[FrancesHinden]

(I'm not including all the slams that were quick flat boards. There were an amazing number.)

Scoring: IMP

2♣ x P P
2NT P 3♦ x
3♥ P 4♣ P
4♦ x 4♥ P
?

---

2♣ = game forcing or 23+ balanced (it looks like 23+ to me)
Partner's pass over 2♣ effectively shows a negative, though partner would strain to bid a good suit without traditional positive values. Redouble from either of you would suggest playing there.

Do you agree with your 2NT bid, rather than 2♠?
3♦ is a transfer to hearts.
Your 3♥ over the double promises 3-card support.
4♣ is a general slam try, it does not promise a club control.
4♥ is partner's weakest action, and also denies second round diamond control.

Do you move, and if so with what?

[mr1303]

As I understand it, partner would have bid 2H holding AQxxx, so he doesn't. Therefore it is possible that we have a trump loser, in addition to the fact that unless the spades run right from the off, we'll have a diamond loser on the guaranteed diamond lead.

Therefore I pass. I admit it's close.

[awm]

I'm passing... I think partner has six hearts without much else and was excited by the "fit showing" 3♥ bid. If partner holds AQxxx(x) we probably would've heard about it over the initial double of 2♣; I'm afraid of finding something like:

xxx
QJTxxx
xx
xxx

[Echognome]

Agree with Adam. This goes back to my prior question of what 2M directly would show. I believe with 2 of the top 3 honors, partner would have bid 2♥ directly. So we are likely off one of the top honors in trumps and odds are good that we will have an outside loser. So pass for me.

[kenrexford]

3♥ set trumps, right?

If partner was not interested in slam, he'd bid 4♥. So, he must have slam interest. As noted, he cannot have AQxxx in hearts (apparently). So, knowing that you have 23+ balanced, he has slam interest.

Of course, since you are unlimied, "slam interest" means that he has 13 cards, but that is another issue. Your 4♣ call apparently means something more than just garbage.

What the Heck can he have for this slam interest?!?!? AJxxxx in hearts and out? I think we make opposite that.

This auction SCREAMS of a stiff diamond, unless somehow partner has denied a stiff diamond. I mean, he did have pass and redouble after 4♦ was doubled (idiotically), didn't he? What would these calls have meant?

So, I cannot in good conscience pass. That's playing partner for a moron.

What is interesting, however, is if partner has denied a diamond stiff. Now, I expect the heart Ace and two black Queens. Now I'm getting up to five spades, three clubs, the diamond Ace, and two hearts for rippers -- 11 tricks. Partner might have the fourth club, in which case I might not need hearts coming in, or I might have a club-heart(-diamond?) squeeze. If partner has denied a stiff diamond, I'm bidding 6NT.

If the diamond situation is unknown, I'm still dabbling in thought about 6NT. I hope you have methods for this...rotflol.

[han]

I don't think that Frances (assuming Frances had this hand) is unlimited, she could still jump to 3NT with serious extras. So I do think that 4C really shows some values (more than QJ10-6th).

I would pass though, it seems pretty clear.

I assume that you have thought about this more than I have, but playing that the redouble shows a desire to play 2CXX doesn't seem optimal. From either side.

[mikeh]

Given the marked diamond lead, I think I need too much in hearts to move here.

BTW, did we have texas available over 2N? Not sure if that helps anyway.

BTW, further, I agree with 2N

[jdonn]

I would have bid blackwood over the 4♣ bid so I'm certainly not passing. I might make slam opposite Axxxxx of hearts and out, even if heart's don't break!

By the way, isn't it kind of inconsistent to bid 4♦ then keep bidding now, as the only two pieces of information we have gained (partner is minimum, RHO wants a diamond lead) are negative for our hand?

[Fluffy]

this time we I fell safe at the 5 level (althou not fully safe). I'll bid 4NT, since slam needs ♥A to stand any chance.

Opponents made shy directing non blocking (actually space-granting) bids, hopefully a hint that there ain't bad breaks this time.

In my view ♥AQJxx is a suit to bid at the 2 level, ♥AQxxx is not.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Aug 21 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

This auction SCREAMS of a stiff diamond, unless somehow partner has denied a stiff diamond. I mean, he did have pass and redouble after 4♦ was doubled (idiotically), didn't he? What would these calls have meant?

I did mention in the original post that partner denied second round diamond control by not redoubling 4D.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 21 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

This auction SCREAMS of a stiff diamond, unless somehow partner has denied a stiff diamond.  I mean, he did have pass and redouble after 4♦ was doubled (idiotically), didn't he?  What would these calls have meant?

I did mention in the original post that partner denied second round diamond control by not redoubling 4D.

Missed that. Great! Now, I'm bidding 6NT.

