[zasanya]

Scoring: Chicago

p-p-p-1♦
p-1♠-p-4♣
p-4♠-p-?

---

Do you agree with bidding so far ?Would you make a move towards slam?

[rogerclee]

Obvious pass.

[mike777]

pass

[OleBerg]

zasanya, on Aug 15 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: Chicago

♠ KQJx ♥ AJxx ♦ AKQ10x ♣

p-p-p-1♦ p-1♠-p-4♣ p-4♠-p-?

Do you agree with bidding so far ?Would you make a move towards slam?

Definately. Partner needs nothing but the ♠A10xxx for the slam to be good. Even 7♠ might still be on, though not likely.

I will choose an option that allows me to invite slam.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If you move on, than the bid before was wrong.

You could have tried 2H instead of 4C, to give
partner a chance to describe his hand further,
not the worst idea, if you happen to hold the
hand, which will make the final decision, and
partners answer to 2H will certainly be helpful
in the decision process.
For that matter, bidding 2H followed by a delayed
spade raise will show something like 543?, not too
far away.

As it is, your choise was to describe your hand, fair
enough, you asked partner for an decision, he told
you his decision, respect the decision.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SoTired]

5C - Give partner another chance.

What's the worse hand partner could have? Something like: xxxx xxx xx KQxx and 6S still has chances with a defensive error or 2. Give partner just a little more like xxxxx Kxx xx Kxx and 6S has good chances and partner would still bid 4S.

You have a 3-loser hand. You would make that same 4C bid with an ace less. If you had opened 2C, few would argue with you.

I think you are so strong that you cannot settle for 4S once partner bids 1S.

[mike777]

" think you are so strong that you cannot settle for 4S once partner bids 1S. "


no one is sitting for 4spades.....because p bid one spade.

[kenrexford]

Huge hand. The splinter does not do it justice, but as the lowest possible splinter, it did allow partner to bid 4♥ as one last stab, which he declined. I suppose you respect that.

I am curious about partner's hand, to see whether an alternative auction (different opening with unusual convention) would have worked better or worse.

[zasanya]

kenrexford, on Aug 15 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

Huge hand.  The splinter does not do it justice, but as the lowest possible splinter, it did allow partner to bid 4♥ as one last stab, which he declined.  I suppose you respect that.

I am curious about partner's hand, to see whether an alternative auction (different opening with unusual convention) would have worked better or worse.

Scoring: Chicago

---

These were the two hands.I passed 4 ♠.On restrospection it seems i should have tried 5♣ exclusion instead of 4 ♣ as after 4♣-4♠-5♣ P may bid just 5 ♠?

[han]

I lik e 4C followed by 5C best.

[Lobowolf]

I think the answer partly depends on your agreements regarding cuebids. Is partner expected to show the ♥K automatically on the way to game? Permitted to show it if he likes his hand for slam, but expected to bid 4♠ with any minimum? What inferences can we draw from the 4♠ bid, in other words.

With respect to the comment that we've shown our hand and asked partner to make a decision which we now must respect, I have to disagree. Our 4♣ bid shows club shortness and a hand that expects to make game opposite a minimum response. In LTC terms, a 5-loser hand. We actually have a 3-loser hand. Give partner the ♠A and the ♥T98 and we're basically on one of two finesses. I don't think that means that 4♣ failed to describe our hand; I think we've started to describe it, but we have more than 4♣ showed (or any bid at the last turn could have showed). The 4C bid has limited value if partner is on a dead minimum, since he can't have any diamond cards to upgrade; however, it at least starts to suggest that heart cards will be important, though partner can't yet know HOW important (e.g. ♥KQ and NO spade honors is good enough on normal breaks).

I'm bidding 5♣ unless I have a specific agreement that 4♥ would have been a mandatory cuebid if partner had the king. If partner again goes straight back to spades, I'll pass 5♠, and I'd still expect an overtrick more often than a set.

[Lobowolf]

I posted that before seeing the actual hand, but it's consistent. Yes, I suppose if you just count points, partner has more than a minimum, but he's got a worthless K♣ and no top heart honor, and we're still going to miss a slam. Passing a 3-loser hand at the game level when partner has a response and a fit it too timid IMO.

[pclayton]

The more hands like I see like this, the more I like playing an unbalanced 1♦, where 2N is a strong spade raise.

[Lobowolf]

Or any big club

[jdonn]

I wish you hadn't posted the full hand yet because no WAY do I pass! ATxx of spades in partner's hand is already extremely close to slam, probably would just need a club lead. Sure I prefer to be disciplined as much as anyone, but this just needs too little, definitely less than partner would have cooperated with.

[xcurt]

Second the thought about not posting the full hand so fast.

Agree with more bidding from us. Partner has small diamonds and may only have small hearts. He's very unlikely to cooperate since he rates to have no prime red feature and he won't have enough highcard to go with takeover Blackwood.

[skjaeran]

Agree that the full hand was presented far too early. Remember there are posters here from around the globe.

Passing 4♠ almost wouldn't occur to me with this hand. Sure, the 5-level MIGHT be too high, but that's pretty remote. And we still might even might have a grand on (OK, that IS remote). Passing is an extremely pessimistic view, I'd give partner another chance with 5♣. If partner signs off again I'm passing, but any sign of life from him gets us to slam.

[kenrexford]

Quote

The more hands like I see like this, the more I like playing an unbalanced 1♦, where 2N is a strong spade raise.

I like a balanced diamond opening, also. But, this is REALLY strong. It is hard to catch up even when spade is set.

Quote

Or any big club

I also think other methods handle this deal better. For my part:

2♦ (Strong, forcing, artificial, with 4+ spades)
2NT (GF, spade support, better than minimum)
3♥ (hearts plus spades -- focuses the hearts because Responder wants to hear about the heart King or Queen but has no need for diamond cues)
3♠ (spade honor -- must be the Ace)
3NT (serious)
4♣ (club control)
4♦ (diamond control)
4♥ (heart King or Queen)

At this point, Responder has placed the king of Clubs on the table as his worst possible club control, the heart Queen as his worst possible heart card, and the spade Ace on the table. That's probably good enough to enter the five-level. I like this sequence because of the focus on the heart Queen.

An alternative continuation that might be better on other auctions:

2♦ (same)
2NT (same)
3♣ (non-committal cue -- says nothing about clubs)
3♠ (no diamond 1st/2nd round control, no heart 1st/2nd round control, one of the top three spades (obviously the King)
3NT (serious, with control of both minors)
4♣ (club control)
4♦ (diamonds really controlled well)
4♥ (third-round heart control)

This tells less (at least less concrete information) on this hand, but it enables an occasional splinter (4♥) by Responder, which would be nice. As a non-minimum splinter, if it occurred, Opener would be entitled to expect the spade Ace and at least the KQ in clubs. Opener on this deal, however, would have to use a bit of inference to realize that simply xx in hearts, spade Ace, and club King would be insufficient (would bid 3♥ as a high-end minimum raise over 2♦), hence that some other card exists out there or that the club control is the Ace. Worst case is KQ in clubs, doubleton heart, spade Ace, which is not the end of the world.

[Rossoneri]

I'm not really convinced by 4♣, but I guess now 5♣ with 1 more push should be best.