[maggieb]

White against red at IMPs, south deals.

♠AJxxx
♥A
♦A9xx
♣Jxx

♠-
♥KTxx
♦QJTxx
♣ATxx

With the opponents silent the auction went:

1D 1S
2C 2H (fourth suit forcing to game)
3H 4D
4H 4S
5C 6D

As the cards lie 6D can be made but south went down one. Are there one or more bids that you strongly disagree with?

[mike777]

As a nonexpert here is my take. Granted I see both hands so biased.

1) I assume one diamond is a partnership opening bid in your style. If not EASY PASS.
2) therefore:
1d=1s
2c=2h
3h=4d
5d(slow down)


North shows short hearts and South has short spades.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the only problem I have with the auction is,
that opener did not really limit his hand in
the auction.

I cant critisice any paricular bid, maybe the 4H
cue, but since opener is playing, Kxxx is a cue.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rogerclee]

Don't like 5♣. Having failed to limit my hand with my first four bids, it seems time to stop stretching this 10-count now.

[rbforster]

I would have stopped with 5♦ instead of 4♥. It's a marginal opener already, and with shortness opposite partner's spades, there's no reason to upgrade.

[Hanoi5]

Do not open 1♦. Make your contracts (I guess the diamond finesse was working).

[y66]

If our agreements let us sign off in game with a minimum for our bidding so far, even when we can bid a control on the way, then 5C does seem to cast an overly "rosy glow".

But I would not fault my partner for bidding 5C there.

[whereagles]

Unless you have clear agreements on how to show extras while cuebidding, everything seems normal.

[Edmunte1]

1. Pass or 1♦, close. South was afraid that maybe he won't have a second chance of entering the bidding (i doubt that due to vulnerability), or maybe that a later bid won't express such a big playing potential.
2. All other bids up to 4♦ are forced by the methods. After that both players should try to put some breaks. South succeeded in expressing his shape, and now his low number of controls (3) and minimum strength should make him push the 5♦ break. Anyway, if partner has the right nuts probably he'll push forward.
3. North is guilty too. He has minimum values for slam, and just noticed that his spades are not working. He has good holdings in ♦+♥, but Jxx in clubs means that partner needs a lot of points here. He should have constructed some average hands according with partner's bidding, and would have realised that slam chances are pretty bad. 4♠ is a real bad bid, 5♦ would have been a much better one.
4. It seems that both players have problems in evaluating slam hands. Thus i consider both 50% guilty.

[helene_t]

South needs to limit his hand at some point. I would sign off in 5♦ after 4♦. Otherwise, sign off after 4♠.

Even better (maybe), agree on a way to show a minimum holding in response to FSF?

[han]

helene_t, on Dec 7 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

South needs to limit his hand at some point.

Agree, you opened a 10-count and more or less showed your distribution, fine. But then when partner shows slam interest you have to find a way to show you are minimal. I assume that you could have been 1444 so when partner bids 4S it seems like a good time to sign off. But maybe 4H was already too much.

By the way, with Arend I would now play that 5C just shows extras, like last train, and does not promise a club control. Seems like a good agreement for this hand.

[Winstonm]

Quote

By the way, with Arend I would now play that 5C just shows extras, like last train, and does not promise a club control. Seems like a good agreement for this hand.

Han,

Not to whip a dead horse too badly, but it seems to me this is only another example of the innacuracies that occur when opening hand range is rather wide.

I also find it odd that a "good solution" is a bid at the 5-level that neither confirms nor denies a control.

[keylime]

I'm not a fan of 4D here. Once you know practically the entire hand, your length in spades is going to be a problem. Additionally, the slow cards in clubs may get me to 3NT versus 5D here.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 7 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Quote

By the way, with Arend I would now play that 5C just shows extras, like last train, and does not promise a club control. Seems like a good agreement for this hand.

Han,

Not to whip a dead horse too badly, but it seems to me this is only another example of the innacuracies that occur when opening hand range is rather wide.

I also find it odd that a "good solution" is a bid at the 5-level that neither confirms nor denies a control.

I didn't bid these hands. Apparently maggieb or her partner likes to open light on shapely hand and while I would not have opened this hand, I think there is little point to strongly objecting to the opening bid. Surely they know 1D was pushing it in standard bridge.

Once south opens, 2C and 3H are obvious. Once opener shows slam interest with 4D south should at some point show that the hand is minimal. Either a direct 5D or 4H followed by 5D are ok with me (I think I prefer a direct 5D now).

If you don't play the last train gadget then 4H followed by 5D would really suggest a lack in club control so actually not having it defined as such would be helpful on this hand. It is possible I missed your point.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I didn't bid these hands. Apparently maggieb or her partner likes to open light on shapely hand and while I would not have opened this hand, I think there is little point to strongly objecting to the opening bid. Surely they know 1D was pushing it in standard bridge.

Agree 100%

Quote

Once south opens, 2C and 3H are obvious. Once opener shows slam interest with 4D south should at some point show that the hand is minimal. Either a direct 5D or 4H followed by 5D are ok with me (I think I prefer a direct 5D now).

I think a direct 5D is weaker and thus correct.

Quote

If you don't play the last train gadget then 4H followed by 5D would really suggest a lack in club control so actually not having it defined as such would be helpful on this hand. It is possible I missed your point.

No real point - I only thought it odd that one would need a 5-level "last train" type bid. I don't know but it seems a little late by the time you are all the way to that bidding level?

[han]

Isn't it very common that the very last bid before game is used as last train? I'd say the name suggests as much. If you're interested I can post some hands when it comes up.

[Winstonm]

han, on Dec 7 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

Isn't it very common that the very last bid before game is used as last train? I'd say the name suggests as much. If you're interested I can post some hands when it comes up.

No, but thanks, Han. I always thought Last Train was a principle created by Eric Rodwell to aid in major suit slam bidding - because it is a principle, it could be extended to minor suits at the 5-level but it seems less useful there - at least to me.

Again, to each his own.

[benlessard]

Both 5C and 6D are overbid. he know partner K of H is wasted and he already made 1 cuebid 3 ace is nice but its still minimum in the context of forcing to 5D.

Also even if some wont like to make a splinter with a stiff H I think 3H/4H might be a better bid than 2H, facing a minimum hand or a hand with H waste slam seems a bit unlikely.