[TylerE]

♠ 76
♥ A6532
♦ AQJ9
♣ Q4

♠ KQT843
♥ K9
♦ 6
♣ AKJ5


S dealt, all vuln at imps

1♠-2♥
2♠-4♠
4NT-5♥ (2 without)
6♠

Opening lead was a ♦ one in dummy with the A, now 7 of ♠, 2, K, holding.
Cross over to the Q♣ -- 6♠, 5, Q, ....♦.

-1

[jillybean]

What is 2♠?

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on Jan 11 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

What is 2♠?

Probably shows 6th spade. 3S unnecessary. Another question would be why is this hand in non-natural system discussion? Whatever system it is, I really hate the jump to 4SP with a small doubleton.

[TylerE]

Ugh, sorry, thought I posted this in Interesting Hands.

Edit: Thx rain

[jillybean]

I dont like 2♠ showing 6, I dont like the jump to 4♠
4N is pushy, partner could have bid 3♠ with any slam interest though I'd probably bid the same.

[Mbodell]

100% of the blame goes to N, although the slam isn't really that bad. Spades comes in for 1 loser just under 50% of the time (47.4783% according to suitplay), and you'll have random ruff occasionally as well but a 47% slam isn't a horror.

That said why not 3♦ over 2♠? You can plan to bid 3♠/3♥, 4♠/3♠ or pass 3nt.

I don't like ambiguous fast arrival a bunch (which I assume is what is being played here), but I totally understand 4nt over 4♠ since you have a 4 loser hand over a partner who bid 2/1 (was that game forcing or just standard? either way you think you are safe at the 5 level).

[Fluffy]

I've reached worse slams that these.

If 2♠ shows 6 the bidding looks fine to me, if it doesn't north should buy a book about bidding.

[whereagles]

what he said

[hanp]

jillybean, on Jan 12 2010, 12:14 AM, said:

I dont like the jump to 4♠

Agree, though I might have used stronger words.

[hanp]

Mbodell, on Jan 12 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

That said why not 3♦ over 2♠?

Dislike that as well, would bid 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on Jan 12 2010, 03:35 AM, said:

I've reached worse slams that these.

If 2♠ shows 6 the bidding looks fine to me, if it doesn't north should buy a book about bidding.

Not only is it not that bad a slam, if N had ♠Jx and ♦Axxx it would be very good, and that sort of nuance (S could equally have ♠KQJ instead of KQ10) is not really a case for an ATB. Unless you're going to miss every slam you can't absolutely nail down beforehand, you will bid some of these.

[billw55]

I would bid 3♣ over 2♥. With working ♥K, 2♠ feels like an underbid. After that 3♦ and 3♠ look normal, and north is back to his same decision.

This isn't a huge disaster, the slam could make with a correct guess in trumps. But maybe north got a little too excited about the ♠76.

[whereagles]

lol @ 76

[mike777]

if 2s promises 6 and 4s just shows a dead minimum.....ok I dont think anyone did anything bad....

next deal.


btw if you open on real junk you might just want to respond 1nt with that north hand but that is a matter of agreement ahead of time.

[aguahombre]

Actually --and this makes no difference to the final contract, which aint that bad :

If playing 2/1 GF, 1S-2H-2S might show six, but might also be 5-4 in spades and a minor, with not enough strength to high-reverse. (Yes, even though the auction is game forcing, 3m shows extra.)

A temporizing 2NT by responder will clarify, and then we will probably still reach a spade slam. Still, or even more so, the 4S jump really sucks.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on Jan 12 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

If playing 2/1 GF, 1S-2H-2S might show six, but might also be 5-4 in spades and a minor, with not enough strength to high-reverse. (Yes, even though the auction is game forcing, 3m shows extra.)

Right. And this hand has extra.

16 hcp all good quality, a fairly good six bagger, singleton in 4th suit ... I see no negative features in this hand at all, I think it's worth 3♣.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on Jan 12 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 12 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

If playing 2/1 GF, 1S-2H-2S might show six, but might also be 5-4 in spades and a minor, with not enough strength to high-reverse. (Yes, even though the auction is game forcing, 3m shows extra.)

Right. And this hand has extra.

16 hcp all good quality, a fairly good six bagger, singleton in 4th suit ... I see no negative features in this hand at all, I think it's worth 3♣.

Interesting. that might just create enough confusion in trying to later show the sixth spade that you miss this unlucky spade slam. That does not make 3C horrible, though.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on Jan 12 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

billw55, on Jan 12 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 12 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

If playing 2/1 GF, 1S-2H-2S might show six, but might also be 5-4 in spades and a minor, with not enough strength to high-reverse. (Yes, even though the auction is game forcing, 3m shows extra.)

Right. And this hand has extra.

16 hcp all good quality, a fairly good six bagger, singleton in 4th suit ... I see no negative features in this hand at all, I think it's worth 3♣.

Interesting. that might just create enough confusion in trying to later show the sixth spade that you miss this unlucky spade slam. That does not make 3C horrible, though.

Apparently there is already some confusion about whether 2♠ shows the sixth