[jillybean]

---

2N = jacoby
3♣ = minimum hand, with shortage
(3N would show K+ with spade shortage)

What do you do now?

[sasioc]

I would respond to exclusion (probably a 5S bid)

[the hog]

Yes 5C should be exclusion Blackwood. Why pd would bid J2NT with a void is beyond me however.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Obviously, 2NT is not "plain vanilla Jacoby" .

[sasioc]

Yes hog, I agree that partner's bidding doesn't make a lot of sense. Having responded J2N on the hand (which you've already mentioned as very weird) I probably wouldn't bid exclusion either given that p has shown no extras but has a shortage that I might like to know more about - why bid J2N if I'm not really interested in hearing more about p's hand? I just can't see 5C meaning anything else!

[jillybean]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-12, 19:47, said:

Obviously, 2NT is not "plain vanilla Jacoby" .

yes it is plain, old, J2NT, the responses are what is different.

[jillybean]

I responded 5♠, (exclusion) and partner bid 7♥.
Will you contribute any more to the auction?

[the hog]

No, had partner wanted to hear more, she would have bid differently. Anyway you may need to ruff the Ds good to bring in 7NT.
Bidding 7NT is an insult to partner.

[mikestar13]

Perhaps the hand is too strong for a splinter and a direct 5♣ is not Exclusion in this partnership? Then I can see J2NT to set trumps followed by taking over. Totally agree with the hog that a pass of 7♥ is in order--partner is too likely to need ruffs even though you have ♣A.

[billw55]

jillybean, on 2011-October-12, 20:33, said:

I responded 5♠, (exclusion) and partner bid 7♥.
Will you contribute any more to the auction?

I will consider redouble if I get a chance

[jillybean]

---

I bid 7N thinking partner has ♦ and ♠ control and a long, running suit of his own,
Why should this be an insult to my partner?

[BunnyGo]

jillybean, on 2011-October-13, 06:59, said:

---

I bid 7N thinking partner has ♦ and ♠ control and a long, running suit of his own,
Why should this be an insult to my partner?

Because partner has stepped up and decided to captain. Then partner placed the contract without even sniffing at a NT contract and didn't ask your opinion. Partner has said, "Thanks for the answer, we're playing here," and your response was "Even though I don't know much about your hand, I'm gonna correct to 7NT."

[ArtK78]

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that your partner held the exact same hand but without the QT of spades (AKxxxxx of spades).

Partner knows that you are short in spades from your 3♣ call (at least, partner has a reasonable expectation that you are short in spades). Not that it matters - no matter how many spades you hold there rates to be no spade loser playing in a heart contract. So, partner knows that there should be 13 tricks available in hearts. But you have no certainly that there are 13 tricks available in notrump. Mere possession of the ♣A does not assure your side of 13 tricks in notrump. And if partner held AKxxxxx of spades instead of his actual holding, you would make 9 tricks in notrump (on a minor suit lead) instead of 13 tricks in hearts.

Perhaps the hog was a bit strong in stating that your 7NT bid was an insult to partner. After all, partner chose an auction geared to finding the appropriate level to play the hand in a heart contract. Partner would have been 100% correct if you did not hold the ♣A. Partner could have bid non-exclusion Blackwood to find out about the ♣A and the AK of hearts. Or partner could have bid the hand more slowly, perhaps giving you an opportunity to cue bid the ♣A. Instead, partner chose a very practical (and clearly correct) bid of 5♣. It is unlucky that this results in missing the top spot.

You are in no position to overrule partner. You just do not have enough information to know that there are 13 tricks available in notrump.

By the way, I assume that this hand was played at matchpoints, otherwise converting from 7♥ to 7NT would be insane (there is a remote change of an adverse ruff at trick one, but it is not large enough to worry about). It is my experience that bidding a cold grand slam is almost always worth most of the matchpoints. Recently, my partner and I bid 7NT on a combined 39 HCP in a BBO ACBL pairs game and scored almost 70%. I strongly suspect that the difference between 7♥ and 7NT was not large.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jillybean, on 2011-October-12, 20:29, said:

yes it is plain, old, J2NT, the responses are what is different.

If I posted this answer, I would have received a big LOL.

jillybean, on 2011-October-13, 06:59, said:

I bid 7N thinking partner has .... etc, etc....
Why should this be an insult to my partner?

If I posted this answer, I would have received a big LOL.

