2D multi by west, 4S by north, 5C by south, 5D by north, 5S by south, 6H by north, 7S by south. Down 3.
7? You really got to 7?
#1 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-March-22, 14:39
2D multi by west, 4S by north, 5C by south, 5D by north, 5S by south, 6H by north, 7S by south. Down 3.
#3
Posted 2007-March-22, 15:02
Nonetheless north's 4♠ bid takes the full blame for reaching the six level, so I'm happy to give 100% blame to north.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#4
Posted 2007-March-22, 15:15
#5
Posted 2007-March-22, 15:26
Several reasonable bids then ...
I think 7S gets 100% blame. Crazy gamble.
#6
Posted 2007-March-22, 16:25
2. I prefer 5♠, not 5♣.
3. 6♥ looks OK, and is consistent with 4♠ anyway.
4. 7♠. Huh, what? This is really out of left field for me.
South: 75%, North 25%
#7
Posted 2007-March-22, 16:59
#8
Posted 2007-March-22, 17:02
pclayton, on Mar 22 2007, 04:25 PM, said:
I don't understand your comment. Do you think 6♥ is a mandatory cuebid? Otherwise, as North is subminimum for 4♠, how can he make a grand slam try?
Arend
#9 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-March-22, 17:02
cherdano, on Mar 22 2007, 04:15 PM, said:
This implies that north cannot have the DK and the HA. Is this the general consensus?
#10
Posted 2007-March-22, 18:36
5♣ is ok: it is a clear cue: we don't correct 4♠ to 5♣s.
I hate 5♦. I truly dislike cuebidding shortness at my first call, and the 7♠ call sure sounds as if S agrees with me: AKJxxxx Ax KQx x would be the kind of hand I would picture as S, but not with sufficient confidence that I'd bid 7n
Of course, much does depend on cue bidding style, but I like my first cue to say something about where I live.
Unfortunately, after 4♠, N is, in my view, obligated to cue over 5♣.. he cannot now hide controls because he had overbid originally. So I would cue 5♥, and S cannot stop short of small slam and can easily picture AKQxxxx Ax xx Qx, so must cue 6♦, which will get us to 6♠, for a horrible result.
So, in my view, 4♠ is the worst, since it dooms us to -200 at imps, for -13.
5♦ is the next worst, since it dooms us to -300, for a loss of 14 imps.
BTW, the 5♦ call is even worse than the above analysis suggests. North can be morally certain that S will sign off in 5♠ unless he holds a stiff or void ♥... so by bidding 5♦, he knows that S will have to bid 5♠ on, say, Qxxx xx Kx AKQJ10x: where 13 tricks are cold... so he trapped himself into cue-bidding 6♥ which HAS to be a grand slam try... as it would and should be opposite that S hand. And this is predictable!
4♠ 80%, 5[D] 20%, N 100%
7♠ is easy to laugh at: but only because we can see that N doesn't hold the hand he described. S made a bold bid: an aggressive call, but a call that rated, at least, to find a hand that offered a play for 13 tricks and that might have got to a 14 top trick grand. So he gets no blame from me
#11
Posted 2007-March-23, 01:40
2. 5♣ good bid, 5 controls, fit and a source of tricks
3. 5♦ - consequence of 4♠ bid
4. 5♠ - normal bid, i don't have ♥ control
5. 6♥ - i have first round control in ♥ and i'd like to play SEVEN. Another poor bid -5% blame
6. 7♠ - i understood that partner has something like AKQxxxx Axx --- ?xx, or maybe AKQxxxx Axxx ---- ?x, overbid hoping some good breaks and maybe the Q♣ -5% blame
So North 95%, South 5% seems right
#12
Posted 2007-March-23, 05:04
(That's what everyone else is saying, but I can say it in fewer words.)
#13
Posted 2007-March-23, 05:09
#14
Posted 2007-March-23, 07:38
EDIT: Sorry I didn't look closely to bidding, 6♥ was too optimistic, 5 or 6♠ would be ok.
Rest of biddings can be not best, but are no gross mitakes.
#15
Posted 2007-March-23, 07:54
My knee-jerk reaction would probably be to bid only 2♠ with that hand.
#16
Posted 2007-March-23, 07:59
It seems people assume North has shown a solid 7-carder with good outside controls. Four spades wouldn't be my choice on such a hand - but I don't know about this partnership.
#19 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-March-23, 14:39
When I bid 7 I was thinking of something like AKseventh + the HA + the DK which isnt even really that much. I knew there was some risk we'd be off a trump trick, and some layouts where we need 4-2 clubs or better.
This board was a push with the other table in 6S-3
#20
Posted 2007-March-23, 16:25
I then told him that 6S really only needs spades 2-2 and he said "trumps 2-2? how many spades are there in this pack?"

Help
