[han]

I found this decision quite difficult, so I wonder what others would have done:

Scoring: IMP

1C-1S-(4H)
p-??

---

What's your second call?

[jillybean]

4♠ and if doubled 5♣ ?
I hope if my partner has opened on anything better than 11-12 they will bid again

[adhoc3]

How about dbl and if pd 4♠ then 5♣?

[whereagles]

how about double for take-out?

[Free]

Dbl...

[Codo]

X to show some 5143 hand will be nice, but who is sure, that his pd plays it this way in this situation? I take it as "business", showing cards. And even if double shows my hand somehow. I don´t want pd to pass my double anyway. He needs much less then his opening bid to make a slam.

I bid 5 Heart, we make a small slam in a black suit.

[cherdano]

While double shows a shape like this, I don't think I should leave the option to pass to partner when I know we have the values for slam. I would bid 5N, pick a slam.

Arend

[Blofeld]

I agree with Arend: double is the obvious bid, but it's wrong because we're not happy if partner sits for it.

There are a few options available if you're going to slam-force, and without some detailed agreements it's not clear which should show what.

But I think I rather like Arend's 5NT bid (might not have thought of it myself, I suspect I'd try 6♣)

[coyot]

I like my odds in 6 clubs the best - partner should be able to ruff one or two hearts and possibly develop a spade or two for discards.

I would probably close my eyes and bid 6♣ straight away - and hope that partner with Qx-Axx-Kxx-Axxxx would bid 7

[Echognome]

I think this is an interesting problem. By the way, I completely empathise with Han's actual bid.

However, I think there is an interesting difference if you are playing 2/1 (or SAYC) than if you are playing Acol.

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Apr 28 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

I think this is an interesting problem. By the way, I completely empathise with Han's actual bid.

However, I think there is an interesting difference if you are playing 2/1 (or SAYC) than if you are playing Acol.

You empathize because his bid is reasonable. However, I am not sure that Acol versus 2/1 is relavent here. Acol was designed for light opening bids and light raises, but modern bidders in 2/1 open light as well, And, if ACOL still uses weak NT, the implication of opening 1♣ (either unbalanced or extra stregnth) might make it more LIKELY that jump to slam is a winner than at 2/1. While if playing ACOL with stronger NT, might suggest milder caution than against a typical 2/1 opening (from yester year).

I think there was a problem on this hand, but for me, it wasn't with Hannie's bids. both of which were reasonable. If this was an "assess the blame", my vote would go for his partner's choice. I can say that because this hand was from a TEAM match and I held the same hand as hannie's partner and I choose a different way to bid the hand. Of course personal style and partnership agreements has to factor into any bidding decison, but I when chosing the worse bid on the auction in question, I wouldn't point towards hannie's.

At the table, I would probably try 6♣ on the given auction, and if not an immediate 6♣, then DBL followed by 6♣ should partner chose not to pass the double.

[Echognome]

inquiry, on Apr 28 2006, 02:07 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 28 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

I think this is an interesting problem.  By the way, I completely empathise with Han's actual bid. 

However, I think there is an interesting difference if you are playing 2/1 (or SAYC) than if you are playing Acol.

You empathize because his bid is reasonable. However, I am not sure that Acol versus 2/1 is relavent here. Acol was designed for light opening bids and light raises, but modern bidders in 2/1 open light as well, And, if ACOL still uses weak NT, the implication of opening 1♣ (either unbalanced or extra stregnth) might make it more LIKELY that jump to slam is a winner than at 2/1. While if playing ACOL with stronger NT, might suggest milder caution than against a typical 2/1 opening (from yester year).

I think there was a problem on this hand, but for me, it wasn't with Hannie's bids. both of which were reasonable. If this was an "assess the blame", my vote would go for his partner's choice. I can say that because this hand was from a TEAM match and I held the same hand as hannie's partner and I choose a different way to bid the hand. Of course personal style and partnership agreements has to factor into any bidding decison, but I when chosing the worse bid on the auction in question, I wouldn't point towards hannie's.

At the table, I would probably try 6♣ on the given auction, and if not an immediate 6♣, then DBL followed by 6♣ should partner chose not to pass the double.

What's up your bum? I didn't say I "blamed" Han for anything. I empathised with his bid because it didn't work out, not because it was his fault.

Do you think when Han went down I said "Why did you bid 6♣?"

I said "Sorry for the opening."

So don't know why you feel you need to go on a tirade. Yeesh!

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Apr 28 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

So don't know why you feel you need to go on a tirade. Yeesh!

Actually it wasn't meant as a tirade. I simply pointed out that your empathy was well placed as hannie did nothing clearly wrong. Instead, I meant it to address the issue you raised concerning ACOL versus 2/1 (without that issue I would not have responded). I even said that the choice of openings was a matter of style, and that I agree with either DBL or 6♣ (I wasn't intending to give away hannie;s choice).

Of course, since hannie made two reasonable bids, at least imho, I added "IF" it was a question of what went wrong, it wasn't with hannie's bid. This seems just an unlucky hand for him. In fact, even the final contact just looking at the two hands has reasonable chances (well needs some luck, but it appears to have some play). The missing !CA has to be onsides (as expected from preempt), and you have to pick up ♠s. You could in theory win 5♠, 3♣, 2♥, and 2♦, or 2♣ and a ♣ ruff, or 2♣ and 3♦. That is to say, the contract on paper was FAR from hopeless by a long shot. I would not at all be upset about landing in slam on this hand. Of course, the actual result was not very satisfying. A final note. I never mentioned you where his partner, as that was immaterial, nor did I show or discuss the actual hand you opened (many probably would open it, as it had 2.5 quick tricks. I am sorry if you took it as a tirade... it was meant as a general discussion.

[Echognome]

Ok. We probably both misunderstood each other. No harm, no foul.

I didn't particularly like my opening either. It had AK K, but was the dreaded 4333 shape. In addition, we had just had a good board (although my expectation at the time was that it was going to be flat), so there was no need to be aggressive.

And although I agree that Hannie's actions were reasonable, they held no guarantee either.

[han]

I thought this was a very interesting bridge problem from my side, and the fact that partner opened very light has little to do with that.

My analysis at the table was pretty similar to Justin's, so I was very glad to read his response. Double can be made on a large variety of hands, and partner will pass it most of the time (given that he likely has some hearts). We might or might not have slam, I thought the odds were with me. As no intelligent slam investigation was possible, I jumped to 6C. I think 5NT makes things too difficult.