[han]

Scoring: IMP

1S-(4H)-Dbl-(p)
5H-(p)-6D-(slow pass)
??

---

Here is a hand from a team match on BBO. I opened 1S and partner made a negative double of 4H. I now cuebid 5H, perhaps a bit too much?

Partner bid 6D, what kind of hand do you expect? RHO make a very slow pass (of course, you never know what that means on BBO), do you pass or pull to 6S?

[whereagles]

Guess for a guess, I think I'll pass...

[pbleighton]

I would have bid 5C instead of 5H (4S is possible, as well). Now I am confused

I greatly prefer to "involve partner", to have her make these decisions, instead of me.

Given the auction, I pass.

Peter

[inquiry]

I am sure I don't like 5♥'s. Partner was under pressure with his double, and by bidding 5♥ now. if he can't stand ♠'s, you have forced him to six with only one ACE in your hand. That means, they could have from 0 to 3 aces last time I checked. I have a good hand, true. And I don't mind playing in ♣, but I really like spades. We might do well defending 4♥X but with one ♥ I am not up to it, so I will bid 5♣.

Having not bid 5♣, I am now forced to live with the 5♥ decision. If partner wanted me to choose between 6♦ and 6♠, he would have bid 5NT then corrected 6♣ to 6♦. That would suggest a good ♦ suit and a tolerance for ♠'s. His freely bid 6♦ leaves me little choice here. I suspect a singletin spade opposite, and I doubt spades are divided 3-3 and we probably have at least one ace to lose. So I will pass 6♦ now, considerably unhappy where my 5♥ bid has dragged us.

[pclayton]

Han:

Presumably you bid 5♥, because you felt your hand was too good for 4♠, and couldn't bid 5♠, since that apparently asks for a heart control. Pard's 6♦ is a strong suggestion to play there, since 5♠ and 5N are available.

But 6♦ is an enigma. Why isn't pard trying 5♦ over 4♥? And if pard truly has a few options, why isn't pard trying 5N over 5♥? I think pard has to have some extra values, or some other reason for the neg x.

I don't think you can read too much into the slow pass. RHO may have been considering a double, or possibly a sac over 6♦.

This is a very tough problem, and at the table I'd bid 6♠, but in theory, if you really really trust pard you should pass. Pard has to have 6 diamonds, but somehow some 'convertible' values. With some mundane 2=3=5=3 15 count, I think pard should bid 5N and pull 6♣ to 6♦.

So, I'm inclined to place pard with something like: ♠x, ♥AJx, ♦AJxxxx, ♣Axx.

[joshs]

Wow. I would have bid only 4S. 5H really is from another planet. Hopefully, han, you are playing with chewy, and can suggest the opponents use the time honored principle "let the wookie win."

Now is partner 2353 or 1264 or 2164 or 1363?

With 2353 he should bid 5N then 6D. So I expect 6D from him, but this contract is going to suck....

[awm]

I don't think 5♥ is that strange. This is a tough hand, but Hannie has extras for the opening, a known fit in clubs, and heart shortness. There are many fairly minimum hands for partner where slam is good. Even with a very strong hand, partner is likely to pass 4♠ (fearing a misfit) and 5♣ (lacking a heart control). For example, the following hands offer good play for slam, and I think they are fairly minimum for a four-level double:

x
xx
Axxxx
AQxxx

xx
xx
AKxxx
Axxx

Even if partner has something like:

x
Qxx
AKxx
AQxxx

I would expect a pass over 4♠ or 5♣. Of course slam is cold opposite this hand.

Okay, it's certainly possible that 5♥ gets you overboard when you're off two aces, although even then partner's minimum hand makes it more likely partner holds a couple of spades, and you still might get out in 5♠ on that auction. Certainly something like this is a possibility:

x
Kx
KJxxx
AQxxx

Anyways I think it's a hard hand. Partner's 6♦ call seems a bit strange and suggests a strong preference (perhaps some pattern like 1264); I'd pass it and hope for the best.

[cherdano]

I agree with 5♥. If partner has spade tolerance, we can get out in 5♠. If he doesn't, he will have a good hand. This hand is very strong opposite a minor hand. Ok opposite x xxx Axxxx AQxx, a bit of a worst case (no 5th club, minimum high cards) slam is terrible. Add the ♦J, and it's already ok.

Gee, all this talk about trusting partner: You better shouldn't, given who Han was playing with.

[mikeh]

5♥ would not even have occurred to me, and I have seen nothing in the comments that makes it at all attractive.

