[pclayton]

Playing a soft 2/1, you hold:

Scoring: MP

---

You open 1♦ as dealer and pard bids 2♣ (which is a GF unless he repeats his suit under certain circumstances). You rebid 2♥ (which promises roughly a King extra, shows an unbalanced hand and sets up a GF).

Now LHO decides to come to the party with 2♠ (?!). Pard rebids 3♣ and RHO bounces with 4♠.

Your call?

[cherdano]

I bid 5♣ (which you forgot to add as an option). Sure, slam may be good, but I don't have more than I promised. Of course, not showing support for partner's rebid suit would be criminal.

Partner will be able to infer my spade shortness. I am dreaming he can move with ♠xx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣AKxxxxx. Of course, he may not do that, but if I make a slam try (pass and pull to 5♣ he will go with xx xx Kxx AQJxxx (which is an excellent minimum), which seems an iffy slam.

Arend

[pbleighton]

"I bid 5♣ (which you forgot to add as an option)."

Agree.

Peter

[Apollo81]

5♣.

[pclayton]

Ben / Rain; please add 5C which was left off.

[whereagles]

i hate this problem... 5♣ seems so obviously correct but I feel like doubling.. lol

[pclayton]

whereagles, on Feb 14 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

i hate this problem... 5♣ seems so obviously correct but I feel like doubling.. lol

Ben/Rain - Do NOT add "double" as a poll option.

[whereagles]

Discrimination! I shall sue you for a million bucks!

[mikeh]

If my highest ♣ is the 5, then it seems to me that I have already upgraded my hand (a decision with which I agree, given my controls) so I am surely full value, but not at all heavy, for 5♣?

We need some significant red suit help for slam to be good, and this hand doesn't rate to be very good defensively: sure, we're getting a plus, but not big one.

If he holds a hand on which slam is doable, he should be able to move. At most he holds xx in ♠ and he should understand that with 2=4=5=2 shape, I wouldn't be bidding 5♣: I'd be passing (with extras, expecting him to double with xx in trump and to be leading a trump) or doubling.

In fact, I am a little worried that he may drive to slam anyway: but I can't pass and pass (I'm not defending when total trumps sound like 19-20) and I can't pass and pull" I'm already worried he'll drive to an unmakeable slam as it is.

4N, which should be keycard, is silly. There is NO answer to keycard that tells me anything useful... it's not trump I'm worried about: it's red suit losers/winners.

As for the other calls: you'd have to be on heavy drugs to cue 5♠: you've already forced to game, showing 'a king extra' with 13 hcp (yes, I know this is not a 13 point hand, and I have already agreed with the upgrade)... now you are making a grand slam try opposite a possible xx QJx xx AKJ10xx (if I understand your methods) or worse?

5N is weird, no matter what it means. If it is GSF (which I would not think it was), then it is just plain silly and if it is pick a slam, partner should be picturing x AKxx AKJ10xx xx or the like and may opt for the intelligent 6♦ on xx Kxx Qx AKJxxx, expecting you to draw trump and bring the ♣ suit home with a ruff.

[BebopKid]

I agree with the 5♣ group.

[pclayton]

At the table, I bid what I thought he could make; 6♣. After all, a very vanilla minimum: ♠xx, ♥Kxx, ♦xx, ♣AQJxxx gives us a pretty fair play for the slam.

Personally, I think its real close to a FP and 6♣. 5♣ to me sounds too much a distributional minimum. We do frequently upgrade 5 loser hands to the status required for a low level reverse like this. I would gladly rebid 2♥ on: void, ♥AKxx, ♦KJxxxx, ♣xx, and this feels like a 5♣ call to me, especially when I didn't raise at the 1st round (which also creates a GF the way we play).

He actually held: ♠void (!!!) ♥KJx, ♦QTx, ♣AKJxxxx. Can you blame him for bidding 7? I don't know if he'd bid 7 after I made a FP and raised to 6. I realize that we would play 6♣ if I just raised to 5, so good job, although I think a lot of you are doing so for the wrong reasons.

They led a ♦; he rose with the Ace and tried the ♥ hook. -1

The ♦K was onside

Crafty opponents in the bidding and the play.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

Crafty opponents in the bidding and the play.

♠-- ♥KJx, ♦QTx, ♣AKJxxxx.


♠A ♥A9xx ♦AJxxx ♣5xx

Ummm...you opened 1 diamond, the next player passes in spite of having 6 or 7 spades.

Assuming they had weak jump overcalls available, doesn't that set off all kinds of bells and whistles about the location of the king of diamonds?

Why wouldn't you want to be in 7♣ with these hands?

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

At the table, I bid what I thought he could make; 6♣. After all, a very vanilla minimum: ♠xx, ♥Kxx, ♦xx, ♣AQJxxx gives us a pretty fair play for the slam.

