[Mbodell]

Given you are playing sayc-ish but with weak nt and 1♣ could be short as 2 so 1♦ promises 4+ would you pass or go on with:

Scoring: IMP

S  W N  E
1♦ P 5♦ P
?

---

[skjaeran]

5♦ is preeptive in my book.
6♦ surely could be on, but 5♦ also might not make, depending on the fit and what finesses (♣K and ♠A) work when needed.
I'll pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

Partner could have bid differently, if
he wanted to hear my opinion.

He could have bid 2D (playing inv. minor),
4D, bid another suit, ...

If you bid on, and 6 makes, you need to
better discuss afterwards, what a 5D bid
looks like.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Mbodell]

We don't play inverted minors and, like many sayc-ish B/I players don't have great minor suit bidding auctions about what 1♦-3♦ or 1♦-4♦ would mean.

I ended up trusting my partner meant the bid to be preemptive and passed. It turned out she did but I still felt bad when the beautiful:

Scoring: IMP

---

dummy came down.

When west ended up with the Kxx in both ♦ and ♣ we were in the lucky right place.

Partner's hand is only 7 points, but it is such a good 7 points that I think I would have wanted to splinter in ♥ which might have made the auction go:

1♦-3♥
4♣-4♠
4NT(1430)-5♣
6♦

But since splintering with just 7 points is a stretch maybe

1♦-1♠
2NT-4♦
4♥-4♠
4NT(1430)-5♣
5♦

which again leaves us short.

How do you think the bidding should have gone, especially not playing inverted minors?

[EricK]

I don't like a pre-emptive 5♦ on that hand - I would want a ♦ more and weaker ♠.

A nice auction would start

1♦ 1♠
2NT 3♦ (as long as you play that as forcing)
then the bidding can continue
3♥ 3♠
4♣ 4♥
4♠ with all these bids being control showing.
........5♦ North signs off because has nothing more to cue
6♦ small slam must be good, but if partner doesn't have second round ♣ then grand won't be.

[EricK]

Mbodell, on Sep 23 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

1♦-1♠
2NT-4♦
4♥-4♠
4NT(1430)-5♣
5♦

which again leaves us short.

The trouble with 4NT as RKB with a minor agreed is that you have no room for further asks. If 4♥ can be used as RKB here (as recommended in Kantar's book on RKB) then you have room for a Queen ask. But this does require a lot of discussion with partner.

[helene_t]

North's jump to 5♦ is not terrible, IMHO. Opps may double when they should not, or vice versa. Besides, 6♦ is not good opposite most balanced 18 counts, and it may be hard to find out unless your style allows North to splinter with this hand.

[neilkaz]

skaeran, on Sep 23 2007, 06:40 AM, said:

5♦ is preeptive in my book.
6♦ surely could be on, but 5♦ also might not make, depending on the fit and what finesses (♣K and ♠A) work when needed.
I'll pass.

We agree. If PD wants to show this hand, which seems too good to preempt, why not slow down the auction by starting with 1♠ ?

After 5♦ opener is simply left with a guess as to whether to go further. I'll pass.

.. neilkaz ..

[P_Marlowe]

Mbodell, on Sep 23 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

We don't play inverted minors and, like many sayc-ish B/I players don't have great minor suit bidding auctions about what 1♦-3♦ or 1♦-4♦ would mean.
<snip>

Fair enough.

But than I would say, forget about slams
the next time and focus on game bidding
and competitive bidding.

You introduced splinter bids, which are standard,
but on a similar level as inv. minors or the
meaning of 1D - 4D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I tend to agree with those, who would start with
1S, not because the hand intends to look for 6D,
but because your most likely game is still 4S.

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Sep 23 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

North's jump to 5♦ is not terrible, IMHO. Opps may double when they should not, or vice versa. Besides, 6♦ is not good opposite most balanced 18 counts, and it may be hard to find out unless your style allows North to splinter with this hand.

Ugh. We have a perfectly normal 1♠ call and the bidding got by RHO. Furthermore, 1♦ could be short, so the chances of a big fit for both sides is diminished.

[whereagles]

5♦ on North's hand would never have crossed my mind. It certainly isn't what the book recommends.

If I knew pard's style, I'd have bid 6. After all, I'd be playing it... lol.

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Sep 23 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

1♦-1♠
2NT-4♦
4♥-4♠
4NT(1430)-5♣
5♦

which again leaves us short.

How do you think the bidding should have gone, especially not playing inverted minors?

This is a very decent auction, except opener would bid slam over 5♣. It is not worth worrying about the queen of diamonds after partner's jump to 4♦. He will either have the queen, six of them, or we might need a 2-2 break / singleton queen combination at worst.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Sep 23 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

1♦-1♠
2NT-4♦
4♥-4♠
4NT(1430)-5♣
5♦

which again leaves us short.

How do you think the bidding should have gone, especially not playing inverted minors?

This is a very decent auction, except opener would bid slam over 5♣. It is not worth worrying about the queen of diamonds after partner's jump to 4♦. He will either have the queen, six of them, or we might need a 2-2 break / singleton queen combination at worst.

Hmm, I thought the problem for this auction with opener was hearts. In this auction you haven't learned about the heart stiff and have potential ♥ losers as well as the K of trump and possible Q of trump or K of ♣. I guess the fact opener is jumping and willing to cue tell us he's got extra 2nd round controls in something and partner has at least 9 and possibly 10 cards in ♠+♦.

[jdonn]

That's a very good thought but I still wouldn't worry about it. The odds partner either has some heart control or that the heart losers can go on a black suit are overwhelming. The absolute worst case scenario would be needing a club finesse or ruffing finesse, which is ok.