[skjaeran]

Partner's 4♣ suggest to me that he'll have enough in ♥'s to contract for slam - IF he's got the ♥A. So I'll just keycard now. Missing the ace I'll drop in 5♥, else I bid slam.

[Gerben42]

Bound to lose a ♥ and a ♦ as it seems... Pass.

[kenrexford]

Gerben42, on Aug 21 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Bound to lose a ♥ and a ♦ as it seems... Pass.

♠Qxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣QJxx

That's an easy one. Five spades, two hearts, one diamond, and four clubs, for 12 tricks. You don't need hearts coming in.

The second and third spades are somewhat immaterial, as I still reach 12 cashing tricks when spades split 4-2 in the former and 4-3 in the latter.

There are many other layouts where 11 tricks come in and the twelfth is available by way of a major-suit or a three-suit squeeze, with or without the count. In some of these, it is critical that you be in notrump, and the heart suit may only operate as a menace.

There are variations where a finesse is needed for the 11th trick and the heart suit, again, operates only as a menace.

So... not all that clear that you are "bound to lose" a heart, so long as you declare notrump.

[hatchett]

Quote

♠Qxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣QJxx

That's an easy one. Five spades, two hearts, one diamond, and four clubs, for 12 tricks. You don't need hearts coming in.

It is 12 tricks but you have to assume someone has doubled 2♣ on a T high suit.

[cherdano]

hatchett, on Aug 21 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

Quote

♠Qxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣QJxx

That's an easy one. Five spades, two hearts, one diamond, and four clubs, for 12 tricks. You don't need hearts coming in.

It is 12 tricks but you have to assume someone has doubled 2♣ on a T high suit.

It also requires partner to have lied when he denied a second round control in diamonds, which Frances even mentioned a second time especially for Rex Ken.

[jdonn]

By the way, how are people saying we are unlimited here (Ken)? We bid just 3♥ which I presume partner could have passed with nothing, so we must be like 23-24 or else we would have had to bid 4♥ last round, and partner is showing slam interest opposite that.

[kenrexford]

I have to admit, I'm getting really confused on this one. More so the more I look at this thing.

Partner's pass of 2♣-X (missed the double somehow) was "effectively a minimum," whatever that silliness means. He has a five-card heart suit, but not a "good" suit. So, it apparently shows a long, weak suit, apparently AJxxx(x)+.

My 2NT call is not forcing, apparently. This seems odds, because I now must bid game opposite an "effective minimum" immediately, jamming our auction miserably. But, OK.

Partner now transferred, which may end the auction. So, when I bid a mere 3♥, this was passable. So, I have a minimum.

Partner now makes a slam try with an effective minimum opposite a minimum. I have very little idea what this shows. The only time I could ever imagine making a slam try with minimum-opposite-minimum is when I'm seeking a 4-4 fit over the 5-3 fit (empathetic splinter situation). Very strange. He's seeking a slam in some unknown side suit.

Now, partner later denies a stiff diamond or the diamond King. If the double of 2♣ was real, then partner cannot be seeking a club slam. That's too weird. But, partner cannot have all that much on the side.

Maybe Qxx-Axxxx-QJxx-x?

But, the more I think about this, how is this or any other hand that I have suggested an "effective minimum" but slammish???

What would partner need to bid 2♥ or 3♥ over 2♣-X?

Wow. OK -- I think I might have a fell on this one now. It seems that partner must have a wild red two-suiter. Wait! That makes no sense -- why not bid 4♦ with that?

I almost give up. I cannot figure out what possible hand partner could have to show an "effective minimum," transfer to hearts, hear a passable acceptence of the transfer, and then make a "general slam try" rather than a 4♦ slam try.

One more try. xx-AJxxxx-xxxx-x. Partner needs AK-KQx-AKQ-blank. He needed two top hearts for an immediate 2♥ call. He cannot bid 3♥ either. His diamond suck, so he cannot bid 4♦ after the transfer. He needs primes not in clubs. Naw! That makes no sense -- I just bid 2NT and must have stoppers/wastage in clubs.

Try again! x-AJxxxx-xxxx-xx? Partner cannot splinter, and 4♦ looks sickly.

Nope. Too esoteric.

OK, I give. Can anyone possibly construct what the Hell Responder has for this auction, when looking at this hand for Opener???

[Impact]

Partner has denied a good suit, shown a negative,and denied 2nd rd D control. I have only slight interest under the circumstances so I will give up and signoff.

regards

[benlessard]

If your 2nt isnt forcing of if partner can partner pass 3♥ (if you are limited )then your hand cannot be really better then what it is. Partner probably made a thin slam try based on clubs shortness (hoping you have no or little wasted values there) but my hand is the best hand i could have so i bid 6H (do we have a bid to suggest to play 6♠ ? ) and it wont surprised me if i make 7. My requirement for minimum with a good suit are probably high compared to most of the players. For me partner could have AJxxxx in ♥ and not bid them over the X.