[Al_U_Card]

Pard has at least 2 H cards and is not worried about Spades or D so
KQJx(x) (x)xx AHx Qxx(x) or so and I would bid 7 spades as with H ruffs and the C tricks you should be able to get to 13.

[inquiry]

First, I am going to assume your partner cam have no better than a negative double hand. That is, 2♠ would have shown spades and a "good hand" or three clubs good hand and clubs. I will also assume that dbl promised at least 4♠. If either of these is not correct, then back to the drawing board.

Partner can't make a splinter in your "suit" (diamonds) nor an exclusion ask there. Thus, here he is trying to show you a diamond void, some club fragment and great spades. As difficult as it is to imagine, he probably holds the magic....

♠KQJTxx ♥xxxx ♦void ♣QJx to bid like this.

I bid 7♠. I have been down before. :-)

Note, 5♥ should have denied first round control (probably first or second) of clubs. So 6♣ should show third round control. Partner is probably has a void to not use blackwoood here. This almost has to be the hand, altough he could have another club (or two) and a spade or heart less.

[Winstonm]

When partner bid 5H, all he really knew about the hand was that partner held less than 16 with a singleton heart, a hand he liked, and 4 decent spades, yet he bid 5H as a slam try and didn't use RKC so he must not have a clearcut slam hand and needs help in deciding how high to go. I can't imagine him holding Qxx of clubs as responder has not shown a good club suit, so I would rather think 6C would be some sort of GS diamond support try with a hand like: KQJx, Axx, AKxx, x or the like. With the nebulous 1D in precision it is sometimes hard to find out about the opened suit as it could be xx up to QJxxx - so how else can you ask about diamonds except by bidding clubs?

With the poor diamond holding, I'd sign off in 6S.

Winston

[inquiry]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

When partner bid 5H, all he really knew about the hand was that partner held less than 16 with a singleton heart, a hand he liked, and 4 decent spades, yet he bid 5H as a slam try and didn't use RKC so he must not have a clearcut slam hand and needs help in deciding how high to go. I can't imagine him holding Qxx of clubs as responder has not shown a good club suit, so I would rather think 6C would be some sort of GS diamond support try with a hand like: KQJx, Axx, AKxx, x or the like. With the nebulous 1D in precision it is sometimes hard to find out about the opened suit as it could be xx up to QJxxx - so how else can you ask about diamonds except by bidding clubs?

With the poor diamond holding, I'd sign off in 6S.

Winston

With ♦ and spades he would bid 5NT pick a slam, not 6♣ pick a slam.

[Winstonm]

inquiry, on Jan 18 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

When partner bid 5H, all he really knew about the hand was that partner held less than 16 with a singleton heart, a hand he liked, and 4 decent spades, yet he bid 5H as a slam try and didn't use RKC so he must not have a clearcut slam hand and needs help in deciding how high to go.  I can't imagine him holding Qxx of clubs as  responder has not shown a good club suit, so I would rather think 6C would be some sort of GS diamond support try with a hand like: KQJx, Axx, AKxx, x or the like.  With the nebulous 1D in precision it is sometimes hard to find out about the opened suit as it could be xx up to QJxxx - so how else can you ask about diamonds except by bidding clubs? 

With the poor diamond holding, I'd sign off in 6S.

Winston

With ♦ and spades he would bid 5NT pick a slam, not 6♣ pick a slam.

6C is a grand slam try, not pick a slam. From partner's perspective, he must assume the club Ace for the splinter - how can he do this without concentrations of spades/diamond cards? KQJx, Axx, KQxx, Qxx or KQJx, Axxx, Ax, Qxx. Can he really bid this way with this type hand? Partner must hold a hand that allows him to visualize most of your cards - KQJx, Axxx, AKxx, x You ain't splintering on good diamonds, good hearts, or good spades, and the key issue is going to be the diamond suit.

The splinter said you had some shape: 4135, 4144, 4153, 4162 and the subsequent redouble now confirms, 4045, 4054, and 4063 but not 4036 as the latter would be opened 2C I presume.

What partner needs to know is the state of your diamond suit - how can you ask about the quality of the diamonds for GS? Partner wants to play GS opposite Qxxx, QJxx, Qxxxx, QJxxx or the like, but not J10xx, Jxxxx, etc., and how can he pinpoint the diamond problem except by bidding 6C?

I have examined this from all sides, have decided I am completely right, and therefore aquite myself unanimously with the profound apologies of the court.

Winston

[mikeh]

What did not happen here is interesting: in particular, RHO did not raise 2♥ and partner did not keycard. We do not know the vulnerability, but it would be unusual for RHO to pass the negative double with 4+♥, especially when he holds an honour, as he indicated with his (probably) bad double of 5♥.

Partner did not bid 2♠, and he would have done with 5+ and the good hand he is now showing.

Therefore, I place partner with 4♠ and at least 3 and (for my money) more likely 4♥.

Then there is the mystery of 6♣. Can it ever be 'asking' in ♣?

Could he hold KQJx Axxx AKx Jx, for example. He has enough strength to 'know' that you have at most one minor suit loser, absent a ruff, and no realistic way to discover if you have all of the ♦Q and the ♣AK and enough length in a minor to jilt one of his ♥ losers.

I suppose, on one level, this may be what he is asking, but it seems to me that the more credible explanation for his bidding, including his 5♥ call in place of 4N is something like KQJx Axxx AKxx void.

In any event, this is mps, and no grand will be good if he holds, for example, KQ9x or even KQ10x of ♠. And I have a minimum for my auction so far.

