[mikeh]

You hold x xxx Jxx KQ10xxx

You deal, white v red at imps, VP Flt 'A' Regional Swiss, still in contention after the previous match, due in part to the swing you gained on the hand I posted earlier. Strong player on your left, playing pro with client on your right. For what little benefit this affords you, since none of you has played with me, I am your partner.

You used to be a regular partner of mine, but that was 15 years ago... this is only your second game with me since then.

P (P) 1♦ (x) 2♣ (P) 5♣ (5♠) your call.

[JLOL]

If partner has like solid diamonds, the CA, and a stiff heart then 6C is very cheap. But if I pass I expect partner to bid with that hand. Pass.

[Phil]

JLOL, on Apr 20 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

If partner has like solid diamonds, the CA, and a stiff heart then 6C is very cheap. But if I pass I expect partner to bid with that hand. Pass.

I'll bid 6♣.

Pard might think his ♦AKQxx is going to produce a defensive trick (or two). We haven't exactly denied a defensive trick with 2♣, and our hand is very offensive.

I doubt pard will ever bid 6♣ here after he bids 5♣.

6♣ looks really cheap; -100 or -300. 5♠ looks like a lock from over here.


PS, 6 over 5 is the new 5 over 5

[jdonn]

I think the diamond length and how pure the hand is make it close. I'm going to cop out by not answering, then when I find out what would have worked I'll say I would have done that.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

I think the diamond length and how pure the hand is make it close. I'm going to cop out by not answering, then when I find out what would have worked I'll say I would have done that.

I'm not going to post the hand until you answer!

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Apr 20 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

I think the diamond length and how pure the hand is make it close. I'm going to cop out by not answering, then when I find out what would have worked I'll say I would have done that.

I'm not going to post the hand until you answer!

Well now that I think about it my answer is easy. First seat w/r and I didn't open 3♣??

TY for making me a passed hand so I could say that, since I still don't know what to do if I weren't.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 20 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

I think the diamond length and how pure the hand is make it close. I'm going to cop out by not answering, then when I find out what would have worked I'll say I would have done that.

I'm not going to post the hand until you answer!

Well now that I think about it my answer is easy. First seat w/r and I didn't open 3♣??

TY for making me a passed hand so I could say that, since I still don't know what to do if I weren't.

That's still not an answer! You wanted to open 3♣ but someone stole that card from the bidding box, and you thought that this was some part of the intelligent design of the universe, intended to make you pass. Who are you to argue against such forces? So here you are, as fate ordained (apparently). Now what?

[gnasher]

Did partner know that my 3♣ card had been stolen too? If not, he bid 5♣ expecting me to have a less offensive hand than I actually have, so 6♣ becomes more attractive

[Codo]

6 Club, what do I know.

[se12sam]

JLOL, on Apr 20 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

If partner has like solid diamonds, the CA, and a stiff heart then 6C is very cheap. But if I pass I expect partner to bid with that hand. Pass.

I'm going to attempt something which is probably wrong altogether. So please bear with me.

My (warped?) thought process begins with the comment from Justin. If partner does have such a hand, then the pro is left with something like    ♠AKQJxxx ♥AKQx ♦x ♣x

Would he (instead of doubling 1♦) try 4NT as Ace-ask? Is 4NT available with this meaning in such situations? If he was dealer, would you try 4NT ace asking as an opening (i.e. only interested in Aces)? After all, opposite an ace, the pro can have his slam and there is no other scientific way to check this

In addition to ♠xx ♥x ♦AKQTxxx ♣Axx as suggested by Justin, these are also possible hands for partner:
1. ♠Ax ♥x ♦AKQTxxx ♣Jxx
2. ♠xx ♥A ♦AKQTxxx ♣Jxx

I think there are more hands where declarer will make <11 tricks (given that he never tried for slam) than where he has a cold 11 tricks.

Justin's probably spot on with his suggested action -- Pass. And lead a heart?

[whereagles]

I'll bid 6♣ because I don't think mike, a constructive bidder, would have bid 5♣ without at least 4 clubs and a weakish hand. That gives him 5-4 (perhaps 6-4) in the minors and opps are probably cold for 5. Prefer to take insurance rather than gamble 5♠ goes down.

