[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

(2♦)-2♠-(4♦)-Dbl
(P)-4♠-(P)-?

---

Edited because I figure everyone agrees with double.
Worth any more?

[mike777]

DBL

[helene_t]

yeah double, ideal hand.

[MarkDean]

Agree with double, now I pass.

[Fluffy]

I count only 4 key cards missing: ♠AQ, ♦A and ♣A. ♥K and or ♣Q might fall or be onside, and I do not worry too much of them.

Asking partner to hold 3 keycards is not much, I would try 4NT.

[whereagles]

My feeling tells me to pass.

I've been wrong before, though. (Not usual, but... LOL)

[benlessard]

4Nt keyc seems clear, partner with a minimum and D wastage would have passed 4D. So he has extras or no D waste so the 5 level is pretty safe.

[jdonn]

Passing is obvious to me. We were under pressure, the breaks might be bad, and I won't try to be a hero when we were forced to guess. I don't deny slam could be on though.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Passing is obvious to me. We were under pressure, the breaks might be bad, and I won't try to be a hero when we were forced to guess. I don't deny slam could be on though.

agree

[mikeh]

Who says weak 2♦ openings don't preempt enough? I just hope our teammates play it as well, otherwise our counterparts are going to have a free run.

I think this one is very, very close... as little as AQJxxx Jx xx Axx makes slam excellent, on the auction. As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

Any move has, I think, to be via keycard... and this raises two quesions:

1. Are we safe at the 5-level, and

2. Will the answer to keycard tell us what we need to know?

Unless both questions can be answered in the affirmative, I think keycard is too much.

Partner surely has 2 Aces for his overcall. AQ9xxx xx xx Axx is about as bad a hand as I can construct for a 2♠ bid.... this hand is not entirely risk free at the 5-level, but it will usually come home...so it meets the first test.

However, I wouldn't want to be in slam opposite that hand, and keycard won't tell me whether he has that hand or, say, AQJxxx Kx xx Axx...

So I reject the move via keycard, and, frankly, can't think of any other effective way forward. I reluctantly pass. My thinking, at its root, echoes josh's.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

... unless you play it in clubs

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Who says weak 2♦ openings don't preempt enough?

Agree, weak 2♦ opening is one of my favorite bids when I'm not playing Precision.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

... unless you play it in clubs

yes... of course... but I can't think of any way to accomplish that feat... can you?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

... unless you play it in clubs

yes... of course... but I can't think of any way to accomplish that feat... can you?

You could bid 5NT and pass partner's 6♣ bid. You've said yourself that you expect partner to have two aces. If one accepts that, there's no pressing need to bid RKCB. This route - double then 5NT - probably suggests some spade support: with only the round suits, you could have bid 5NT over 4♦.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-January-07, 11:39

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jan 7 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

... unless you play it in clubs

yes... of course... but I can't think of any way to accomplish that feat... can you?

You could bid 5NT and pass partner's 6♣ bid. You've said yourself that you expect partner to have two aces. If one accepts that, there's no pressing need to bid RKCB. This route - double then 5NT - probably suggests some spade support: with only the round suits, you could have bid 5NT over 4♦.

I don't agree that spade support is implied since a similar hand that is (say) 1525 might double first since it is quite happy to see partner pass the double. I do think the observation that clubs might be better is very good, and wouldn't have occured to me. I'm not sold on 5NT though, partner might also choose clubs with like AQJxxx Kx xx Axx when we would rather play in spades. But perhaps even on that we would rather play 6♣ than 4♠, so maybe 5NT is a very good bid.

The real problem is that we could simply be off 2 aces, especially if partner has 7 spades.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Jan 7 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As much as AJ9xxx Kx xx AQx makes it poor.

... unless you play it in clubs

yes... of course... but I can't think of any way to accomplish that feat... can you?

You could bid 5NT and pass partner's 6♣ bid. You've said yourself that you expect partner to have two aces. If one accepts that, there's no pressing need to bid RKCB. This route - double then 5NT - probably suggests some spade support: with only the round suits, you could have bid 5NT over 4♦.

I'm not entirely sold on the argument about the meaning of 5N over 4♦. Admittedly, choice of slams is one use, and arguably the best.. but gsf is the more traditional meaning.. yes, I know that most hands suitable for GSF have other ways to bid. I also know that suggesting freakish hands to 'justify' an interpretation is a weak argument... but Qxxx AKQJxxxx Ax void.... opposite either KJ10xxx xx x AKQx or AKJxxx xx x KJxx... how do we get to grand on the first and not on the second?

I am not suggesting that 5N SHOULD be GSF..only that it MIGHT be taken as such and that such a usage is not so silly as to be 'impossible'.

If that is a fair argument, then the underlying rationale, that the delayed 5N promises spade support, is no longer valid.

OTOH, the only time that it may matter is if partner has something like AJ9xxx Jxx xx Ax and he now picks 6♥.. not a hopeless contract, even then.. and that is a filthy overcall (even if the type that we all make now and then)

So I like the idea of 5N... altho it does commit to slam opposite that example and many others, such as AJxxxx Kx xx Axx where we need our fair share of luck, and maybe a little more.

I still pass 4♠.. but agree that there was more to the hand than I originally saw.

[skjaeran]

Several very good posts in this thread.

After reading them, it's between pass and 5NT for me - frankly I doubt I'd have found 5NT at the table. But I'm chickening out anyway, and pass.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

Who says weak 2♦ openings don't preempt enough?

I dunno who says that, but he's certainly wrong

I even went as far as freeing up 2♣ in my system for a weak 2