Do you move beyond game? Sanity Check
#1
Posted 2012-August-19, 21:06
Axx
AQJx
Qx
AQxx
(2♦) - P - (P) - x
(P) - 4♥ - (P) - ?
Your call?
#2
Posted 2012-August-19, 21:24
#4
Posted 2012-August-19, 22:44
- billw55
#5
Posted 2012-August-19, 22:54
lalldonn, on 2012-August-19, 22:44, said:
I think you mean content. We know you're good.
#6
Posted 2012-August-19, 23:36
- billw55
#8
Posted 2012-August-20, 01:39
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."
"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."
-Alfred Sheinwold
#9
Posted 2012-August-20, 01:54
#10
Posted 2012-August-20, 01:55
For example i would blast 4♥ with hands like;
x Kxxxxx Jxxx xx / xx Kxxxxx xxxxx void etc etc
and hope to make it when pd has diamond shortness. If he is not short in ♦ perhaps he has clubs covered, AKxx / AQxx. And if he doesnt have that too, i wont be the first soldier who died in that type of heroic attempt
Basically for me when pd blasts 4♥, the more we have the more likely he will make game
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#11
Posted 2012-August-20, 02:06
Quote
Interesting, do you think it's better to have this than just "bid a slam with diamond control ?".
I intuitively prefer the latter but no strong opinion.
As to the hand I feel pass is perfect. Even if we flop Kxx Kxxxxx Axx x which is too much to hope for with perfect values and much more than partner needs to accept our try imo, the slam is still about 50%.
#12
Posted 2012-August-20, 04:37
If we bid 5H and partner bids slam, I'd expect partner to make it about half the time, maybe less. If partner passes, obviously we would prefer to be back in 4H. All things combined I'd say that we should pass.
I like this problem very much. I also think that the only way to answer this kind of problem is to construct hands for partner consistent with the auction and estimate how good slam (or 5H) is for those hands.
- hrothgar
#13
Posted 2012-August-20, 04:57
#14
Posted 2012-August-20, 06:52
I don't expect partner to be gambling on King-sixth and out opposite our balance, if it turns out we are strong, we'll bid over a simple advance (especially since we've balanced).
When constructing possible hands with a diamond control for partner, we should be thinking about the Ace or King 3rd or 4th given the failure of responder to raise.
If partner has a hand like ♠Kxx ♥KJxxxx ♦x ♣Kxx, might he have cue-bid 3♦ before bidding 4♥?
#15
Posted 2012-August-20, 07:51
TimG, on 2012-August-20, 06:52, said:
Is that meant as a reason to bid, or a reason to pass?
6♥ seems likely to go down on a diamond ruff. 6NT will often make on a double squeeze, but not if they find a spade lead.
#16
Posted 2012-August-20, 07:55
TimG, on 2012-August-20, 06:52, said:
I don't expect partner to be gambling on King-sixth and out opposite our balance, if it turns out we are strong, we'll bid over a simple advance (especially since we've balanced).
When constructing possible hands with a diamond control for partner, we should be thinking about the Ace or King 3rd or 4th given the failure of responder to raise.
If partner has a hand like ♠Kxx ♥KJxxxx ♦x ♣Kxx, might he have cue-bid 3♦ before bidding 4♥?
Both of those hands start with a cue bid over the dble in my book. This is not even a Potentially competitive auction, so absolutely no reason to go jumping to game. That just gives partner a huge problem when he has a strong hand, that was completely unnecessary.
#17
Posted 2012-August-20, 08:11
I found this to be very interesting. I bid 5♥, thinking that I had a much better hand than a mere balancing double, and that all I was likely to need from partner was a diamond control for slam. I was wrong, as many of the posters pointed out. The two hands:
Axx
AQJx
Qx
AQxx
QJx
KT87432
3
84
As bad as this looks, it is not hopeless. If both black Ks are onside, there is an easy black suit squeeze. But the ♠K was offside, so the slam had no play.
At the table, a diamond was led to the A (not the K), and a trump was returned. So, the ♦K appeared to be in the opening leader's hand. Does this create a squeeze on LHO in diamonds and clubs? I don't believe that the squeeze operates unless the ♠K is also onside.
I thought that the 4♥ bid would be better than this. But, as has been pointed out quite clearly, any hand with heart length and fair values will shoot out game on this auction. With power, a cue bid is warranted prior to bidding game.
Query: Assume that both black suit kings are onside. If the defense leads a diamond and, instead of just continuing diamonds, switches to a spade - Q, K, A - does this break up all squeezes?
Also at the table, the partner of the 2♦ opener thought long and hard over 6♥. He almost bid 7♦, having been silent to this point in the auction, holding:
9832
6
KJ56
K652
So, bidding slam almost worked anyway.
#18
Posted 2012-August-20, 08:11
#19
Posted 2012-August-20, 08:14
ArtK78, on 2012-August-20, 08:11, said:
Doesn't that require LHO to be 5=0=4=4?
#20
Posted 2012-August-20, 08:52
Make sure you thank your opponents for not killing your diamond threat.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.

Help
