[Cyberyeti]

---

Had this hand come up last night, what's your thinking ?

Another from the same session:

---

We have system here that most people don't have that means that an initial 4♦ would be a void, but I'm suspecting that would be a popular choice. We play a multi that can be 5 cards so partner is likely to have exactly 5 hearts and a quacky 9-10.

[DavidKok]

The first deal is strange. Raising to only 3♦ at these colours likely indicates no 10-card fit, so partner likely has 3 diamonds along with the clubs. But most hands with 3 diamonds and 5 clubs are not worth a 3♣ overcall but are instead better shown as a balanced hand. So I'm expecting partner to have 3♦6♣. Our serious club values then imply partner needs something in the majors for a 3-level bid, so 6♣ is close and 7♣ a serious possibility. We need to make some forcing raise of clubs to begin slam investigation. Since 4♦ shows a void I assume 4♣ is a forcing club raise without a diamond void?

On the second deal blasting 4♥ seems fine. You can try for 6♥ by bidding 4♦ splinter, but you're fishing for a perfect hand opposite to get chances (and my partner never has the perfect hand). Something like ♠Q, ♥Kxxxx, ♦xxx, ♣KQxx. Usually my partners show up with loads of wasted values opposite my short suit in uncontested auctions - if the opponents hold all the good diamonds, someone usually bids them. The pitfall to avoid on this hand is unilaterally going past 4♥. If partner has some wasted diamond values, e.g. ♠xx, ♥JTxxx, ♦KQxx, ♣QJx, 5♥ is not that comfortable.
P.S. Since partner's hand is narrowly limited, do you play 3♥ as a slam try here?

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-22, 03:02, said:

The first deal is strange. Raising to only 3♦ at these colours likely indicates no 10-card fit, so partner likely has 3 diamonds along with the clubs. But most hands with 3 diamonds and 5 clubs are not worth a 3♣ overcall but are instead better shown as a balanced hand. So I'm expecting partner to have 3♦6♣. Our serious club values then imply partner needs something in the majors for a 3-level bid, so 6♣ is close and 7♣ a serious possibility. We need to make some forcing raise of clubs to begin slam investigation. Since 4♦ shows a void I assume 4♣ is a forcing club raise without a diamond void?

It shows a void on the second hand, I felt it was a forcing club raise on the first so I bid it, partner thought it was kickback, this was not in itself an issue.

Poor opps, the 10 card fit inference not valid.

Quote

On the second deal blasting 4♥ seems fine. You can try for 6♥ by bidding 4♦ splinter, but you're fishing for a perfect hand opposite to get chances (and my partner never has the perfect hand). Something like ♠Q, ♥Kxxxx, ♦xxx, ♣KQxx. Usually my partners show up with loads of wasted values opposite my short suit in uncontested auctions - if the opponents hold all the good diamonds, someone usually bids them. The pitfall to avoid on this hand is unilaterally going past 4♥. If partner has some wasted diamond values, e.g. ♠xx, ♥JTxxx, ♦KQxx, ♣QJx, 5♥ is not that comfortable.
P.S. Since partner's hand is narrowly limited, do you play 3♥ as a slam try here?

I had the advantage of a GF not always balanced 2N available which was an easy bid, but was wondering how people without this bid the hand.

[apollo1201]

100% with David. On the 1st if you can’t cue, X followed with 4D will be clear for partner, right? Partner can’t be long in majors but could have sth like x AQx(x) Axx KQxxx(x) or same with KQJ S instead of H honors. Or 3 small diamonds and lots of major honors.

On the 2nd, 4D can’t hurt but is the last and only move I’ll make. Partner is trustworthy enough to appreciate KQC and QS and discard the rest.

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-July-22, 03:58, said:

I had the advantage of a GF not always balanced 2N available which was an easy bid, but was wondering how people without this bid the hand.

I think that's a poor bid even when available. We don't want a general assessment of partner's hand, we want to know their values outside diamonds (for an optimistic slam try) or to bid 4♥ without telling the opponents how to defend (if we're not so optimistic). 2NT does neither.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-22, 09:55, said:

I think that's a poor bid even when available. We don't want a general assessment of partner's hand, we want to know their values outside diamonds (for an optimistic slam try) or to bid 4♥ without telling the opponents how to defend (if we're not so optimistic). 2NT does neither.

It allows us to exchange information, normally partner will bid his outside values at the 3 level.

[mikeh]

On the first one, absent special agreements, I bid 4D

On the second one, I’m not wasting time or telling the opps anything about my hand. I’m giving up on the unlikely grand and bidding what I think we can make, especially if I don’t leak information. I bid 6H.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, on the first one we all went past where you want to be, 3N and 5♣ both make, but 3N might well make an overtrick, partner's hand is xx, Ax, K10x, KQ98xx. I actually erred with the vul, it was game all.

On the second, 6♥ is just cold, partner has Q10, KJ10xx, Jx, Qxxx a pretty mouldy 9 count but exactly the cards required.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 4D, this sets trumps, it is not a control bid, but makes clear, that the hand belongs to us.
I am not forcing to slam, I expect partner to act light against 2D, but slam is an option, but
first of all I want to make sure, that partner knowes, the hand belongs to us, the rest can wait.

