[bid_em_up]

2/1, assume new suit would be forcing, any immediate diamond raise is preemptive, you hear:

(1♣)-2♦-(p)-?

2♦ is preemptive, and you hold:

Scoring: IMP Pairs tourny

---

What is your plan, and does the fact that it is just a random IMP tourny (with a regular partner) affect your decision?

[bid_em_up]

Why did the suits not come across in the poll?

[pclayton]

Does random IMP tourney mean I'm playing with a random partner?

With a good player across, I'm trying EKCB 5♣ anyway. Not sure we've talked about this, but EKCB responses should be 0314.

[awm]

Well if we've definitely agreed exclusion and 0314 responses to it, 5♣ seems reasonable. But if this is a pickup partner (even a good one) and we haven't discussed it, I'm not going to blast 5♣. It carries too much potential for an accident when a 4♣ or 3♣ bid is fairly sure to get you to the slam when partner happens to hold a major suit ace.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jan 9 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

Well if we've definitely agreed exclusion and 0314 responses to it, 5♣ seems reasonable. But if this is a pickup partner (even a good one) and we haven't discussed it, I'm not going to blast 5♣. It carries too much potential for an accident when a 4♣ or 3♣ bid is fairly sure to get you to the slam when partner happens to hold a major suit ace.

Agreed (almost)

I would not risk 5♣, since my trump suit is inadequate for play in that suit.

I would splinter 4♣ and then have a tough call over the expected 4♦ (after all, he may be reluctant to cue an Ace no matter what he has, since he is not looking at a very good ♦ suit and our splinter sounds like a loser there.

I think I'd bid 5♣, as the strongest possible slam try...bidding 4♥ would work if he holds the ♠A, but not otherwise.

The truth is that he probably can't bid slam anyway....maybe not even with a major A, altho on a high level, he should.

Obviously this is why exclusion, if playing 0314, is best. BTW, how many players use two different keycard schemes (3 if you count specialized keycard after our preempts)? I know that my partners and I play 1430 throughout, so we couldn't afford exclusion here.

[Halo]

5C

Apparently this is exclusion. There may be a better hand for it in my life but I'm not waiting for it.

[bid_em_up]

Sorry, Random tournament, regular partner. Exclusion has been discussed.

[whereagles]

5♣ is the scientific bid, but I wonder 5♦ wouldn't fare better...

[mikeh]

Halo, on Jan 9 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

5C

Apparently this is exclusion.  There may be a better hand for it in my life but I'm not waiting for it.

and you play 1430? If so, this is an Ace away from being the perfect hand for it. I wonder how many posters now 'realize' that they play 1430 usually and 0314 in exclusion, without ever having actually discussed it

Not that I am suggesting that you fall into this category... I have NO reason to think so.. but I am suspicious (generally, not specifically) when we get landslide votes for actions justified by looking at the hand.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Jan 9 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

Obviously this is why exclusion, if playing 0314, is best. BTW, how many players use two different keycard schemes (3 if you count specialized keycard after our preempts)? I know that my partners and I play 1430 throughout, so we couldn't afford exclusion here.

Mike,

I play 2 keycard schemes (normally 1430, but 0314 for exclusion) for this very reason (and yes, it has been discussed with partner). I think playing responses to exclusion are better served to be 0314, not 1430. If partner has no outside keycards (entirely possible here), he will take you past 5♦, which might have been your last makeable contract.

[bid_em_up]

Oddly enough, I am ashamed to admit what I actually did.....even though I know 5♣ is the correct systemic bid in our system.

Figuring that opener would take a direct 5♦ call as preemptive, I attempted one of my few masterminds, and bid 5♦, expecting it to be doubled (and then redoubled by me). Needless to say, it went all pass......for a less than stellar result.

I also find it somewhat disturbing that 17/52 pairs actually managed to reside in some number of hearts (either 4H or 6H) as partner held:

---

I cant imagine anyone not overcalling 2D (assuming the bid is available to them) and I dont see any point in bidding 2H when the diamond slam is totally visible dependent on partners keycard holding. I suppose its different if you dont have exclusion available to you, though.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 9 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

BTW, how many players use two different keycard schemes (3 if you count specialized keycard after our preempts)? I know that my partners and I play 1430 throughout, so we couldn't afford exclusion here.

I do. (I still play 1430 after preempts, except it can sometimes be done by 4♣ or 4♦, so it's just 2 different scheemes.)

[hotShot]

deleted

[bid_em_up]

hotShot, on Jan 9 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

I go for 3♦ that should be strong and forcing, lets hear what partner has to say.

Really? You play a simple raise of a preempt as forcing?

[hotShot]

bid_em_up, on Jan 9 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 9 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

I go for 3♦ that should be strong and forcing, lets hear what partner has to say.

Really? You play a simple raise of a preempt as forcing?

Sorry misread the auction

[Free]

Well, this depends on the kind of RKC you're playing
- 1430 I'll bid 4♣
- 3041 I'll bid 5♣