[sceptic]

Funny old world it was Michelle Brunner and John Holland I was watching this is their bidding Tony. I have no idea what agreements they have in this particular case, I am just curious about how to respond to quantative bids

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 1NT   Pass  2NT   Pass
 3♦    Pass  4NT   Pass
 5♠    Pass  6NT   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

[jjbrr]

as I've said, I think it's clear to play 5♣ natural in this auction if transfering to ♦ can include 4♣

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 22 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

I also see no harm in playing 5NT with 11 certain tricks, no more and no less. Somehow I never seem to be able to tell that is the case during the bidding though.

So dense you are, worthy of two responses!

Whereas knowing that 11 tricks are available for our side might be an elusive task, knowing that the opponents have two defensive tricks seems rather easy, when the two tricks are Aces. When I have a choice between a 6-level contract and a 5-level contract, I am less concerned with "getting to 11" as I am about the opponents "getting to two."

Thank you for the insult, I'll learn to play bridge at your high level one day. I suppose when someone shows a 6 card suit in response to 1NT then tries for slam and then you find out you are off 2 aces, you are guaranteed to have the other 32 high card points and thus have complete certainty the opponents won't get a third trick. In that case you are doing very well to get to 5NT.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 22 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

I also see no harm in playing 5NT with 11 certain tricks, no more and no less. Somehow I never seem to be able to tell that is the case during the bidding though.

So dense you are, worthy of two responses!

Whereas knowing that 11 tricks are available for our side might be an elusive task, knowing that the opponents have two defensive tricks seems rather easy, when the two tricks are Aces. When I have a choice between a 6-level contract and a 5-level contract, I am less concerned with "getting to 11" as I am about the opponents "getting to two."

Thank you for the insult, I'll learn to play bridge at your high level one day. I suppose when someone shows a 6 card suit in response to 1NT then tries for slam and then you find out you are off 2 aces, you are guaranteed to have the other 32 high card points and thus have complete certainty the opponents won't get a third trick. In that case you are doing very well to get to 5NT.

OMG!!!

I don't understand for the life of me why this is still an unclear issue.

Here's what happens. One person shows slam interest with length in a minor, and presumably no voids. If he has a void, he can see that aspect of his hand. It is in front of him.

So, he bids 4NT to show that hand -- slam interest. But, 4NT is passable.

Whether all of this so far makes any sense or not is irrelevant, because this is what we were presented with.

Then, Opener can decide to pass, declining, or to accept. Some proposed that acceptance means answering aces. Fine. Maybe this makes sense.

However, the objection was that a 5♥ or 5♠ answer leaves no solution if we have two clear losers. I said that this makes no sense, because 5NT is an option.

The question, then, is not whether we play in 5NT or 4NT, or even 5♦. The question is whether on route to 6♦ we might opt out at 5NT when we KNOW that there are two losers out there.

I don't give a crap whether we can get to 11 tricks or not in that situation. We know that we cannot get to 12 before the opponents get to 2, so 5NT is the only POSSIBLE contract. 5NT will not be a certainty. 32 HCP are not known to exist. The defense could set 5NT. But, 5NT has in theory a chance. 6♦ does not.

Therefore, to my simple thinking, if I have a choice between a 6♦ contract, where I know that the opponents can cash at least two tricks, and a 5NT contract, where I know that the opponents can cash at least two tricks, I hope that 2 is all that they can cash and bid 5NT. If I am right, I make 5NT. If I am wrong, 5NT goes down just like 6♦, and I am no worse off. I might even be better off, down only one instead of down two. That would be nice too.

Unfortunately, there is no bid that takes back. I cannot bid, for example, 5♦ over 5♥. I also cannot answer Aces with two bids, using normal methods. If 5♣ was "odd" and 5♦ "even," then that might work.

[jonottawa]

So did it make?

I love it when I'm in a potentially ambiguous auction and a bid has a couple of possible meanings and my hand happens to cover both. 5♠ would seem to qualify here.

E might have showed minors rather than just ♦. 6♣ looks like the best slam.

[jdonn]

Sorry Ken I never read your posts if they are longer than a couple sentences. However I think it's something like this:

Ken: I play 5NT after showing aces, no problem
Josh: Playing 5NT is a problem!
Ken: But since you are already above 5♦ it's the lowest contract you can stop in, OMG how dumb can you be, you accepted the slam try so you have missed 4NT and you are at 5♥ or 5♠ so you can't stop in 5♦ any more!
Josh by sarcastic insinuation: Three points. One, stopping in 5NT is a problem even if the alternatives are worse. Two, no one makes you bid something higher than 5♦ to say you think maybe we can make slam or maybe we can't (the same message as showing your aces). Three, your point is moot since the 4NT bidder will never have 0 aces so after 5♥+ you are never stopping in 5NT (I think this was mentioned by someone already).