#2 4D, splinter, over a sign of, I will keep pushing with 5H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-July-23, 12:37, said:

#1 4D, this sets trumps, it is not a control bid, but makes clear, that the hand belongs to us.
I am not forcing to slam, I expect partner to act light against 2D, but slam is an option, but
first of all I want to make sure, that partner knowes, the hand belongs to us, the rest can wait.

#2 4D, splinter, over a sign of, I will keep pushing with 5H.

I agree with this.

#1 with one partner is a kickback, but same direction and result.
#2 as you said. I don't see any merit in blasting to 4♥ and 6♥ looks like guesswork.

I remain in favour as always of posting two different situations in two different posts

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-July-23, 15:10, said:

I agree with this.

#1 with one partner is a kickback, but same direction and result.
#2 as you said. I don't see any merit in blasting to 4♥ and 6♥ looks like guesswork.

I remain in favour as always of posting two different situations in two different posts

On the second one, I guess it depends on how one sees this auction.

2H by a passed hand on 9-10 hcp and an indifferent suit?

While I won’t say that Qx in spades is ‘expected’ it definitely isn’t a surprise. We might have a minimum 5134/5143 and where are we going, other than to 2S…thus he HAS to have spade tolerance and I’d expect either Qx or something good in a minor….xx KJxxx Kxx Kxx…although cyber might open that (as I would in one partnership)

Iow, while I’m not claiming that 6H would be cold….or even odds on against a double dummy lead….I definitely think it’s at least 50% if we give them no useful information in the bidding.

I’m generally very much a ‘scientist’…in my most serious partnership we have a huge number of specialized agreements…but there are times when being too precise simply helps the opps. My sense is that this is one such. Your sense may differ, but I think that 6H is the kind of bid winners make and 4D is not.

The great thing about discussing bidding decisions is that no one hand proves anything, so I don’t expect to convince anybody.

Btw, many pairs have agreements about bidding after an opp splinters. At equal, my agreement is that the double asks for the lead of the suit below the splinter (unless that’s trump…then it’s the suit above the splinter). Since I doubt we want a club lead, that’s another reason not to splinter. If you don’t have some such agreement, make it…it’s a waste of opportunity not to assign a meaning to it.

[akwoo]

#1 - I seem to be the only one here to double and pass 3N. Yes it could go badly, but it's MPs.

#2 - I splinter with 4D, but I agree mikeh has a point. As for mikeh's other point about having an agreement for double of a splinter, the only half-decent regular local pair (I don't have a local partner at the moment) is considering scrapping Lebensohl because opps here almost never interfere over their 1N or open weak 2s, so they don't get to use it enough to remember it. The point is - you have to be regularly playing against good opposition for such an agreement to be worthwhile.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2023-July-23, 20:20, said:

#1 - I seem to be the only one here to double and pass 3N. Yes it could go badly, but it's MPs.

#2 - I splinter with 4D, but I agree mikeh has a point. As for mikeh's other point about having an agreement for double of a splinter, the only half-decent regular local pair (I don't have a local partner at the moment) is considering scrapping Lebensohl because opps here almost never interfere over their 1N or open weak 2s, so they don't get to use it enough to remember it. The point is - you have to be regularly playing against good opposition for such an agreement to be worthwhile.

I would be OK with doubling and passing 3N, less OK with partner passing the double

Quote

While I won’t say that Qx in spades is ‘expected’ it definitely isn’t a surprise. We might have a minimum 5134/5143 and where are we going, other than to 2S…thus he HAS to have spade tolerance and I’d expect either Qx or something good in a minor….xx KJxxx Kxx Kxx…although cyber might open that (as I would in one partnership)

We don't open hands like that, we open 5332s 1N unless the 5 is so good we're prepared to call it 6, and that is not 12-14, we open unbalanced hands really aggressively.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-July-23, 19:35, said:

Iow, while I’m not claiming that 6H would be cold….or even odds on against a double dummy lead….I definitely think it’s at least 50% if we give them no useful information in the bidding.

I’m generally very much a ‘scientist’…in my most serious partnership we have a huge number of specialized agreements…but there are times when being too precise simply helps the opps. My sense is that this is one such. Your sense may differ, but I think that 6H is the kind of bid winners make and 4D is not.

The great thing about discussing bidding decisions is that no one hand proves anything, so I don’t expect to convince anybody.

Btw, many pairs have agreements about bidding after an opp splinters. At equal, my agreement is that the double asks for the lead of the suit below the splinter (unless that’s trump…then it’s the suit above the splinter). Since I doubt we want a club lead, that’s another reason not to splinter. If you don’t have some such agreement, make it…it’s a waste of opportunity not to assign a meaning to it.

Fair enough, thanks.

What happens to the double of splinter at other conditions of vulnerability: it reverts to a normal lead direct for the splinter suit when vulnerable versus not?

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-July-24, 13:41, said:

Fair enough, thanks.

What happens to the double of splinter at other conditions of vulnerability: it reverts to a normal lead direct for the splinter suit when vulnerable versus not?

Sorry: I wrote poorly. The lead the suit below meaning applies unless at favourable, in which case it suggests a save in the splinter suit.