[FrancesHinden]

Vul against not
Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?

---

They don't really know what 5H means

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Vul against not
Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?

---

They don't really know what 5H means

Do we know what 3♥ means?

[mikeh]

Echognome, on Jul 31 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Vul against not
Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?

---

They don't really know what 5H means

Do we know what 3♥ means?

Let me know if you find out. Undiscussed, I'd assume that it asks for a stopper for 3N.. 1.e a solid minor, presumably diamonds, but usually with at least a semblance of a stopper in the side suits, and this is still possible even with my hand... rho has a minimum and rho has a void and 6 card support.

Heck, they may even be cold for 5♥ if LHO has short spades and rho a minor void.

But I am not answering until I have had 3♥ explained

[han]

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

[Echognome]

han, on Jul 31 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

I'm inclined to bid 5N as well. However, imagine that 3♥ is "good michaels" showing a pure 5♠/5m hand with opening values. Change your mind yet?

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 31 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?
Vul against not
Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.
They don't really know what 5H means

---

IMO 6♣ = 10, 5N = 9, _X = 8, _P = 1
In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop". I fear that the popular 5N may be misinterpreted as an attempt to comply with the conventional request, whereas I hope that partner can more easily read 6♣ as "pass or correct".

[andy_h]

5NT

[NickRW]

nige1, on Aug 1 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop".

I am not sure "usually" is a good word. I cannot recall ever seeing a jump cue mentioned in a text and I've never seen it bid at the table. If I sat down with a pick up partner who bid that and rho gave me a quizzical look as if to say, "what does that mean", I'd simply shrug and probably guess it was some massive michaels.

Nick

[han]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

[FrancesHinden]

I assumed that 3H was asking me to bid 3NT with a stop, but we had never discussed it (this is a pivot teams event). However, that is what partner intended it to mean - I was pretty confident about that at the table.

[han]

Jlall, on Aug 1 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

han, on Aug 1 2008, 01:13 AM, said:

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

Maybe. I think I had a good chance of finding the heart king so I was happy with this auction.

[dburn]

han, on Jul 31 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

You may not make it. And if I were your partner, I can tell you right now that I would pass it.

[han]

I sit down on my knees and raise my hands to the great dburn.

[dburn]

I imagine most of us would consider that after (1♥) 3♥ (4♥), 4NT would be an attempt to play there, showing a heart guard and a trick to go with partner's eight winners.

I don't imagine the sequence (1♥) 3♥ (5♥) has occurred often enough for any one of us to know what any other one of us would intend by 5NT. But one possible way to think about it is this: the 5♥ bid is presumably sacrificial in intent, so that at least one of our opponents believes than we can take eleven tricks in a minor. That being so, why - if we have a heart guard - should we not be able to take eleven tricks in notrump, without being able to take twelve tricks in the minor?

Of course, there is also some danger in bidding 6♣ without discussion - partner might think "he could have bid 5NT to ask me to bid my suit, so he must be bidding his own suit and I will pass despite having solid diamonds". My view is, though, that a pragmatic partner would tend to assume that the likelihood of making 6♣ and not 6♦ was not all that high, and that 5NT might therefore be more useful as an attempt to play in 5NT.

[pclayton]

dburn, on Aug 1 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

I imagine most of us would consider that after (1♥) 3♥ (4♥), 4NT would be an attempt to play there, showing a heart guard and a trick to go with partner's eight winners.

I don't imagine the sequence (1♥) 3♥ (5♥) has occurred often enough for any one of us to know what any other one of us would intend by 5NT. But one possible way to think about it is this: the 5♥ bid is presumably sacrificial in intent, so that at least one of our opponents believes than we can take eleven tricks in a minor. That being so, why - if we have a heart guard - should we not be able to take eleven tricks in notrump, without being able to take twelve tricks in the minor?

Of course, there is also some danger in bidding 6♣ without discussion - partner might think "he could have bid 5NT to ask me to bid my suit, so he must be bidding his own suit and I will pass despite having solid diamonds". My view is, though, that a pragmatic partner would tend to assume that the likelihood of making 6♣ and not 6♦ was not all that high, and that 5NT might therefore be more useful as an attempt to play in 5NT.

This thought had crossed my mind, but I had a hell of a time coming up with a hand that wants to play exactly 5N.

6♣ for me and I would think it has to be p/c.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Aug 1 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

han, on Aug 1 2008, 03:20 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 1 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

han, on Aug 1 2008, 01:13 AM, said:

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

Maybe. I think I had a good chance of finding the heart king so I was happy with this auction.

I think you are reallllllly underestimating the chances the opps bid something when you have this hand. If they bid something you are not going to find the HK. Even if you do find the HK there's no guarantee that you make 7. I think the goal of this hand should be to induce the opponents to make a mistake in judging what to do rather than trying to find 7.

Han didn't give the vulnerability, but I agree this only if we were r/w.

Otherwise I think its reasonable to look for a ♥ card along the way.

[cherdano]

In the hand Han gave, the vulnerability was w/r at matchpoints. I doubt there is much of a chance they would bid on over a direct 6♣ or a delayed 6♣.