[Hanoi5]

Scoring: IMP

---

At a table N/S reached 6♥, at the other they played 4♠. I think this is definitely bad luck, how about you?

[mikeh]

I don't see how reaching 6♥ can be described as bad luck... bad bidding is closer to the truth.

As for missing 6♠... well, the slam is a fraction over 50% I think.... makes on the heart Q onside unless there is a first round ruff coming on the lead (so less than 50% there) plus a 4-1 break with the stiff Queen offside (takes it back over 50% by a smidgeon).

It's one of those hands where missing slam is not terrible... play the hand 1000 times, randomizing the opps' cards, and missing the slam probably costs only a few imps.

As for reaching it.... I don't know... N opens 1♠ and south makes a 4 card constructive raise (if played) and now N is kind of stuck.... he can eventually force a heart cue from South, but why should he play S for Kx or KQ(x)? he will know he is off the diamond Ace and he can't find out if hearts offer any play whatsoever.... imagine S with Kxx in hearts... no lie of the cards allows the slam.

So, no, I don't think missing slam is 'lucky' in the sense of poor bidding being rewarded when slam fails.

[kenrexford]

6♠ is a good contract. I can't get to 6♥.

[jdonn]

I can't stop at 4 when south makes a limit raise. Nor do I want to.

[hanp]

limit raise?

[jdonn]

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

limit raise?

Yeah, one of those things you make of 1♠ when you hold Txxx KJx Kx Q98x.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 3 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

limit raise?

Yeah, one of those things you make of 1♠ when you hold Txxx KJx Kx Q98x.

This is quite borderline for the limit-or-mixed question.

For me, I'd respond 3♣, an artificial raise showing:

1. 9-10 with 4-fit
2. 11-12 with 4-fit
3. low-end splinter

Partner can bid 3♦, asking:

1. 3♥ = 9-10
2. 3♠ = splinter (3NT asks for stiff)
3. 3NT = control-high 11-12
4. 4M = control-low 11-12
5. 4 of a new suit = 11-12 picture bid (COV in this suit and trumps, no stiffs)

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jun 3 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

limit raise?

Yeah, one of those things you make of 1♠ when you hold Txxx KJx Kx Q98x.

Josh it's clearly a Rexford Mixit...or Lixed..or Lixed-it raise.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jun 3 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I can't stop at 4 when south makes a limit raise. Nor do I want to.

I think this responding hand is a classic constructive raise, not a limit... nothing special in shape, no Aces, scattered values... if one plays any form of Bergen, in which the range for a 4 card constructive raise is 7-9 or 6-9, surely this is that hand? I do think that a limit is an overbid... but this may go to one's philosophy...mine is invite heavy (ish) and accept unless on has a reason not to do so... and this approach makes a limit raise too rich for me.

After a constructive raise, N may guess to bid slam or guess to play 5♠... I don't see how he can reliably know which is better.

[jdonn]

I have made the cardinal error of assuming we play limit raises and not assuming we play constructive or bergen raises.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jun 3 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

I have made the cardinal error of assuming we play limit raises and not assuming we play constructive or bergen raises.

I wouldn't make a limit raise even if we didn't play constructive... altho it is very close.

[skjaeran]

Playing Bergen (or something similar), it's easy to bid the south hand.

If not, I think it's very close between a limit raise and a constructive raise, probably closer to the latter. But at the table my mood would be the deciding factor.

[kenrexford]

Phil, on Jun 3 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 3 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 3 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

limit raise?

Yeah, one of those things you make of 1♠ when you hold Txxx KJx Kx Q98x.

Josh it's clearly a Rexford Mixit...or Lixed..or Lixed-it raise.

Actually, it's a Blixen Raise. That's a cross between a Vixen and Blitzen.

[Cascade]

On a good day I get to 5♠ - that is lucky.

On a bad day I get to 6♠ - that is bad luck.

I don't mind being in 6♠ with these cards.

6♥ is far inferior to 6♠.

1♠ 2NT
4♣ 4♦
4♥ 4♠
5♦ 5♥
5♠ ?

2NT Balanced raise

4♣ void

4♦ 1st/2nd cue

4♥ 1st/2nd cue

4♠ minimum (without significant improvement)

5♦ Another try needing something extra

5♥ 1st/2nd

5♠ I need something more - third round control of hearts or ♦A

Hopefully then PASS.

North might get optimistic and bid 6♠.

In the end 6♠ is a little better than 50%.

[kenrexford]

Kind of a funny deal, in a bizarro world. Here's a possible story.

Opener starts 1♠. Responder bids 3♣ as a Bergen-ish spade raise, 4+ spades and 9+ HCP.

Opener now wants to show his two-suiter by bidding hearts. But, whether he gets jumbled up thinking 3♣ was 3♠ or thinks a jump is natural, or whatever, he bids 4♥. No alert, because the bid is in the second round and is above 3NT. So, no U.I. problems.

Responder is of course not interested and bids 4♠.

North realizes what has happened and also realizes that partner's signoff suggests heart values. So, he has a problem. But, because he has the heart Ace, he can use Exclusion if he wants. 5♣ would normally be Exclusion, so it now might be taken as Double Exclusion, he thinks.

Responder, not expecting "Double Exclusion RKCB," thinks 5♣ is just a cue. Not knowing why this should be interesting either, he signs off at 5♠.

Opener takes this, however, for what is should be. With "Double Exclusion RKCB, you answer sort of 6KCB-style. So, Opener thinks that Responder must have the diamond A-K (two without the Queen). Add to that some heart cards, and a grand is definitely possible. He needs to know how good or how short Responder's hearts are.

Now, things could go bad if he bids 6♥ as an asking bid in hearts, as few do this with a void. But, maybe partner should actually have taken 5♣ as a bid that shows a void in clubs and 4♥ as a stiff, something like 6-1-6-0? Why not?

6♥ on this sequence will be the final contract for some, because South decides that either 1♠ was a psychic or a misclick or a mis-grab and passes. Others having this same sequence, a lot of folks I'm sure, bid 6♠ out of fear.

At this point, South pipes up with a post-alert, explaining 4♥ as a splinter and then remaining silent. North then notes that 5♣ was intended as Exclusion RKCB and 5♠ showed two of the four pointed Aces and Kings. South notes that North is an idiot, as no one has a Double Exclusion 5♣ 6KCB agreement, and certainly not them. North, already having worked this out, notes that he could very well be 6160, such that Double Exclusion is not necessary.

Poor East leads. Not believing anything, he leads a club, also out of fear.

Declarer ruffs this high, confirming the likelihood of 6160 after all. West follows.

A small spade is overtaken by Dummy with the 7 to ruff another club high.

Another small spade is overtaken by Dummy's 10 to ruff a third club high.

Declarer now plays the remaining spades, bearing down to the five hearts and the stiff diamond Queen. A six-card ending. Dummy retains the club Queen, the two diamonds, and the three hearts.

West also needs a six-card ending. He sure cannot ditch all of his clubs, so he maintains at least the club Ace. Five left.

With Declarer now known to have started with seven spades, he seems to have 7-1-5-0 shape. How can West not save all of his diamonds?