[Fluffy]

jillybean, on 2011-October-13, 06:59, said:

---

I bid 7N thinking partner has ♦ and ♠ control and a long, running suit of his own,
Why should this be an insult to my partner?

Its a big gamble, your partner would bid the same with ♦AKJ9xx or ♠AK10xxxx, you don't need your side suit's queen when you play in a trump contract.

[jillybean]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-13, 08:12, said:

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that your partner held the exact same hand but without the QT of spades (AKxxxxx of spades).

Partner knows that you are short in spades from your 3♣ call (at least, partner has a reasonable expectation that you are short in spades). Not that it matters - no matter how many spades you hold there rates to be no spade loser playing in a heart contract. So, partner knows that there should be 13 tricks available in hearts. But you have no certainly that there are 13 tricks available in notrump. Mere possession of the ♣A does not assure your side of 13 tricks in notrump. And if partner held AKxxxxx of spades instead of his actual holding, you would make 9 tricks in notrump (on a minor suit lead) instead of 13 tricks in hearts.

Perhaps the hog was a bit strong in stating that your 7NT bid was an insult to partner. After all, partner chose an auction geared to finding the appropriate level to play the hand in a heart contract. Partner would have been 100% correct if you did not hold the ♣A. Partner could have bid non-exclusion Blackwood to find out about the ♣A and the AK of hearts. Or partner could have bid the hand more slowly, perhaps giving you an opportunity to cue bid the ♣A. Instead, partner chose a very practical (and clearly correct) bid of 5♣. It is unlucky that this results in missing the top spot.

You are in no position to overrule partner. You just do not have enough information to know that there are 13 tricks available in notrump.

By the way, I assume that this hand was played at matchpoints, otherwise converting from 7♥ to 7NT would be insane (there is a remote change of an adverse ruff at trick one, but it is not large enough to worry about). It is my experience that bidding a cold grand slam is almost always worth most of the matchpoints. Recently, my partner and I bid 7NT on a combined 39 HCP in a BBO ACBL pairs game and scored almost 70%. I strongly suspect that the difference between 7♥ and 7NT was not large.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

My bidding does not indicate ♠ shortage. Partner skipped over the bid to ask where my shortage is so I think this suggests partner has a good, long, self sufficent side suit. Partner is unlikely to bid 7H with less isn't he? I could have ♠xxx.

The scoring wasn't included as we didn't play the hand, I received it as a bidding problem.

[jillybean]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-13, 08:12, said:

If I posted this answer, I would have received a big LOL.


If I posted this answer, I would have received a big LOL.

Your first comment "Obviously, 2NT is not "plain vanilla Jacoby" reminds me of people at the club who after we start a J2N sequence, ask 'Jacoby 2N?' and never ask about our responses or the guy who interupts my explanation of 1♠:3♣ with 'Bergen!!' and never hears the point range.

As for your second comment, laugh all you like about my reason for bidding 7N. I could have walked away thinking 'good for me, top board' but I wasn't comfortable with the 7N bid, hence the post here.

[ArtK78]

jillybean, on 2011-October-13, 08:55, said:

My bidding does not indicate ♠ shortage. Partner skipped over the bid to ask where my shortage is so I think this suggests partner has a good, long, self sufficent side suit. Partner is unlikely to bid 7H with less isn't he? I could have ♠xxx.

The scoring wasn't included as we didn't play the hand, I received it as a bidding problem.

I did not say that your 3♣ bid promised spade shortage. You stated that it showed a minimum with a shortage somewhere, and I stated that partner had a reasonable expectation that your shortage was in spades. I also stated that it didn't matter how many spades you had for purposes of playing in a heart contract.

If the scoring was not matchpoints (or board-a-match, which is another form of matchpoints), why would you ever consider bidding 7NT? Avoiding an opening ruff? Hardly likely.

As far as partner having a long running suit, that is certainly possible, but it is not necessary. AKxxxxx is certainly not a long "running" suit. Yet partner has a near 100% expectation of making 7♥ if you have the AK of hearts. Partner could also have AKQxxx with another heart, and 7♥ is still a virtual certainly, but 7NT is not very good.

[ArtK78]

Duplicate post.

[neilkaz]

I'd be happy to leave it in 7♥ here and even at MP this should score well in a typical game. You have a stiff and PD has a void and he chose to be cap'n and play 7♥.