[xx1943]

Scoring: IMP

SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
 1♠   pass  1NT   2♦
 2♥   pass  3♣   pass
 ??

---

You and your partner play 2/1. 1NT is forcing and 3♣ shows 5-9 HCP with a 6+ club-suit.

The situation is similar to the post clubs, clubs, clubs ......

3 diamonds is here the most flexible call. Would be interested to hear your opinions.

Al

[han]

The flexible 3♦ is wrong for much the same reason as in the other thread. It has nothing to do with your hand and partner won't have a clue what's going on. I voted for 5C, even a nice hand as xx xx xxx KQJxxx makes slam difficult to play after a diamond lead. And partner doesn't need a suit as good as that.

I considered 4♦ (splinter) for a moment.

[pbleighton]

"The flexible 3♦ is wrong for much the same reason as in the other thread. It has nothing to do with your hand and partner won't have a clue what's going on. I voted for 5C, even a nice hand as xx xx xxx KQJxxx makes slam difficult to play after a diamond lead. And partner doesn't need a suit as good as that."

I agree.

Peter

[BillHiggin]

5♣, 6♣ and 7♣ are all possible final contracts. If partner trots out 3N, then 5 may well be the limit.

A reasonable agreement is to use a jump to 4♦ as exclusion RKC for clubs. If we have that agreement, this is the hand we had in mind!
Reasonable agreement: All splinters at the 4 level in support of a minor are ERKC (credit to Pitbulls).

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

"The flexible 3♦ is wrong for much the same reason as in the other thread. It has nothing to do with your hand and partner won't have a clue what's going on. I voted for 5C, even a nice hand as xx xx xxx KQJxxx makes slam difficult to play after a diamond lead. And partner doesn't need a suit as good as that."

I agree.

Peter

I don't

If one wants to get unilateral, 5♣ definitely is a good bid, and probably what works best in practice most o the time. However, since the deal sits between 5 and 6, one can try for a slam. We have 3 bids for this:

3♦
4♣
4♦

I don't like 4♦ and 4♣ because it bypasses the chance to hear about diamond wastage and because I'm not sure pard will be quick to cooperate if he has nothing but good clubs (which is probably all we need).

That leaves the admitedly muddy 3♦ bid as candidate. Pard won't have a clue what's going on at the beginning, but we'll clear it up for him. If he bids.. 3M (a good sign), we bid 4♣. If he confesses to diamond wastage with 3NT, we might think of leaving it in or bid 5♣. If he bids 4♣ we're in excellent shape and can take a shot at 6♣.

[mike777]

5clubs, game try.

[pbleighton]

Whereagles arguing against a unilateral bid!

Wow!

Peter

[inquiry]

3♦ is a horrible, horrible bid. It is not clear you can even make game, so the slam investigators are very optomistic. Even opposite hannie's xx xx xxx KQJT9x hand, a trump and trump would cause a lot of trouble, although one could try to establish one of the majors. If you play intermediate jump shifts, so that with a hand like
x   Qx   Jxxx   AKJxxx partner would have responded 3♣, you might risk only 4♣, but 5♣ looks good to me. And again, 5♣ points out the short ♦.

[han]

The post said 3C was 5-9 points, so the hand Ben gave is indeed not possible. Thinking about 7C is completely nuts. Suggesting that 4D should be exclusion-RKC should be forbidden on the B/I forum. (but please do play it against me)

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Feb 10 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

the slam investigators are very optomistic. Even opposite hannie's xx xx xxx KQJT9x hand, a trump and trump would cause a lot of trouble

Well, and I find a plain 5♣ is rather pessimistic. Give pard just a tad more, say,

xx
xx
xxx
AQJTxx

and all of a sudden slam looks pretty good. Let them lead a trump now.. HA!

Peter: I'm only unilateral when I judge science isn't gonna help. This is not the case

[pbleighton]

"Peter: I'm only unilateral when I judge science isn't gonna help."

Yes, but you judge science isn't gonna help a LOT.

You are clearly the most unilateral bidder among the Forum regulars.

You're even more unilateral than I am

Peter

[firmit]

I do not agree with 3♣ as 5-9hp in this situation. Even with agreed negative free bid, I would have a solid suit 8-11 hp at the 3rd level. If opps did not bid 2♦, would 3♣ be invitational?

I'd like just a little more to bid 4♣; if I get 4♦ cue-bid, 4NT is obviously the choice, and if partner shows all missing keycards, one is obligated to bid 7♣.

This situation is for me a little different than the other thread. I would not bid 3♦ in this situation as I see slam as a long shot, and 3NT is not a diserable contract. One may reason to find logic in all bidding-sequences - and whereagles makes a good point with 3♦, but reacing 6♣ is a bit of a stretch.

My choice is therefor 5♣ with 3♣ meaning 5-9hp. With 3♣ showin 8-11hp and at least AKxxxx and Q in one of the suit except diamonds, I'd consider 4♣; giving partner a choice of cue-bidding - or simply bid 5♣, expecting to make.

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

You are clearly the most unilateral bidder among the Forum regulars.

That is because I have the courage to stand up and steer my side to victory!

[pclayton]

I'm driving this to game and I want to investigate slam. Pard is bidding into the face of our 2 suiter, and couldn't support one of ours. I expect 6 good clubs, and probably more.

Most 7 card suits with a few honors equals a cold slam. Even a minimum like x, xx, xxx, KQxxxxx makes slam a laydown.

I'll start with 4♦, and hopefully pard can make some move.

[han]

pclayton, on Feb 10 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

Even a minimum like x, xx, xxx, KQxxxxx makes slam a laydown.

laydown?

[kenrexford]

I'm going to let partner do the math on this one.

I started with a simple 2♥ as my rebid. Partner showed relative intolerance for the majors, by bidding 3♣ with 5-9 HCPs.

So, what does 4♥ by me now show?

It seems that this bid, as a jump, should show increased interest in the auction because of the club bid, hence club support. If I'm rebidding hearts, I must have five hearts. Hence, I must logically be 5503 to do this.

Why, then, not 4♦? Partner will expect 4♦ to be based upon a hand where I can contribute a club honor. He will, for that reason, expect that I cannot contribute a club honor. Thus, xxx in clubs.

Partner will also expect that I am primed out, although he may expect better body to my hearts suit, maybe AK1098 or AKJxx, a hand the can play opposite Qx.

I can live with that. I'll show my hand, slightly overstating my heart body (and hope that the 98 carry full weight) to avoid inferentially inferring better clubs. I'll infer the diamond void and let partner, if holding golden clubs, make the right call.

If 4♦ is RKCB, I'll still bid 4♥.

You do not have to use a splinter to show a void that other bidding will force you to have.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Feb 11 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 10 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

Even a minimum like x, xx, xxx, KQxxxxx makes slam a laydown.

laydown?

Pretty damn close to laydown

Certainly one I want to be in, don't you?

[Poky]

3♦ clear cut. My trumps are too weak for 4♦. Give me AKJxx Axxxx - Kxx, and i will bid 4♦.