[jdonn]

mikeh, on Feb 5 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

I am not especially interested in suggesting 6N. Given my spade honours, partner rates to hold a 6 card suit most of the time, and AK10xx when he holds 5.. and so the possibility of ruffing a diamond for the extra trick is simply too high to stay out of the suit contract.

I'm a bit worried about the possibility of a heart ruff against 6♠, or spades breaking 5-1 (I don't see why partner rates to hold the ten). I mean certainly if you knew you had 12 running tricks you would want to play notrump not spades.

Actually that's why I think it makes sense to bid 5♠ if you're inviting (so of the view that you may not quite have enough tricks) but to offer 6NT via 5NT then 6♠ if you're slam forcing (so you believe there are enough tricks for slam.) It just depends on what you expect for a 2♣ opener.

A sidenote this hand reminds me of is that I find it interesting that the people I see who are so reluctant to open 2♣ on two-suited hands or hands where it's close are often the same people who don't seem to be particularly aggressive when their partners open 2♣. I'm not referring to anyone in particular but I have definitely noticed that a few times.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Feb 5 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 5 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

Can you please show me a hand for partner where 5♠ is "hopeless"? It's hard enough for me to even think of one that is any worse than making unless a suit breaks 5-1, or something like that.

Okay, I was "a little" to fresh with that comment. But thrumphs are sometimes 5-1.

[fred]

I am somewhat surprised that nobody mentioned (or at least I didn't notice anyone mention) bidding 3S instead of 3C.

IMO that would have been a good bid (though I wouldn't quite go as far as to consider 3C a bad bid).

Given the way that the auction has actually developed, I think this is a close call between 5S and 6S. Whatever you do now is obviously largely dependent on what you would expect your partner to have for this sequence in light of the fact that you are looking at the Queen-Jack of spades.

As you may have guessed from the font, I think the part in bold is interesting. That is because your spade holding means that you know more about partner's hand (specifically that he doesn't have a marginal 2C opener with only 5 spades) than you normally would know when the auction goes this way. Also, so far there is no way that partner can know that you know this, but if part of the message of 5S is "my doubleton spade is VERY strong" then bidding 5S will tell him that you already know he has a sound 2C opener. I do think it makes sense that this is part of what 5S is all about - with a lesser doubleton in spades you might choose 4NT (or something else) as your slam try.

Even if you don't buy the part about 5S suggesting a very strong doubleton spade, let's assume it is true (because it leads to something interesting). Now suppose you bid 5S. Now partner knows that you know that he does not have a marginal 2C opener. Is he supposed to take that information into account in deciding what to do over 5S?

Before you answer that, keep in mind that he knows that you know that he knows that you know that he has a sound 2C opening

Perhaps the answer is you should just bid 6S yourself.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

PS The above post was not really meant to be taken seriously and it may not make any sense at all. Please keep that in mind before you spend a great of time twisting your brain in knots thinking about this!

[JLOL]

I know this is not for everyone, but I would still expect partner to open 2C with almost all 5422/5431 22 counts even with AKxxx of spades. Some 5422s would rebid 2N but I think most should rebid 2S. I used to think you should not do this but now I think it just becomes too hard to catch up later if you open 1S. Also partner can still be 55 on this auction.

So basically I think his minimum is not affected THAT much overall. Re responders second bid, I think I like 3C followed by bidding spades strongly because it paints a good picture of our hand and also gives partner more room on his third bid (he might bid 3H on a good day heh). Sometimes our missing 3rd trump is quite important to partner, and also sometimes our 5 card suit is important. The downside to bidding Axxxx in an auction like this is obviously that partner might misevaluate his own holding though, so I think starting with 3S is quite reasonable also.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Feb 5 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 5 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

Can you please show me a hand for partner where 5♠ is "hopeless"? It's hard enough for me to even think of one that is any worse than making unless a suit breaks 5-1, or something like that.

gnasher will accuse me of thread-hijacking if I tell you what happened at the other table.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 6 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

gnasher will accuse me of thread-hijacking if I tell you what happened at the other table.

No, go ahead. I think the world needs to know.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Feb 6 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Feb 6 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

gnasher will accuse me of thread-hijacking if I tell you what happened at the other table.