Fair play? You need the club finesse to start with (and not clubs 4-0). Then, on a spade lead, how do you play? Club finesse, spade ruff, club finesse, draw trumps? Then you have to duck a diamond, and can't develop a diamond trick unless they are 3-3. So you are left with your pick of 3-3 in a red suit, or some soso squeeze chances.
If you postpone the spade finesse, it does not really make a difference unless they force you to use up the spade finesse entry the moment you duck a diamond.

Partner is also allowed to bid 2♣ and 3♣ with worse suits than this - I think you really need to add a club honor to make your hand even close to a slam force opposite a game invite.

Arend

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Feb 14 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

At the table, I bid what I thought he could make; 6♣. After all, a very vanilla minimum: ♠xx, ♥Kxx, ♦xx, ♣AQJxxx gives us a pretty fair play for the slam.

Fair play? You need the club finesse to start with (and not clubs 4-0). Then, on a spade lead, how do you play? Club finesse, spade ruff, club finesse, draw trumps? Then you have to duck a diamond, and can't develop a diamond trick unless they are 3-3. So you are left with your pick of 3-3 in a red suit, or some soso squeeze chances.
If you postpone the spade finesse, it does not really make a difference unless they force you to use up the spade finesse entry the moment you duck a diamond.

Partner is also allowed to bid 2♣ and 3♣ with worse suits than this - I think you really need to add a club honor to make your hand even close to a slam force opposite a game invite.

Arend

OK, a 7th club then...

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Feb 14 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

Crafty opponents in the bidding and the play.

♠-- ♥KJx, ♦QTx, ♣AKJxxxx.


♠A ♥A9xx ♦AJxxx ♣5xx

Ummm...you opened 1 diamond, the next player passes in spite of having 6 or 7 spades.

Assuming they had weak jump overcalls available, doesn't that set off all kinds of bells and whistles about the location of the king of diamonds?

Why wouldn't you want to be in 7♣ with these hands?

Don't ask me why the opponents both passed the 1st round with 12 spades.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 08:40 PM, said:

cherdano, on Feb 14 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 14 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

At the table, I bid what I thought he could make; 6♣. After all, a very vanilla minimum: ♠xx, ♥Kxx, ♦xx, ♣AQJxxx gives us a pretty fair play for the slam.

Fair play?

OK, a 7th club then...

Then it is hardly a minimum anymore, and it is still on a finesse.

[mikeh]

I really have a problem with your thinking on this hand, Phil. Didn't you say, in posting the problem, that 2♥ showed a hand about a King more than a minimum? Don't you think that that is about what you hold?

You held a gun to partner's head, via 2♥, essentially forcing him to bid 3♣ with most decent 6+ suits and no ♠ cards or big red fit and now you think your hand is a King more than you have already shown? In other words, a hand that values to 19 point or so in support, given that you have already shown extras?

I think the flaw in your thinking is that you failed to give partner credit for having listened to the auction... 5♣ shows an extra value 1=4=5=3... and you are dismissing it as a minimum 1=4=5=3 even tho you ANNOUNCED that it wasn't.

Sorry, Phil: I have a lot of respect for your abilities, and I think my posts usually reflect that, but on this one, I think you have a blind spot (which I know I often get myself, so please don't take that comment personally)

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Feb 14 2007, 07:47 PM, said:

I really have a problem with your thinking on this hand, Phil. Didn't you say, in posting the problem, that 2♥ showed a hand about a King more than a minimum? Don't you think that that is about what you hold?

You held a gun to partner's head, via 2♥, essentially forcing him to bid 3♣ with most decent 6+ suits and no ♠ cards or big red fit and now you think your hand is a King more than you have already shown? In other words, a hand that values to 19 point or so in support, given that you have already shown extras?

I think the flaw in your thinking is that you failed to give partner credit for having listened to the auction... 5♣ shows an extra value 1=4=5=3... and you are dismissing it as a minimum 1=4=5=3 even tho you ANNOUNCED that it wasn't.

Sorry, Phil: I have a lot of respect for your abilities, and I think my posts usually reflect that, but on this one, I think you have a blind spot (which I know I often get myself, so please don't take that comment personally)

Mike - I didn't post this hand to justify anything. I think what you are saying is that I bid my hand twice, and I tend to agree. It was the 1st board of the night, and our last session was a little disappointing, so I think both of our engines were running a little high, since we wanted to get back to a good game (sort of, 58% in spite of a few fixes and two bad boards, including this)

5♣ seems to be a reasonable call, but i really don't mind a FP. A direct 6♣ is a little over the top, and I agree about that.

Thanks for the props too

[whereagles]

I kinda misunderstood something. Wasn't 3♣ the NF bid within your 2/1 context? I thought so.. but apparently, that was a game force.

[pclayton]

whereagles, on Feb 15 2007, 05:55 AM, said:

I kinda misunderstood something. Wasn't 3♣ the NF bid within your 2/1 context? I thought so.. but apparently, that was a game force.

3♣ would have been NF had I rebid 2♦. If I reverse, or rebid 2N; it sets up a GF.

Note: by default we rebid 2♦ on moderate 4441's, or weakish 3451/4351 and the like.