I say that even without knowing what the agreements are for the double: I assume that it is card-showing with 'transferable values' as opposed to promising any specific degree of fit for both minors: about the only suit I know (at the double stage) he doesn't have a primary fit for is ♠. I have one Ace and (to be charitable) dubious ♦ support given that I am actively encouraging a 6♦ call from partner: wow.

Yes, it is a difficult hand, but that is all the more reason to stay disciplined. Consider what a real 5♥ bid should look like, and you will see that partner simply cannot play us for this hand. We'd all bid a delighted 5♥ with AKxxx void KJxx KJxx for example.

Now that we have got ourselves into this entirely predictable pickle, bidding 6♠ is terrible: in my view it suggests a raise to grand!

AKQJ10xx void Qx AJxx.... wouldn't we at least consider this sequence, thinking that we had done a wonderful job of showing self-sufficient ♠, 1st round ♥ control and extra values?

So I pass, and have my apologies ready.

[han]

I don't like 5H myself, and felt I was playing badly the whole match (fortunately it was a short match). I bid 6S over 6D and felt quite stupid about it later, I agree that pass is clear.

I'm not sure about the best alternative for 5H, perhaps that's why I bid it. I don't think that 5S denies a heart control as Phil suggests, but it seems too unilateral. I'd say a club slam is about as likely as a spade slam. 4S and 5C seemed too pessimistic.

Partner had - xxx AKxxxx A10xx, 6D is the only making slam as the cards lie. The other table had the same start but my hand bid 4S instead of 5H. They landed in 5D+1.

[keylime]

I'd drop pard in 6♦. Pard is showing cards with minor suit values.

5♥, scary, but it did get the message across.

[jdonn]

I feel people have been much too hard on the 5♥ bid. This hand is a lot better than it might be! Many of the following comments make no sense to me. (I've been picking on MikeH a lot lately for no particular reason. I still like you I'm sure!)

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

I have one Ace and (to be charitable) dubious ♦ support given that I am actively encouraging a 6♦ call from partner: wow.

Who says we are encouraging a 6♦ call? If partner didn't have a very distinct preference between the minors (especially considering it's the higher one) he would bid 5NT to let us choose. That much seems obvious to me.

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Yes, it is a difficult hand, but that is all the more reason to stay disciplined.

What does that even mean? It seems as though when you have easy hands to bid you should stay disciplined and not screw up an easy hand. The time to take a chance is when it's not totally clear what your bids mean and you aren't sure what is the proper strain or level anyway, in other words when you are already in a position that involves guesswork.

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

AKQJ10xx void Qx AJxx.... wouldn't we at least consider this sequence, thinking that we had done a wonderful job of showing self-sufficient ♠, 1st round ♥ control and extra values?

No. I would rebid 6♥ on that now, which is obviously a grand slam try in spades since that is the only suit left on the 6 level. I'm not saying partner will know to raise on most of the hands that make a grand, but at least there is a shot. Why can't 6♠ just be no diamond interest? You might have bid this way with something like AQJTxxx - xx AQxx.

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

So I pass, and have my apologies ready.

Why apologize for your good bidding? I don't understand why this can't just be the perfect contract, and was probably the only way to get there also.

EDIT: Had extra garbage on end

[joshs]

I basically think that this hand is worth 5.5 clubs if partner has sound values for his 4 level x. I just don't think that 5H helps to invite, unless it systemically shows a 5S bid with a minor suit fit.

What 5H is, is the best way of forcing slam. That way partner can bid 5N on most hands to have you pick the strain, but can bid a strain himself with great disparity between the minors.

I just give my partner a lot of slack here, since I am not positive where our fit is in addition to only having moderate extras.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

EDIT: Had extra garbage on end

Given the tone of many of your recent posts disagreeing with my comments, I was tempted merely to quote this part and add: 'and in the middle as well"

You display a remarkable tendency to read into my posts something that is not there and then to attack it.

I said that 5♥ encouraged a 6♦ call and you took that as tantamount to saying 5♥ showed a liking for ♦.

5♥ sends a message. That message should be as far as I am concerned, more or less:

"I have a great hand: I probably have 1st round ♥ control: I can stand any slam bid you make: that does NOT necessarily mean that we can make slam in any suit you choose to name, only that I can handle that bid: please make your most descriptive bid in context"

Thus, if partner were to hold a minor two-suiter, which is entirely possible, he should bid 5N with equal or 1 card discrepancy (and some unusual hands on which he will take further action after your 6minor) but with any 2 card discrepancy (presumably 6=4 or 4=6) he should name his long suit.