Note that if I held a maximum such as Axxx void QJxx AK10x, grand is good opposite either KQJx Axxx AKx Jx or KQJx Axxx AKxx void: which argues that maybe his 6♣ call is not really a specific ask anyway but a sort of last train grand slam try based on his knowledge of the approximate combined high card strength of the two hands and your ♥ void.

So I bid 6♠

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Jan 18 2006, 11:55 AM, said:

What did not happen here is interesting: in particular, RHO did not raise 2♥ and partner did not keycard. We do not know the vulnerability, but it would be unusual for RHO to pass the negative double with 4+♥, especially when he holds an honour, as he indicated with his (probably) bad double of 5♥.

Partner did not bid 2♠, and he would have done with 5+ and the good hand he is now showing.

Therefore, I place partner with 4♠ and at least 3 and (for my money) more likely 4♥.

Then there is the mystery of 6♣. Can it ever be 'asking' in ♣?

Could he hold KQJx Axxx AKx Jx, for example. He has enough strength to 'know' that you have at most one minor suit loser, absent a ruff, and no realistic way to discover if you have all of the ♦Q and the ♣AK and enough length in a minor to jilt one of his ♥ losers.

I suppose, on one level, this may be what he is asking, but it seems to me that the more credible explanation for his bidding, including his 5♥ call in place of 4N is something like KQJx Axxx AKxx void.

In any event, this is mps, and no grand will be good if he holds, for example, KQ9x or even KQ10x of ♠. And I have a minimum for my auction so far.

Note that if I held a maximum such as Axxx void QJxx AK10x, grand is good opposite either KQJx Axxx AKx Jx or KQJx Axxx AKxx void: which argues that maybe his 6♣ call is not really a specific ask anyway but a sort of last train grand slam try based on his knowledge of the approximate combined high card strength of the two hands and your ♥ void.

So I bid 6♠

This analysis most clearly points out the difference in thinking betweent the truly gifted (MikeH) and the wannabes (Me). If you care to stop and compare the analysis, mine is logical and closely approximates the hand types that Mike visualizes with strong Diamonds and good spades; however, when I got to what seemed the heart of the problem, i.e., the diamond suit, my brain turned off whereas Mike it seems took this thinking one step further - there is no doubt in my mind that he has it dead on perfect, a Last Train type effort to get to grand which is something I didn't consider. As usual, close but no cigar for me.

More of that damned clear thinking stuff.

Winston

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jan 18 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

I also tried 6S. Over this partner bid 7D... wtf? What's going on, what do you bid?

'Director!' 'I'm feeling very, very ill: I can't finish the hand... please find a kibitzer to fill in for me...'










Real answer coming shortly.....

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Jan 18 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

I also tried 6S. Over this partner bid 7D... wtf? What's going on, what do you bid?

GSF in clubs. 8 clubs.

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Jan 18 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

I also tried 6S. Over this partner bid 7D... wtf? What's going on, what do you bid?

7H, let him decide....lol

[Al_U_Card]

Was 6C a q-bid and he has KQJx xxxx AKQxx -?

[Winstonm]

Nothing weird now - this is the famous Jack asking bid, popularized by Jack....what was his name?

We now know partner's exact hand. KQxx, Axx, AKQxx, x Maybe. LoL.

The 4th round spade loser goes away on the club K. If I held AJxx of spades, I correct to 7 spades.

Winston

BTW, I've never been able to get a game with Garozzo - did he ask you or did you ask him?

[mikeh]

ok, such much for my brilliant ( ) analysis of 6♣!

He is either offering us a choice between 7♠/7N or 7♦; or a choice only between 7♦ and 7♠ or he is desperate to play 7♦.

I reject the idea of 7N: I can think of no hand consistent with our auction to date where he could think that I could intelligently make that choice.

Okay: KQxx Axxx AKQxx void

He is concerned that my ♠ are not internally good, and that a 4-1 break might doom the ♠ grand. He knows that I have real (but weak) ♦ so he expects to ruff some ♥ in dummy and to pitch his presumed 4th round ♠ loser on my ♣A. At mps, however, he wants to be in 7♠ if my trump are AJ9x or the like.

This consruction makes sense of the bidding to date: the 6♣ call was an intelligent precursor to the 7♦ call: he knew that he was bidding grand no matter what, and he knew that I would be bidding 6♠ over 6♣ precisely because he knew that I was looking at poor ♦.

If I have this right, then I am both pleased with myself, and very pleased with partner, because I think we will have had one of those rare but wonderful auctions in which one partner embarks upon a complex, inference-laden auction based on the borne-out confidence that partner can and will work it out.

Or this could turn out to be a lucky guess

I once played on a team with two fine players, whose names I will not mention but who have extensive national and international experience. They defended a hand brilliantly, with exquisite timing and killing shifts. Each independently came up to me and described how they had analayzed partner's play and deduced precisely what was intended... very proud of their great understanding. The only flaw was that their explanations were completely different. What they each thought had been great inferential communication had been a comedy of errors, which had led to a wonderful result.

The lesson I learned from that is that if my pass to 7♦ works out, I will NOT ask partner what he was trying to do

[000002]

The hand 7♦ bidder:
KQxx
Axxx
AKxx
Q




my design opener never show his minimum,never.

[jdeegan]

Being a simple country lad, all I really know is that partner is still interested in seven because of his 6♣ bid. He must really have spades because of his original negative double. Since I don't see the diamond ace in my hand and my heart void has been shown, so I am going to bid 6♠.

[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Jan 19 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

When partner bid 7D I decided I was allowed to figure out that the wheels came off and I passed.

Partner had KQx Jx AQxx QJxx. Today was our lucky day and the diamond hook was on.

Do you think that the result would have been upheld on appeal?