend, is it really that bad for you? If you can't tell if defending 4S is a good idea for the opponents (and you have a good idea about your sides combined assets) how can they? Thats the level you want to raise to...

[hatchett]

Quote

4♠ is just likely to offer the opponents some free 100s. It might be difficult for the opponents to get to their best fit (clubs) and with the bad breaks it might be hard to make 5♣ so sit quietly and hope for a plus score?

Why do you expect it to be hard for them to reach 5♣ ? A lot of the time LHO will have a take out double and they will find their fit.

My defence is so soft that if they have a 10+ card ♣ fit they will often be making slam especially if partner lacks the ♠A.

4♠ looks clear

[mikeh]

I don't think it is as clear as the comments so far suggest.

It is easy to construct a hand on which RHO has long ♣ and short ♠ and not quite enough to come in over 3♠: I think most of us require a pretty good hand to bid 4♣.

It is possible that West will be caught on a similar cusp, based on a dubious ♠ holding such as Kx and a less than adequate ♥ holding on which to venture a double, implying ♥'s.

We all pass 3♠ happily, as responder, with 1=4=4=4 14 counts, and lower the boom when aggressive LHO reopens.

However, good players do not bid in fear, and so the quality of your opps argues against hoping for the rather low-percentage parlay of each player being on the cusp of a bid, yet not quite making it. My suspicion is that the expert LHO will prefer to risk error by bidding rather than error by passing.

So I make the obvious raise as well... and maybe it is as clear as the comments suggest

[Cascade]

hatchett, on Mar 16 2006, 11:15 AM, said:

Why do you expect it to be hard for them to reach 5♣ ?

Bidding is aimed at 3NT and 4Major primarily.

Any of these things might happen with regard to 5♣

They may get to 3NT when they belong in 5♣
They may get to 4♣ when they belong in 5♣
They may get to 4♥ perhaps a Moysian with a bad trump break after a takeout double
They may get to 5♣ but belong in 6♣
They may get to 6♣ but only belong in 5♣

[Free]

Yes there is a case for not raising: a psych! Obviously it depends on your agreements, but what does 4♣ mean in your partnership? What about 4♦ and 4♥?

Bidding 4♣ as control will probably not work out ok, since opps can double and you only help them. All arguments considered, a 4♠ bid will probably be best, but I think in some vulnerabilities 5♠ might be even better if it's considered preemptive.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would simply raise, but as always, there is a tactical
consideration, they may get it wrong, if they buy the
contract.

And as you said, they may not reach ..., your heart length,
maybe a reason, why they may not have a clear cut dbl, i.e.
3S may even end the bidding, and if your partner opens
sound preempts being red, they may not have a stopper for
3NT as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Kalvan14]

You might make a case for both pass and 4♠. Overall, my feeling is that 4♠ is still best, by far. My only worry might be an undisciplined partner, who might be willing to sacrifices over 5 red

[hatchett]

Quote

They may get to 3NT when they belong in 5♣

Possibly but unlikely, do you rate you defensive chances to 3NT?
What do you think is likely to be the best spot for your side 4♠x or 3NT?

Quote

They may get to 4♣ when they belong in 5♣

yes bidding 4♠ eliminates this possibility

Quote

They may get to 4♥ perhaps a Moysian with a bad trump break after a takeout double

Maybe but the odds suggest they will play in their 9/10 card club fit rather than their 7 card non solid heart fit.

Quote

They may get to 5♣ but belong in 6♣
They may get to 6♣ but only belong in 5♣

And it will be harder to sort this out if you pass 3♠?

[Cascade]

hatchett, on Mar 16 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

Quote

They may get to 3NT when they belong in 5♣

Possibly but unlikely, do you rate you defensive chances to 3NT?
What do you think is likely to be the best spot for your side 4♠x or 3NT?

Quote

They may get to 4♣ when they belong in 5♣

yes bidding 4♠ eliminates this possibility

Quote

They may get to 4♥ perhaps a Moysian with a bad trump break after a takeout double

Maybe but the odds suggest they will play in their 9/10 card club fit rather than their 7 card non solid heart fit.

Quote

They may get to 5♣ but belong in 6♣
They may get to 6♣ but only belong in 5♣

And it will be harder to sort this out if you pass 3♠?

I'd expect partner to have some side card for a vulnerable pre-empt given his spades are not running if they bid 3NT. So while its far from a sure thing it is also far from a lost cause defending 3NT.

If LHO has something like 2335 or 1345 and doubles how will RHO with four hearts and five clubs sort out that they belong in clubs and not hearts?

Bidding 4♠ doesnt make it easier for them to sort out 5♣ vs 6♣ but it does offer them a potentially easy alternative.

On the actual hand 5♣ was on a finesse for the ♦Q. Are you happy drifting off in 4♠ when their contract depends on the 50/50 location of the ♦J/Q (depending on your perspective).

The strangest thing on the hand was that partner had a fairly ordinary 3♠ - ♠AQ10xxxx and the ♥K and 4♠ was cold on the combined 14 hcp - the weak trumps meant that the opponents could play two rounds without giving up a trump trick.

Noone has mentioned that a flaw in passing was that 4♠ might just make. Of course on a slightly different layout both 4♠ and their game are failing.

I'm still really not sure whether the raise is correct.

[luke warm]

i can't imagine passing... well, i can image it i guess