Anyway this is now boring me, your frustrated ranting has become more entertaining than the bridge question.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

Sorry Ken I never read your posts if they are longer than a couple sentences. However I think it's something like this:

Ken: I play 5NT after showing aces, no problem
Josh: Playing 5NT is a problem!
Ken: But since you are already above 5♦ it's the lowest contract you can stop in, OMG how dumb can you be, you accepted the slam try so you have missed 4NT and you are at 5♥ or 5♠ so you can't stop in 5♦ any more!
Josh by sarcastic insinuation: Three points. One, stopping in 5NT is a problem even if the alternatives are worse. Two, no one makes you bid something higher than 5♦ to say you think maybe we can make slam or maybe we can't (the same message as showing your aces). Three, your point is moot since the 4NT bidder will never have 0 aces so after 5♥+ you are never stopping in 5NT (I think this was mentioned by someone already).

Anyway this is now boring me, your frustrated ranting has become more entertaining than the bridge question.

Well, actually, you missed the context.

PEANUT GALLERY: Answering Aces won't work because you cannot bid 5♦ and have to play 6♦-1
KEN: Um, try 5NT
JOSH: 5NT? What system knows that 11 tricks are available?
KEN: Who cares?

[Old York]

jonottawa, on Dec 23 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

So did it make?

I love it when I'm in a potentially ambiguous auction and a bid has a couple of possible meanings and my hand happens to cover both. 5♠ would seem to qualify here.

E might have showed minors rather than just ♦. 6♣ looks like the best slam.

I expected a 6 card diamond suit, or a very good 5 card suit, so am a bit surprised.

West has 14 total points and East has 19, that makes 33, but 2 keycards could be missing so rkcb is needed, both hands have good controls

As for the play.... is it too simplistic to play for divided honours, leading to the queen and finessing the 9 on the way back.... 75%?

Tony

[kenrexford]

Old York, on Dec 23 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Dec 23 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

So did it make?

I love it when I'm in a potentially ambiguous auction and a bid has a couple of possible meanings and my hand happens to cover both.  5♠ would seem to qualify here.

E might have showed minors rather than just ♦.  6♣ looks like the best slam.

I expected a 6 card diamond suit, or a very good 5 card suit, so am a bit surprised.

West has 14 total points and East has 19, that makes 33, but 2 keycards could be missing so rkcb is needed, both hands have good controls

As for the play.... is it too simplistic to play for divided honours, leading to the queen and finessing the 9 on the way back.... 75%?

Tony

The clear play at trick one looks like a diamond toward the Queen, which wins in practice.

On the way back, the King appears to be behind the AJ9. If North follows, which happens when it makes a difference, and if South has the King, then hooking the 9 does nothing for you. Better to just rise with the Ace and then play another diamond out. That way, you win whenever someone could ruff in (like after a spade lead).

On a spade lead, however, small toward the Queen causes South to pop King and give partner a ruff. So, 6♦ never makes on a spade lead.

5NT or 6NT does work, though, as 12 tricks seem to be there.

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

Sorry Ken I never read your posts if they are longer than a couple sentences. However I think it's something like this:

Ken: I play 5NT after showing aces, no problem
Josh: Playing 5NT is a problem!
Ken: But since you are already above 5♦ it's the lowest contract you can stop in, OMG how dumb can you be, you accepted the slam try so you have missed 4NT and you are at 5♥ or 5♠ so you can't stop in 5♦ any more!
Josh by sarcastic insinuation: Three points. One, stopping in 5NT is a problem even if the alternatives are worse. Two, no one makes you bid something higher than 5♦ to say you think maybe we can make slam or maybe we can't (the same message as showing your aces). Three, your point is moot since the 4NT bidder will never have 0 aces so after 5♥+ you are never stopping in 5NT (I think this was mentioned by someone already).

Anyway this is now boring me, your frustrated ranting has become more entertaining than the bridge question.

Well, actually, you missed the context.

PEANUT GALLERY: Answering Aces won't work because you cannot bid 5♦ and have to play 6♦-1
KEN: Um, try 5NT
JOSH: 5NT? What system knows that 11 tricks are available?
KEN: Who cares?

Well at the risk of exceeding Josh's attention span I will attempt to ask one question. Josh, your partner has just made a quantitative 4NT bid and you have the hand to accept what do you bid?

[hatchett]

Quote

On the way back, the King appears to be behind the AJ9. If North follows, which happens when it makes a difference, and if South has the King, then hooking the 9 does nothing for you. Better to just rise with the Ace and then play another diamond out. That way, you win whenever someone could ruff in (like after a spade lead).

What if North had ducked the Q from KTxx ♦? Then finessing the 9 would have an advantage....

[kenrexford]

hatchett, on Dec 23 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

Quote

On the way back, the King appears to be behind the AJ9. If North follows, which happens when it makes a difference, and if South has the King, then hooking the 9 does nothing for you. Better to just rise with the Ace and then play another diamond out. That way, you win whenever someone could ruff in (like after a spade lead).

What if North had ducked the Q from KTxx ♦? Then finessing the 9 would have an advantage....

I pay up to that play.