[xcurt]

OK, so you are playing XIMPS with a pickup expert on BBO and your agreements are "sayc." Of course, you immediately get a hand where this "system" leaves you, well, screwed.

Vul vs not, you deal, opponents don't bid.

♠AQxxx, ♥AKQ, ♦xx, ♣Kxx.

1♠-2♥ (no idea how "forcing" this is)
?

Let's say you aren't confident 3♥ won't be passed, and 4♥ is just wimpy, and Blackwood, well, when is the Blacke ever the solution, so you temporize with 3♣ (this is what I did).

1♠-2♥ (no idea how "forcing" this is)
3♣-5♣ ???!!???
?

What now?

[Mbodell]

For some reason I can't figure out, I'm really tempted to make the crazy, stupid, creative 5♦ cue hoping to discourage a diamond lead. But since that is bad I think I just bid 6♥. Anything between 10 and 13 tricks in hearts seems possible, so why bet on exactly 11?

[mike777]

Prefer just bidding rkc in this given situation over 2h. I am going to win or lose in the play/defense anyway.

[jillybean]

3♥ the first time. Its bad for your game if you bid to compensate for your partner’s shortcomings!

[hotShot]

I really don't like 3♣ because it shows a distribution you don't have.
Don't blame partner if he bids a slam/grand based on your obvious ♦ single and/or ♣ length. Your 3♣ bid also devalues your partners 5♣ answer (we might not even have a fit), but he must be short in ♠ (no support) and unbalanced (since he did not try 3NT). He can't have much values in ♠ (no cards) or ♥, so there have to be values in the minors.
You will have to bid 6♥ now.

[Fluffy]

6♥ picturing my ♦ shortness

[whereagles]

The practical bid over 2♥ is 4NT. After 5♣, I guess 6♥.

[mtvesuvius]

Fluffy, on Feb 1 2009, 05:06 AM, said:

6♥ picturing my ♦ shortness

Ditto. Remember your hand as AQxxx AKQx x Kxx . 6♥ for me.

[xcurt]

Followup:

So I figured partner couldn't have any worse than ♦A, ♣AQxxx (which is the point of the first part of this thread -- nobody knows what a 2/1 promises in SAYC). If partner had more lower diamond honors or worse clubs I would have expected him to bid 3NT not raise clubs.

I was pretty close, partner had ♠-, ♥8xxxx, ♦AKx, ♣AJTxx.

Trumps are 3-2, so 6♥ is a nice spot. Problem is, I bid an animal 7♥ over 5♣. You get a lowish spade spot lead against 7♥. Plan the play.

---

[rogerclee]

xcurt, on Feb 1 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Followup:

So I figured partner couldn't have any worse than ♦A, ♣AQxxx (which is the point of the first part of this thread -- nobody knows what a 2/1 promises in SAYC). If partner had more lower diamond honors or worse clubs I would have expected him to bid 3NT not raise clubs.

I was pretty close, partner had ♠-, ♥8xxxx, ♦AKx, ♣AJTxx.

Trumps are 3-2, so 6♥ is a nice spot. Problem is, I bid an animal 7♥ over 5♣. You get a lowish spade spot lead against 7♥. Plan the play.

---

I'm not a genius, I'm just going to win in dummy, draw trumps, and play a club to my J.

[Winstonm]

I'm going to consider using my winnings from this hand to buy a book on bidding.

[Fluffy]

After consifering some dummy reversal & squeezes I can see nothing better than roger's line. You can tr ♠Q at trick 1 almost for free though.

[xcurt]

rogerclee, on Feb 1 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

xcurt, on Feb 1 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Followup:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AQxxx ♥ AKQ ♦ xx ♣ Kxx ♠   ♥ 8xxxx ♦ AKx ♣ AJTxx

I'm not a genius, I'm just going to win in dummy, draw trumps, and play a club to my J.

This works. Drawing trumps, ruffing a spade, and playing a club to the king and then to the jack does not work, however, since clubs were onside 4-1 (which is the point of the play problem -- 4-1 onside is more likely than 4 small onside and stiff Q offside).