It is in that sense (which I would have thought any bridge player would understand) that I meant that 5♥ 'encouraged' 6♦.

I concede that the choice of the word 'encourage' might have misled you had you stopped reading then. But surely you could have considered the overall message when I went on to give an example of a hand on which I would have bid 5♥ and then bid 6♠.

As for your suggestion that such a hand (AKQJ10xx void Qx AJxx) ought to bid 6♥ over 6♦, I think that that is second-best. 5♥ followed by 6♠ logically has to show a no-loser suit with 1st round ♥ control and strong grand interest: 5♥ effectively forced to small slam opposite, say, 1=2=6=4 minimum, yet I chose the slow route to 6♠... and there has to be a reason.

6♥, over 6♦, also shows very good ♠ and is a grand try, but it is not a no loser ♠ suit and it does show a willingness to play one of 3 likely contracts: 6♠, 7♠ and 7♦, with 7♠ being very unlikely.

Why make this distinction? Because even at imps, it pays to bid the major if both the major and minor contracts are equivalent in playability.

Are these distinctions subtle? Yes, but they make sense to me.

Maybe your sequences make sense to you. Maybe they are as playable as mine. I don't think so, but I respect your right to think otherwise.

However, I do not respect your apparent inability to recognize that in bridge, as in many things, it is possible to disagree without being wrong. And I ask that in future you try to understand the entirety of my posts, rather than parsing them, imposing upon the parsed fragments a meaning that may not be what I was trying to say, and then attacking that constructed meaning.

I have no intention of getting into a flame war... but maybe lighten up a little.

[jdonn]

Ok no flame war

I don't split up what you write into seperate little quotes to try and bring them out of context. I just do it to keep the posts shorter and make it clear what I am trying to reply to. That is my intention anyway.

This last post made it much more clear to me what you meant regarding the part about the 6♦ bid, and it makes good sense. I still don't read it that way in the earlier post, but I didn't mean to misinterpret what you said.

You also make a good point about the 6♥ bid. I was just thinking of it as an even stronger message toward spades than 6♠ at that point, but you may be right that it would be more logical as a flexible move toward strain at either level. It makes me reconsider my views anyway, always a good thing.

I really don't disagree with you as often as I have made it seem, it's more of a short term anamoly. The reason I have replied to your posts often is that you write long and clear posts with lots of different points, which is a convenient format to reply to. In that sense I hope you can even take it as a compliment.

[mikeh]

I was going to edit my last post and then thought that that would be inadequate.

I apologize to jdonn, and to the other readers here, for the tone of my last post on this thread. I was, I admit, annoyed at what I perceived to have been a continuation of a series of unduly targeted criticisms of several of my posts by jdonn, and so wrote in some anger. My reaction was unjustified... and the language I used was far too harsh....sorry to all of you

Posting is akin to email: it is far too easy to press send before emotions cool down.

[pclayton]

Very classy Mike!!

Its so easy to get caught up in the heat of a matter (or thread). I do it frequently myself; but have also been on the receiving end of flame.

Early in business I was taught to wait a day before I sent a letter (or email) that I wrote when I was angry at the sender. If it is so important to get a point across that you have to be mean, bitter, irrational (pick 3), then it can wait a day.

Phone calls for some reason may not carry the same amount of decorum and tact. But then again, they ain't in writing.

Even now after 20 years in my profession, I still have a co-worker read what I have wrote to have their (unemotional) viewpoint on what I am writing, if I'm in doubt. In todays wham-wham digital age, when emails go back and forth at the speed of light, I try to stay cogniscent of the fact that I am making a permanent record of my emotions.

I'm sure as a lawyer, you'd agree with this.

[000002]

it's 4nt when you hold 5=0=4=4,why u cuebid 5♥?
1♠---4♥---dbl---p
5♠/5♥/4nt/5♣
there are many different meaning,especially 4nt then 5♦.


5♥ is a cuebid to tell partner:the trump is ♠ and my ♥ has been controlled by me.

so ,6♦ is inviting for grand slam without ♣ Ace.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 17 2006, 10:17 PM, said:

I'm sure as a lawyer, you'd agree with this.

I've been messing with a lawyer? Ruh roh...

Mike and I cooled it all off privately. We are like this now (fingers held closely together.)

[keylime]

"All we are saying...is give peace a chance...."