[y66]

Eric Kokish and Beverly Kraft discuss this hand in Modern American Bidding.

r/w IMPs

You hold T98xx ATxxx Qx K

Pard opens 1N.

What is your plan?

[jtfanclub]

If it were MPs, I might have to think about it for a second.

[mcphee]

My plan is to reach game in a major even though I have nice minor suit cards for NT. I also hope dear partner is not 2-2 majors because we are going to play in the major of his choice. 2C and sadly 4D after 2D response to pick a major. GL pard.

[P_Marlowe]

Invite, assuming, I am able to show an inv. hand
with 5-5 in the majors.

Partner knows also, that we are red and are
playing IMPs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

If you even have to think about the question, force to game! This is what being vul at imps is all about, and this is what bridge is all about. Don't try to go searching for reasons to avoid game on auctions where you can't find out how perfectly the hands fit, just bid it. It's not even close.

[kenrexford]

I would have a way to show 5-5 invitational. 3♦ for me shows 5-5 and invitational or better. If partner picks a major at the three-level, I suppose I'd pass.

BTW, a friend of mine mentioned an interesting way to analyze holdings like this. He calls trouble cards as cards that fill "slots." In other words, the mere holding of that card is useful, in a sense, because it removes the ability for partner to have that card. Not having that card means not only that he has cards elsewhere but, on occasion, that he will not overestimate the value of some run in that suit, because he won't have a run in that suit.

Take the stiff King, for example. By having this, we know, first of all, that partner does not have that card. This is obvious, but the implication is interesting. By not having that card, partner will be forced to have shaky values more often in that suit, like AQJ at best. He will not be all that impressed with this values if ke knows that you have 5-5 in the majors. Contrast that with partner holding AKx, opposite a small stiff, where he would be more "troubled" by whether he likes those cards or not.

The short version, then, is that this hand is better than the same hand with the stiff club King even if the stiff club King does not take a trick and serves no purpose other than to fill a slot. That role is worth something.

Another way to look at the same thing is to assess partner's average HCP contribution from each suit. Suppose that he owns 16 HCP, an average hand. With a small club as the stiff, partner will be expected to have 16 of the unknown 34 HCP, and 16/34 of those cards will be in the majors. So, partner will be expected, on average, to contribute about 7 1/2 HCP in the majors, roughly (I am ignoring pattern because that will not change). Because I have the club King, however, partner will have 16 of the remaining 31 HCP, and therefore 16/31 of his HCP will be in the majors meaning about 8 1/4 HCP. Thus, the possession of the club King is worth about 3/4 of a useful HCP in the majors.

[jonottawa]

I'm just gonna smolen the hand (5♥ 4♠.) I expect them to reach game at the other table and I usually try to outplay them unless I'm at least 60-40 that my bidding choice is superior whereas this is close to a coin toss.

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

If you even have to think about the question, force to game! This is what being vul at imps is all about, and this is what bridge is all about. Don't try to go searching for reasons to avoid game on auctions where you can't find out how perfectly the hands fit, just bid it. It's not even close.

LOL you forgot the Donn corollary:

Unless you have: A / - / A8th / AQJT

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

LOL you forgot the Donn corollary:

Unless you have: A / - / A8th / AQJT

Touche. Although.....

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

Don't try to go searching for reasons to avoid game on auctions where you can't find out how perfectly the hands fit, just bid it.

I assume you will agree partner would know a small singleton diamond to be bad and a diamond honor to be good if I bid 1♦ then 4♦. On the current hand I doubt that after showing my shape he will know Qxx is not a great holding in a major, for example.

Besides no way am I taking flak about not bidding 5♦ on that hand from someone who bids it then REDOUBLES!

[jonottawa]

There's a quote about a hole and digging, I forget how it goes.

If pard is supposed to know that an otherwise-yarb with Qx or Tx or Jx in Diamonds is magic, sorry I didn't get that memo.

I think the rewind is %. Slam making is WAY more likely than game not making. So you protect. If you were thrown off by the 2-2-2 comment by someone else, understandable. We all have brainfarts.

Edit to below: Wow, whatever.

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

I think the rewind is %.  Slam making is WAY more likely than game not making.

Ahem...wait for it...here it comes....resisting urge to use uppercase letters....

Not when they double you!!!!!!!!!

As much as I would like to further comment on your apparent belief that partner would somehow not know Qx of diamonds is great when you overcall 1♦ then double jump to 4♦ the next round, vulnerable (What in blazes do you think a bid like that shows?), we are discussing this hand in the wrong thread.

[rogerclee]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

I think the rewind is %. Slam making is WAY more likely than game not making. So you protect. If you were thrown off by the 2-2-2 comment by someone else, understandable. We all have brainfarts.

AHAHAHAHAHAA

[neilkaz]

I'll gf here at IMPs vul, but if PD decides to show 5-5 invite I won't criticize.

[y66]

K & K suggest that the minor suit honors may not be pulling their weight and recommend inviting with this hand.

Per usual, I overbid and forced to game.