[MrAce]

kayin801, on 2010-December-09, 17:26, said:

Or your partner has way less for his 5♣ then the rest of our partners do?

Probably, thats what we play though when we bid 5m. I mean otherwise it is easy to bid slam. Perhaps my bidding was effected with my agreements with my actual partner.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2010-December-09, 17:07, said:

Yes this same man, and this same man will not really waste his time to explain you the difference between bidding AGRESSIVELY slams and bidding AGRESSIVELY games. I am sure there is no difference for you between them since u wrote what you wrote.


The folks here who are considering to bid 6 with this hand, probably have no agreement with their pd , how to show minor support after pd rebids 2NT. How to show shortness and how to stop at 4NT afterwards... Therefore they are just shooting a bullet into darkness, incase it may hit a deer now and then. But the matter of fact is, especially if partner is a decent player, u will be lucky if u make this 5♣

Heck, just when I was thinking that I had to be the most arrogant poster on the forums, along you come! Thank you!

In the Cascade post you wrote, with absolute assurance, that no one...anywhere...played a style in which the raise to 3♠, from 1♠, was significantly stronger than the standard approach, even in a weak notrump context.

That was funny because several other players posted that they disagreed with you....in other words, the very forum on which you said there was no one who played that style contained posts from people who did! I can also tell you that I have played that style, and still play that style with players who have played, between them, in several Bermuda Bowls, and have won a number of national titles, and one of them was a teammate of mine in the 2010 Rosenblum, playing that style in his current partnership. So I actually know that there are some people who play the style that you claim is played by no-one.

Please note that I refer to this not as an argument from authority that the style is good, but to show that your claims to complete knowledge of how the game is played is nonsense.

Now you state that those of us who bid 6♣ 'probably have no agreement' about how to find a minor suit fit after 2N.

Do you have any clue at all?????? Do you really think this? Have you any idea of who you are disparaging in such an assured and stupid fashion?

look...if you want to make a bridge argument, that's one thing. But to suggest to me that I don't understand the imp odds of bidding game or slam or that my partners and I (and the other slam bidders) have no way to show clubs in a forcing fashion over 2N simply shows you to be an ill-informed idiot.

Reasonable people can disagree about bridge decisions...which is a good thing, else the game would be boring. Harald, for example, was a passer. I treasure his posts.....I wish he'd make more of them because they always seem to me to be sensible even when, as here, I disagree. So I'm not pissed off that you obstinately refuse to see the error of your passing ways, but I am pissed off at the attitude you display to the bridge knowledge of those who choose another course of action.

[gnasher]

I showed 18-19 balanced with a doubleton heart (no support double), and therefore at least four clubs. Knowing that, partner thinks that 5♣ is the right contract and that it's not worth investigating 6♣. What sort of hand would make him think that? Probably a shapely one with lots of clubs and not much in high cards.

He might have an ace, but I don't see why he should. With as much as x Qxxx xx Axxxxx, he should envisage the possibility of slam and make one try himself. There are weaker hands with ♥A which probably wouldn't make a try, but hands like x Qxxxx x Jxxxxx are perfectly possible. I'd pass, because slam might be ridiculous and partner may already have done the good work by taking us out of notrumps.

I'm assuming that partner had some way of bidding clubs naturally, then signing off over my cue-bid. If your methods don't allow that (why?), there's more case for raising him.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2010-December-09, 18:07, said:

Heck, just when I was thinking that I had to be the most arrogant poster on the forums, along you come! Thank you!

In the Cascade post you wrote, with absolute assurance, that no one...anywhere...played a style in which the raise to 3♠, from 1♠, was significantly stronger than the standard approach, even in a weak notrump context.

That was funny because several other players posted that they disagreed with you....in other words, the very forum on which you said there was no one who played that style contained posts from people who did! I can also tell you that I have played that style, and still play that style with players who have played, between them, in several Bermuda Bowls, and have won a number of national titles, and one of them was a teammate of mine in the 2010 Rosenblum, playing that style in his current partnership. So I actually know that there are some people who play the style that you claim is played by no-one.

Please note that I refer to this not as an argument from authority that the style is good, but to show that your claims to complete knowledge of how the game is played is nonsense.

Now you state that those of us who bid 6♣ 'probably have no agreement' about how to find a minor suit fit after 2N.

Do you have any clue at all?????? Do you really think this? Have you any idea of who you are disparaging in such an assured and stupid fashion?

look...if you want to make a bridge argument, that's one thing. But to suggest to me that I don't understand the imp odds of bidding game or slam or that my partners and I (and the other slam bidders) have no way to show clubs in a forcing fashion over 2N simply shows you to be an ill-informed idiot.

Reasonable people can disagree about bridge decisions...which is a good thing, else the game would be boring. Harald, for example, was a passer. I treasure his posts.....I wish he'd make more of them because they always seem to me to be sensible even when, as here, I disagree. So I'm not pissed off that you obstinately refuse to see the error of your passing ways, but I am pissed off at the attitude you display to the bridge knowledge of those who choose another course of action.

I ♥ you too MikeH Ok sorry if i got too excited over this, u have a point there I still pass, but i respect yours and others choice to bid slam. I shouldn't have said anything more after i made my point for passing.

Sorry folks.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2010-December-09, 18:21, said:

I showed 18-19 balanced with a doubleton heart (no support double), and therefore at least four clubs. Knowing that, partner thinks that 5♣ is the right contract and that it's not worth investigating 6♣. What sort of hand would make him think that? Probably a shapely one with lots of clubs and not much in high cards.

He might have an ace, but I don't see why he should. With as much as x Qxxx xx Axxxxx, he should envisage the possibility of slam and make one try himself. There are weaker hands with ♥A which probably wouldn't make a try, but hands like x Qxxxx x Jxxxxx are perfectly possible. I'd pass, because slam might be ridiculous and partner may already have done the good work by taking us out of notrumps.

I'm assuming that partner had some way of bidding clubs naturally, then signing off over my cue-bid. If your methods don't allow that (why?), there's more case for raising him.

The OP was silent about supprt doubles, and while they are common amongst A/E players I would expect the OP to have noted the inference that would arise if they were in use. Maybe the OP can clarify.

That may not be important in the reasoning you have expressed for passing. My concern is that partner can have between 5 and 11 hcp (exact range will vary according to both opening bid and responding style, so maybe 4-11 or 3-10, etc). He might think that bidding, say, 3♠ (which for me would be agreeing clubs...I play transfers over 2N) and then bidding on over our 3N to 5♣ would show the top of the hcp range.....x Qxxx Kx AJxxxx maybe. Ok maybe that's a bad example, since it looks like a 4♠ bid to me, but I hope you get the idea...that he might think that he shows more than xx Qxxx x Axxxxx for the below game slam try.

I think that this is a decision that can be argued both ways, and partnership style may ultimately be the only basis upon which to know which way is best. I don't think that knowing the actual result even matters much here....I suspect that the passers know they may miss a good slam and I am sure that the bidders know they may be getting too high.

[Phil]

I have some very good agreements with my partners that allow CHO to sign off in 4♣.

Only those that count points believe a 2N rebid (or opener for that matter) fall within a 'narrow range'.

We have the stone nuts and if you make a reasonable effort constructing likely hands partner can have, 6♣ is warranted.

[Hanoi5]

It's sort of funny how these discussions can turn into fights. There are many issues to be discussed (I didn't mention that you played support doubles but I have to ask, do you support double with 18-19 HCP's?) but the main one is, is your partner's bid final? I believe that those who pass think so and those who bid 6♣ leave the door open for re-evaluation.

Of course there is the other issue, if partner's bid is not final, is our hand good enough to go on? I think it is, but I see some people don't.

I find this issue very similar to another hand I recently posted, you held ♠x♥KQJT8xx♦Qxx♣xx, LHO opened a weak NT (12-14) and you showed your hearts through Hamilton and partner bid 3NT, do you leave it there, do you take it out?

The situation is also similar when your partner doubles for penalty and you have to decide whether you take it out or not. Is Pass obliged? Can you use some judgement?

I find these three issues very important in bidding, is there a standard? does it depend on agreements?

[dake50]

Now we all have gone 6C.

WHAT DOES PARTNER NEED TO GO 7C?

Can he revalue his A as the only one missing?
His 6th club as the grand trick?

Go back over the arguments for us to go 6C.
Then let partner see the same for going 7C.

[mtvesuvius]

dake50, on 2010-December-09, 23:09, said:

WHAT DOES PARTNER NEED TO GO 7C?

LOL

"I want to sign off opposite a limited hand"
"I have an incredibly good limited hand, with all working values, let's play slam!"
"I have an amazingly good sign off, and have discovered that I feel like raising to a grand slam! Good luck! If you need me, I'll be in the restroom."

FWIW I'd bid 6♣, it's tough to construct reasonable hands where 6♣ cannot make (or at least is at worst on a finesse).

[dake50]

Could I be answering exclusion?

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2010-December-09, 18:47, said:

I think that this is a decision that can be argued both ways, and partnership style may ultimately be the only basis upon which to know which way is best. I don't think that knowing the actual result even matters much here....I suspect that the passers know they may miss a good slam and I am sure that the bidders know they may be getting too high.

Amen

[rhm]

Believing that a reasonable player would prefer the 11 trick game over 3NT with long ♣s headed by ♣ ace makes no sense. All these constructions are pipe dreams. Of course 5♣ might still play better than 3NT even with such hands, but partner has no way to know and it is against the odds. Among others you might be 3 tricks off the top.
With the ♥ ace and long ♣s the bid is mode credible but still dubious at best and why would partner rule out slam with such a hand by skipping 2 levels of bidding? Given the bidding up to 2NT, I do not think your actual holding is such an extra ordinary hand for ♣s, which a good partner can not visualize. 6♣ might have been more understandable with something like ♠AJx,♥Kx,♦Axxx,♣AKxx; still a gamble, but this is the type of ideal hand partner should not play you for.
However, if partner has no quick entry and long ♣s headed by the jack at best, from his perspective 5♣ may play better than any number of notrumps even if 5♣ goes down. He may well have gambled against you holding AKxx in ♣, which is sensible in my view. Also a shortage in ♦ would be more scary than in ♠ after this bidding.
Partner could have ♠xx,♥QJxxx,♦-,♣Jxxxxx

Rainer Herrmann

[pooltuna]

Mike has a good argument! You are allowed to override partner's unilateral action at your own risk. Nevertheless it is hard for me to imagine partner trying 5♣ with ♠x ♥QJxx ♦Kx ♣Jxxxxxx. I would expect his scant values to be in his suits and we are covering his short suits with Aces and still have strong♣ so an override makes sense.

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2010-December-10, 04:52, said:

Believing that a reasonable player would prefer the 11 trick game over 3NT with long ♣s headed by ♣ ace makes no sense. All these constructions are pipe dreams. Of course 5♣ might still play better than 3NT even with such hands, but partner has no way to know and it is against the odds. Among others you might be 3 tricks off the top.
With the ♥ ace and long ♣s the bid is mode credible but still dubious at best and why would partner rule out slam with such a hand by skipping 2 levels of bidding? Given the bidding up to 2NT, I do not think your actual holding is such an extra ordinary hand for ♣s, which a good partner can not visualize. 6♣ might have been more understandable with something like ♠AJx,♥Kx,♦Axxx,♣AKxx; still a gamble, but this is the type of ideal hand partner should not play you for.
However, if partner has no quick entry and long ♣s headed by the jack at best, from his perspective 5♣ may play better than any number of notrumps even if 5♣ goes down. He may well have gambled against you holding AKxx in ♣, which is sensible in my view. Also a shortage in ♦ would be more scary than in ♠ after this bidding.
Partner could have ♠xx,♥QJxxx,♦-,♣Jxxxxx

Rainer Herrmann

Thats exactly what i think. The 6 bidders actually miss the point that partner would bid 3NT with any 6 card ♣ holding starting with ACE. Just out of curiosity, i made a poll asking;

What would you bid over 2 NT with

A- x Axxx xx Jxxxxx/xxxxxx

B- x Qxxx(Jxxx) xx AJxxxx (Axxxxx)


For the answer to A out of 8 experts, 2 bid 3 NT, 6 of them bid 5♣
For the answer to B 8 of them bid 3 NT (common comments were "is there any reason why we can't play 3 nt ?" )

But don't go with my word, and ask the same question to your friends that you give credit, i don't think you will recieve much different answers.

My point is, 6 bidders actually aiming a very small target as oppose to what they think. And that target is to find partner specifically with ♥ Ace, letalone all the yarborough hands i listed (as if they wouldn't respond to 1♣ with those hands)

I have to admit, all those top players i asked, also bid 6♣ with south hand. All 7 of them except 1. It is interesting indeed.

[l milne]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-09, 21:27, said:

The situation is also similar when your partner doubles for penalty and you have to decide whether you take it out or not. Is Pass obliged? Can you use some judgement?

I find these three issues very important in bidding, is there a standard? does it depend on agreements?

FWIW, I think best (and most likely 'expert standard', whatever that is) is that 'final' bids are very rare. Most of the time, due to the difficulties in passing information with such limited language and time, the situation will be that one of the partnership will have a fair idea what is best (based on his hand and the bidding so far) but cannot be certain - his partner could still have a very unusual hand for his bidding so far. So, if you do have this unusual hand, you should not assume that partner knows this or that you have shown it - most of the time you haven't (think of other hands you would bid this way).

This leads to the conclusion that if you think partner has made a decision on incomplete information, you are justified in bidding again, sometimes. One example I remember from earlier this year was when a very strong opponent of mine bid 3♠ on ♠QT98543 ♥J2 ♦- ♣KJ76 over a strong 1NT on his right, nil vul. His partner bid 3NT, and he passed on the reasoning that he had shown a preempt and that preempts don't bid again unless forced. His partner had ♠AJ7, the spades broke 3-0, the king was held up and he went 3 off when 4 spades was gin for 11 tricks. He hadn't really shown the nature of his hand, so IMO the preemptor should have bid 4♠. Hopefully this makes some sense (??)

[han]

I was reading mikeh's posts and agreed, especially with his expectation of what kind of hands partner bids 5C on.

[gwnn]

When my partner bids 3♠ and I have ♠AJ7, I usually don't bid 3N.

[l milne]

This thread needs some results. What was partner's hand this time?

I realise that whoever's bid didn't work out will be blaming their partner

[karlson]

I find the Jxxxxxx constructions a lot more plausible than the Axxxxx ones, so I would pass.

[Hanoi5]

The 5♣ bidder held:

♠x
♥Axxx
♦Kxx
♣J8xxx

6♣ can be made (how would you play it?) and I think it's a reasonable contract but, how can it be reached less problematically? At the other table 3NT was bid and made with an overtrick.