By the way mike, this that old pard you played wth for many, many years?

[joker_gib]

JLOL, on Apr 20 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

If partner has like solid diamonds, the CA, and a stiff heart then 6C is very cheap. But if I pass I expect partner to bid with that hand. Pass.

Tough, tough !


I like the approach of Justin and I think I will pass too. Partner has pushed the opps into a guess, this is enough for me...

[mikeh]

This was playing with an old friend... in the sense that we have been friends for 36 years.. and were bridge partners for a number of years, ending in 1994. Our first game in 15 years.

My thoughts, biased by the result, was that 5♣ suggested a very offensive hand... and that the pro would not be likely to bid red v white 5♠ without an expectation of a play to make...

My partner resorted to the old adage that the 5-level belongs to the opps, while my thought was that the appropriate adage would have been when in doubt bid one more.

There is the risk that if partner has the weak, shapely hand the auction suggests, then maybe they can make slam.. but if you bid 6♣, partner will assume you have zero defence and can decide whether to save over 6♠.... 7♣ rates to win imps against a vulnerable game.

Partner (me) held x x AQ10xxxx AJxx; my LHO AKQJxxxx AKQ K x

My problem over 5♠ was that partner might have held something like x Qxx xxx KQxxxx.... i.e. a side defensive trick.

This was not a hand I got worked up over; I think the decision is close. And maybe the 'fault', such as there is, is shared.

[se12sam]

mikeh, on Apr 21 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Partner (me) held x x AQ10xxxx AJxx; my LHO AKQJxxxx AKQ K x

I honestly think that if I ever held this hand, I would bid 4NT as ace - asking. I think some similar hand was discussed on www.stacyjacobs.com where an opening bid of 4NT as specific ace-asking was suggested (cardsharp will recall the actual link)

On this deal, the 1♦ opening by RHO changes little for the pro's hand, as far as the principle behind 4NT is concerned. The pro's partner bids 5♦ with ♦A, 6♣ holding ♣A, 5NT in the unlikely event he holds both aces, and 5♣ with no aces.

And the pro can place the contract.

[mikeh]

se12sam, on Apr 21 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 21 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Partner (me) held x x AQ10xxxx AJxx; my LHO AKQJxxxx AKQ K x

I honestly think that if I ever held this hand, I would bid 4NT as ace - asking. I think some similar hand was discussed on www.stacyjacobs.com where an opening bid of 4NT as specific ace-asking was suggested (cardsharp will recall the actual link)

On this deal, the 1♦ opening by RHO changes little for the pro's hand, as far as the principle behind 4NT is concerned. The pro's partner bids 5♦ with ♦A, 6♣ holding ♣A, 5NT in the unlikely event he holds both aces, and 5♣ with no aces.

And the pro can place the contract.

I would be very surprised if the pro and his client had the agreement that 4N over 1♦ was ace asking, and absent such a specific agreement, I fail to see how or why one should risk that bid. Surely double and, if partner bids, say, 1♥, or if you can ever get him, via later actions, to bid ♥s, then ace asking, is better.. after all, you can't get confused about the heart K

Winging a 4N, on the basis that 'partner should guess what I mean' is not the way to play bridge even if you are an amateur... to do it as pro playing with client is very bad...for your at the table result and for your hopes of getting hired again.

[Apollo81]

I'd have passed.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Apr 21 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

There is the risk that if partner has the weak, shapely hand the auction suggests, then maybe they can make slam.. but if you bid 6♣, partner will assume you have zero defence and can decide whether to save over 6♠.... 7♣ rates to win imps against a vulnerable game.

I was actually more worried of that than opps going down in 5♠

Still, I don't think there's much blame here. Bridge is, and will be, a guessing game.

Hope you enjoyed the game with this pard. You seemed to be very fond of him the other thread.

[gwnn]

Mike you mixed up my left with your left in your first post so it appeared originally as though the noob bid 5♠, that might have been a factor for some responders (noobs' 5♠ bids are not to be taken seriously)