[nigel_k]

Pass.

We're green and this is a preempt not a limit bid. Partner could have:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

If he has the ♣K instead of the ♣J he might bid the same way and slam is decent but certainly not laydown. However 3NT is hopeless in either case and the number of people in this forum who seem sad to have bypassed 3NT suggests to me we will get plenty of matchpoints for making 5♦ with or without an overtrick.

[Phil]

nigel_k, on Jul 5 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

We're green and this is a preempt not a limit bid. Partner could have:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

Seriously, why would he bid 5♦ with this? Surely he cannot expect to make 11 tricks and there is no reason to preempt the opponents at this stage.

[gnasher]

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

The auction doesn't sound like one where we should be bidding, but then what has partner got?  xx x KJxxxx KJxx?

We'd have bid this way with an ace less and a 2542 shape.  That adds up to siginficant extra values.  I'd bid six.

If partner held this hand he'd bid 4♣, not 5♦.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...5116&hl=auction

Ok, I've looked through that thread, and I can't find anyone who thinks that 4♣ shows a hand like the one I quoted. Here are some examples of what was suggested:

Josh suggested xx x Kxxxxx AQJx
Justin agreed with Josh
Ken suggested something that I don't understand
The Hog suggested x xx Kxxx AQJxxx

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on Jul 5 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

If he has the ♣K instead of the ♣J he might bid the same way and slam is decent but certainly not laydown.

It's not a claimer at trick one, but it's close. OK, it goes down the 6% of the time that they can get a club ruff, and there's a risk of misguessing when trumps are 3-0 and one of the majors is something-1, but it's still well over 90%.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on Jul 5 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 5 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

We're green and this is a preempt not a limit bid. Partner could have:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

Seriously, why would he bid 5♦ with this? Surely he cannot expect to make 11 tricks and there is no reason to preempt the opponents at this stage.

This looks like a routine raise to 3♦ here. Opener can have a 2542 11 count.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

The auction doesn't sound like one where we should be bidding, but then what has partner got?  xx x KJxxxx KJxx?

We'd have bid this way with an ace less and a 2542 shape.  That adds up to siginficant extra values.  I'd bid six.

If partner held this hand he'd bid 4♣, not 5♦.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...5116&hl=auction

Ok, I've looked through that thread, and I can't find anyone who thinks that 4♣ shows a hand like the one I quoted. Here are some examples of what was suggested:

Josh suggested xx x Kxxxxx AQJx
Justin agreed with Josh
Ken suggested something that I don't understand
The Hog suggested x xx Kxxx AQJxxx

Yes I feel your example doesn't quite make it up to being a 4♣ bid, but it's still the right idea.

[Cascade]

I think the crucial point is whether or not partner could have made a lower forcing raise.

If so then 5♦ will often be a stretch and we have the extras that might allow it to make.

If not then our extras maybe enough for six.

[kfay]

gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

The auction doesn't sound like one where we should be bidding, but then what has partner got?  xx x KJxxxx KJxx?

We'd have bid this way with an ace less and a 2542 shape.  That adds up to siginficant extra values.  I'd bid six.

If partner held this hand he'd bid 4♣, not 5♦.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...5116&hl=auction

Ok, I've looked through that thread, and I can't find anyone who thinks that 4♣ shows a hand like the one I quoted. Here are some examples of what was suggested:

Josh suggested xx x Kxxxxx AQJx
Justin agreed with Josh
Ken suggested something that I don't understand
The Hog suggested x xx Kxxx AQJxxx

OK so 4♣ shows awesome ♣ values and a ♥ stiff, 5♦ mild ♣ values and a ♥ stiff. I'll remember that.

I guess I bid 6♦!!!!!!!

[neilkaz]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 5 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Pass.

Even, if your p does not play 2S, he had 4D av., which is certainly
forcing, so if 6D makes, the failure to reach it, would be the 5D bid.

And I would have bid 3D instead of 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I just want to make sure that you realize that in normal S/A systems opener's jump shift is GF. To me, while he has a nice hand, that seems quite a stretch to me. I'd want a 5th ♦ and for my ♣ to be Kx rather than Qxx to jump shift here as a min.

Comments please .. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

To the OP .. Little Kid, I do hope that if one thing comes out of this discussion other than that the decision to slam or not seems to be a guess, and that is that you and PD will in the future play some more detailed methods after 1♥-1NTF-2♦.

.. neilkaz ..

[Furlan]

Pass and yell at partner if it makes 6.
Or bid 6 and yell at partner if it's down.

[nigel_k]

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 5 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

If he has the ♣K instead of the ♣J he might bid the same way and slam is decent but certainly not laydown.

It's not a claimer at trick one, but it's close. OK, it goes down the 6% of the time that they can get a club ruff, and there's a risk of misguessing when trumps are 3-0 and one of the majors is something-1, but it's still well over 90%.

With ♣K but not ♣J, you don't have two club tricks so will need hearts 4-3 or pick the doubleton ace of clubs, plus a little more work if trumps are 3-0. Maybe 60%.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on Jul 6 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 5 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

xxx
x
KJxxxx
Jxx

If he has the ♣K instead of the ♣J he might bid the same way and slam is decent but certainly not laydown.

It's not a claimer at trick one, but it's close. OK, it goes down the 6% of the time that they can get a club ruff, and there's a risk of misguessing when trumps are 3-0 and one of the majors is something-1, but it's still well over 90%.

With ♣K but not ♣J, you don't have two club tricks so will need hearts 4-3 or pick the doubleton ace of clubs, plus a little more work if trumps are 3-0. Maybe 60%.

Sorry - I misread what you'd said before. I thought you were adding ♣K whilst retaining ♣J.

[peachy]

An advanced or better partner would bid 2S to show a good diamond raise, so 5D is a gamble and does not show a good hand. Pass. But for me, it is still just a little tempting, considering I have such good diamonds and four of them, and three aces. But Pass.

[Fluffy]

I am scared of missing ♣J but then he could just as well have ♠K along or maybe 3 clubs and 5th heart is good.

I am bidding 6. I don't care what 4♣ means, partner doesn't even know what 2♠ means in this sequence he will never think about 4♣.

[quiddity]

I'd like to think that I'd pass, but I have a tendency to take a shot on auctions like this and it frequently fails. My experience is that it doesn't pay to guess at slam on a hand where we might be off the AK of clubs, we have no obvious source of tricks, we might have a sure heart loser, etc.

Also, I think the argument that we should bid 6 because it's a minor suit at matchpoints doesn't hold here. Partner's bidding suggests an upgrade based on a huge fit and we have a suit-oriented hand. I doubt we have to worry about the majority of the field being in no-trump.