[kfay]

---

Edit: Playing against a pair of incompetents the bidding at the table goes:

1♣ - Pass - 3♣* - 3♦
4♣ - Pass - Pass - 4♥
Pass - ?

*"Show's 6 clubs and limity values"

What do you bid at MPs, IMPs? Should you even be thinking slam?

[pbleighton]

Partner should be 6-5 or better. If you trust the opps, he doen't have a lot of points. I would pass, but would be prepared to bid 5H over 5C.

Peter

[han]

Partner has diamonds and hearts.

[kfay]

Maybe the tag on this thread is a little stupid.

My question is whether or not anyone thinks partner can be good enough to consider going any higher here. Obviously the vulnerability could mean he has anything, but he's also almost certainly void in clubs and has to have top cards in hearts and maybe enough diamonds that you can ruff away his losers. Would you ever consider going on?

[pbleighton]

Quote

My question is whether or not anyone thinks partner can be good enough to consider going any higher here. Obviously the vulnerability could mean he has anything, but he's also almost certainly void in clubs and has to have top cards in hearts and maybe enough diamonds that you can ruff away his losers. Would you ever consider going on?

Not if you trust the opps. They have at least half the deck, there's a chance that slam may make, but I don't see a way of finding that out until the dummy comes down.

Peter

[han]

I would not try for slam. Partner could have xx K109xx AQJxxx - where 4 might be the limit. That is also consistent with the opponents' bidding.

[hrothgar]

This is a tough one:

On the one hand, 3♦ was non-forcing. When partner made this bid, he was prepared for you to pass. (To some extent) this limits the maximum strength of his hand.

One the other hand, you have the World's Fair here:

1. 4 card support for partner with the QJ of Hearts
2. A first round Spade control
3. 2 Diamonds and plenty of trump to establish that Diamond suit.

Give partner as little as

♠ xx
♥ AKxxx
♦ AKxxxx
♣

and you have a great shot at making a Grand.

Even so, I suspect that I would pass. I suspect that the range of hands that would start with a 3♦ overcall yet make slam opposite my hand is pretty small. Moreover, I don't see any intelligent way to investigate. (Would 5♥ necessarily ask for the AK?)

[han]

hrothgar, on Sep 6 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Give partner as little as

♠ xx
♥ AKxxx
♦ AKxxxx
♣

AS LITTLE AS?????

[kenrexford]

4♠.

That should be right unless the answer is "some great weed."

[helene_t]

P must have some high cards since with merely distribution he would have let opps play 4♣, especially since they are "incompetents".

I'm going to pass and to double 5♣ if it comes so far. Against an incompetent declarer we will go plus and there's no need to gamble under these circumstances.

[mikeh]

Where the heck is the spade suit? I hold 3.. give opener 4.... if responder has 4 wouldn't he usually bid 1♠, even if incompetent? So, unless someone has placed a spade in with his clubs (and opener's 4♣ call combined with responder's 3♣ call announcing a 6 card suit strongly suggests that one or both of the opps have some trouble sorting their hands.... 4♣ on a 4=3=3=3 or 4=4=2=3 non 1N hand????), partner has 3 spades.

No, he can't.... please don't tell me he did

He bids like he is 5=6 or more..... and, yes, he may have enough for slam, but, no, I am not moving. If I did move, it is an easy 4♠, which could not possibly be misunderstood.

One of the little-discussed problems of playing in a weak field is that it is dangerous to draw logical inferences.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Sep 6 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

One of the little-discussed problems of playing in a weak field is that it is dangerous to draw logical inferences.

I cannot agree more.

However, I think you can trust partner on this one. 4-level reverses tend to be based upon stuff.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Sep 6 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

Partner has diamonds and hearts.

You are very wise.

[Rebound]

I'm thinking the spade suit got lost because RHO has 10xxxx and Hxxx in clubs; possibly even more likely they're 4-3-3-3. I give partner ♠ Hx* ♥ Kxxxx ♦ Axxxxx*

*If we try 4♠ it may encourage partner to slam if holding Kx in ♠ and AKxxxx in ♦. I think the 2 hands are within the expected 10-13 hcp range for partner.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Sep 7 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

Let me share my biggest pet peeve in bridge, and I know jdonn can confirm this.

I agree with you (how did you know! oh maybe because I've hung you like 50000 times). Seriously hanging partner in this way is my worst habit by far, and has always been hard for me to break. As Justin would say, I instinctively play "in theory".

My wording would be like this. The auction tells you it's very likely partner is taking a chance, and he was probably just hoping for a good dummy. If you hang him every time he takes a chance, not only will he stop taking the chances that (presumably) make him play so well with his (presumably) awesome judgment, but even worse he will hate playing with you. From the other side it really is frustrating to take a chance, have it be right, and have partner screw you.

In theory you could certainly argue this hand is worth a slam try. But making one at the table would be a GIGANTIC mistake, often in the short run, always in the long run.

[Rebound]

Frankly, I agree. When I haven't been playing a lot, like lately, I often fall prey to flights of fancy like this.

I'm generally more level headed and avoid this type of thinking when I'm in practice. But I think my post served a useful purpose: to illuminate the flawed thinking that went into it.

Thanks.

[asc]

4♠ would be OK if P not PASS .
5♣!!! -if he like my CUE BID against his void and say 5♦ -now is the problem 6♥ or 7♥!?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Sep 7 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

Let me share my biggest pet peeve in bridge, and I know jdonn can confirm this.

Yeah, good point. I've made that same bid before myself many times and been hung.

I fully retract everything I said. Pass 4♥.

Had partner bid this way but his second suit was spades, then there might be more incentive to move (chaning my hand appropriately), as he had better options earlier. But, showing the two lowest, especially if unequal length, is tough.

[skjaeran]

I have to say I agree with Justin and Josh on this one.
Sure, it's tough to pass at the table, it really looks like partner has got a nice hand. But you shouldn't hang partner here. Just like you shouldn't hang partner for balancing - it's just the same here, just on a higher level.