kenrexford, on Nov 14 2007, 08:23 AM, said:
I suspect that many would play that 5
♦ shows a void, rather than being EKCB: certainly, the way I learned exclusion was that it entailed a jump beyond game.
BTW, is it entirely clear that the 4
♥ call was a cue? I think it is: tough to construct a hand on which partner intended it as LTTC, but might it be a stiff? Qxxxx x AJxx Qxx?
Now 4N is very dangerous.
So 5
♦ exclusion would be nice, but it wouldn't exist for me.
I think this is a very tough call.
IFF your agreement is that 4
♥ unambiguously shows the Ace, then 4N has to be okay, intending to check for the Q of spades and dive to 7 if he shows it...at worst on a 3-2 trump break and a 2-2 club break but it may be laydown, and you can't find out.
If 4
♥ is ambiguous: well, I can't come up with a better plan anyway.... I have too much and not enough room to involve partner. So now I am driving to a grand that needs the cue to show the A plus all the good stuff in the blacks...no wonder david will be excoriating us
Edit: if he cued a stiff heart, then we won't need a lot of luck in the blacks, since he must have a decent hand. And they may well lead a diamond (or a trump) anyway. So I'm not too unhappy with 4N after all
I am beginning to wish I had bid 3
♦ the round before, but that might have led to other problems just as intractable, so I am not criticizing 4
♦
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari