[paulg]

---

Matchpoints with competent partner and opposition. What is your plan?

[mike777]

I will try x but I think there are other reasonable options.

[hrothgar]

I'm punting 6♦

That suit is damn solid. A 4-4 club fit might play better, but its going to be difficult to sort out whats what.
In a similar vein, I don't forsee having enough bididng room to comfortably bid a grand, so might as well get to 6 ASAP

[nigel_k]

I can make a slam try by bidding 4NT and removing 5♣ to 5♦. Double then 5♦ is also a slam try and a perfectly good choice as well. We will miss a good slam sometimes but usually partner will have enough to accept when it makes.

[semeai]

nigel_k, on 2011-July-19, 18:30, said:

I can make a slam try by bidding 4NT and removing 5♣ to 5♦.

This looks good here.

Assuming partner doesn't have/count any of the ♥KQJ, there are 19 HCP missing outside hearts. Partner certainly has room to be missing an Ace and a Queen, or an Ace and a King, which wouldn't be great for slam. Any slightly better hand will have good play I would think.

If partner directly bids 5♦ over 4NT, I'll guess 6♦. Maybe he's 4-2-4-3 and so should have a little bit more in high cards than he might have had with more shape.

[gnasher]

I think it's a bit too good for 4NT followed by 5♦. If partner has KJxx x Axxx AQxx, he probably won't accept the slam try.

I'd bid 6♦. It's possible that clubs will play better (eg Axxx x Axx AQxxx), but we have no room to find that out, and when they have preempted it's a good idea to play in a suit where we have 100 honours.

[mohitz]

gnasher, on 2011-July-20, 00:42, said:

I think it's a bit too good for 4NT followed by 5♦. If partner has KJxx x Axxx AQxx, he probably won't accept the slam try.

I'd bid 6♦. It's possible that clubs will play better (eg Axxx x Axx AQxxx), but we have no room to find that out, and when they have preempted it's a good idea to play in a suit where we have 100 honours.

Why will clubs play better with that hand? It seems to me that both 6C and 6D require 3-1 clubs.

EDIT: Maybe, you meant Axxx xx Ax AQxxx, where in 6C, we might be able to handle clubs 4-0. Anyway, i agree with 6D

This post has been edited by mohitz: 2011-July-20, 02:47

[gnasher]

mohitz, on 2011-July-20, 02:40, said:

Why will clubs play better with that hand? It seems to me that both 6C and 6D require 3-1 clubs.

EDIT: Maybe, you meant Axxx xx Ax AQxxx, where in 6C, we might be able to handle clubs 4-0. Anyway, i agree with 6D

Sorry, it was too early in the morning to be constructing examples.

[whereagles]

Pard dbled with 2-3 hearts, so he's likely to have a good dbl. Hence, 5NT. Glad to be playing this as pick-a-slam. 6♦ might work better or worse. It's a guess anyway...

[Zelandakh]

Double and then 5NT over 4S seems like a pretty good description of this hand assuming this is played as pick a slam and not GSF.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2011-July-20, 05:04, said:

Pard dbled with 2-3 hearts, so he's likely to have a good dbl. Hence, 5NT. Glad to be playing this as pick-a-slam. 6♦ might work better or worse. It's a guess anyway...

For those who advocate pick a slam, what does a 6♠ bid show?

Extra length?
A solid 4 card suit?
A good 5 card suit?

Other than "blame transfer" - which can be very compelling - I don't see a lot of merit to this bid.

[Cyberyeti]

whereagles, on 2011-July-20, 05:04, said:

Pard dbled with 2-3 hearts, so he's likely to have a good dbl. Hence, 5NT. Glad to be playing this as pick-a-slam. 6♦ might work better or worse. It's a guess anyway...

What's the difference between immediate 5♥ and 5N here ?

Also 4N-5♣-5♥ as against 4N-5♣-5N.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-20, 07:19, said:

For those who advocate pick a slam, what does a 6♠ bid show?

Extra length?
A solid 4 card suit?
A good 5 card suit?

Other than "blame transfer" - which can be very compelling - I don't see a lot of merit to this bid.

It doesn't show anything. Rather, it means "I can't play a slam in clubs or diamonds". Dbler probably has a GOSH in spades, in which case I might consider raising his 6♠ to 7NT.

[whereagles]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-20, 08:22, said:

What's the difference between immediate 5♥ and 5N here ?

Also 4N-5♣-5♥ as against 4N-5♣-5N.

I don't know and honestly, I don't care That is stuff for professional partnerships. I just keep it simple.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2011-July-20, 08:54, said:

It doesn't show anything. Rather, it means "I can't play a slam in clubs or diamonds". Dbler probably has a GOSH in spades, in which case I might consider raising his 6♠ to 7NT.

If double showed either a two suited hand or single suited hand, I'd agree. However, the initial double is prototypically a three suiter.
You can't arbitrarily exclude one suit (in this case spades) from the equation.

In theory, you could have a system in which a disproportional number of low level bids set spades as trump, various follow up bids would then ask specific questions about the spade suit, therefore, it would make no sense to ask a question about the spade suit.

All fine and dandy, except for the following comment in answer to a much simplier sequence:

Quote

I don't know and honestly, I don't care That is stuff for professional partnerships. I just keep it simple.

[whereagles]

Are you practicing to be a lawyer or politician, Richard?

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2011-July-20, 09:30, said:

Are you practicing to be a lawyer or politician, Richard?

Far far too easy a line of work to find the day challenging or interesting
Far far too dirty a business to sleep the sleep of the innocent

[VM1973]

As has already been pointed out, outside of hearts there are only 19 missing HCPs. Partner must have at least 14 of those to have doubled (probably more like 15+). Partner might have

♠AKxx
♥xx
♦Axx
♣QJxx

I don't want to try 6♣ because you might find K10xx (or Q10xx) offsides. I agree with those who have bid 6♦ directly.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-20, 08:22, said:

What's the difference between immediate 5♥ and 5N here ?

Also 4N-5♣-5♥ as against 4N-5♣-5N.

I think 4N - 5C - 5H is unambiguously a grand try in clubs with first round heart control. 4N - 5C - 5N is more difficult, with spades and diamonds I would surely have doubled first so I think this should be a grand try in clubs without first round heart control.

An immediate 5NT as pick a slam suggests a 2-suiter to me. The immediate 5H is basically any super-strong hand that does not see an alternative route. I cannot think of any hand that would need to use this without first round heart control.

I think these definitions are fairly run-of-the-mill.

[mikeh]

I voted for 6♦.

5N will too often get us to the wrong spot if, as is likely, he were to bid 5♣. Say he has AKxx xx Axx Axxx...... we are at the mercy of a 3-2 club break, while in diamonds, we will usually prevail......if rho has the club length, then he is going to be squeezed in the blacks unless LHO opened 3♥ with 4+♠s.

I expect one can construct hands on which clubs will play better than diamonds, but they seem less probable that the sort of layout that worries me. This hand-type is not one where the 4-4 will usually play better than the 5-3, since we are (relatively) unlikely to be ruffing the 3rd suit in dummy....partner rates to have decent spades, and if he is missing the K, it rates to be on our right, so it seems to me that the risk of 2 trump losers in a weak trump suit far outweighs the edge one often associates with finding the 4-4 fit.

Btw, I see nothing about the conditions given to us that suggests partner holds 2-3 hearts. We are, I gather, w v w. Give RHO some 3=4=3=3 or 3=4=2=4 near yarborough and bidding 5♥ simply invites 1100 against our 920/980....even 4♥ is dangerous on some layouts, but few can resist raising with 4 trump, and we all like to take away an opp's easy cuebid at the 4-level when we fear a slam.

I see no reason to get involved in murky auctions by way of 4N then either 5♦ or 5♥. 5H over 5♣ would be trying for grand in clubs, and that is the wrong message. 5♦ over 5♣ should, logically, be a slam try but he may not be able to evaluate correctly......AKxx xx Axx QJxx won't look like slam is good...and even on this auction, it is pretty good. And if he were to cross us up by bidding 5♦, on his 4=2=4=3, as one example, we're back guessing anyway. Meanwhile, let the opps make the opening lead with as little info as possible about our hands.