No, go ahead. I think the world needs to know.

At the other table the auction was

2C 2D
2S 3C
3NT 5S
P

one off
trumps are not 5-1 (or 6-0)
it wasn't very well played, but it's definitely a worse contract than some of the alternatives.

[jdonn]

Come on, full hand please.

[Old York]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 5 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

whether you invite or drive slam depends a bit on your style of 2C opening. If partner likes to open hands at the 1-level unless he has a serious monster

Is this unauthorized information, which you should avoid using? You should not include partnership style as part of your system?

I like the auction

2♣-3♣
3♠-4♠
4NT?

but I am old fashioned

Tony

[FrancesHinden]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Feb 5 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

whether you invite or drive slam depends a bit on your style of 2C opening.  If partner likes to open hands at the 1-level unless he has a serious monster

Is this unauthorized information, which you should avoid using? You should not include partnership style as part of your system?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Of course partnership style authorised information. It's one of the advantages of being in a practised partnership that you know how your partner likes to bid particular hands, how much he needs to open 2C, how aggressive he is in the slam zone, etc.

If the opponents ask you about it, you will of course tell them.

There is a bit in one of the English regulations that says partnership style is not part of your 'system'. That is in the context where you are not allowed to have each member of the partnership playing a different system e.g. the man playing 12-16 1NT opening and the woman 19-20 1NT opening.

[Old York]

maybe I am just tooooo English. lol

Seriously tho, I try not to read my partner's mind in situations like this. If partner chooses to open 2♣ it is safer to assume that he has his bid.

Tony

[H_KARLUK]

Say, something dealt :

Scoring: IMP

---

2♣     2♦
2♠     3♣
3♦     3♠
3NT     ?

Then what would be the best contract ?

Thanks!

[mike777]

H_KARLUK, on Feb 7 2009, 12:58 AM, said:

Say, something dealt :

Scoring: IMP

---

2♣     2♦
2♠     3♣
3♦     3♠
3NT     ?

Then what would be the best contract ?

Thanks!

I end up in 4nt




I open 2c more than most here in forum but one spade for me so:


1s=1nt
4nt=p

[Phil]

H_KARLUK, on Feb 7 2009, 12:58 AM, said:

Say, something dealt :

Scoring: IMP

---

2♣     2♦
2♠     3♣
3♦     3♠
3NT     ?

Then what would be the best contract ?

Thanks!

Wow, no 10's and one 9. Quite generous of you.

[JLOL]

[jdonn]

Phil, on Feb 7 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

Wow, no 10's and one 9. Quite generous of you.

And a complete minimum. And all 3 finesses losing. And no suit breaking well. And all 3 of partner's bids questionable.

Btw, what 9? I guess you meant no 10s and no 9s and one 8.

[H_KARLUK]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 7 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

Wow, no 10's and one 9. Quite generous of you.

And a complete minimum. And all 3 finesses losing. And no suit breaking well. And all 3 of partner's bids questionable.

Btw, what 9? I guess you meant no 10s and no 9s and one 8.

Do you mind defense have 9 HCP with 3 ten vs 31HCP? I do not interest with NT slams when 3 finesses needed. If all were favorably then what would be problem?
That's why i bid pass to posted question and tried to present such a layout. 4th round 2♣ bidder's 3NT quite unusual when responder showed interest with 2 suits. I believe th captaincy turned to opener, so pass normal.

Meanwhile I still could not get why responder's heart suit never mentioned.

If you have a layout suitable to given auction I would like to see it.

[rogerclee]

[jdonn]

H_KARLUK, on Feb 7 2009, 05:16 AM, said:

If you have a layout suitable to given auction I would like to see it.

AKxxx AKx AKQx J for partner. Just a little better than 3 finesses....

[H_KARLUK]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Feb 7 2009, 05:16 AM, said:

If you have a layout suitable to given auction I would like to see it.

AKxxx AKx AKQx J for partner. Just a little better than 3 finesses....

Well, if you believe with such a deal 4th round 3NT is quite normal I have no words sorry.

But thanks you honestly told your idea.

2♣ 2♦
2♠ 3♣
3♦ 3♠
3NT ?