OleBerg

Hi all, It seems most have not found this hand really interesting. I did. I really believe this hand is worth another bid outside of 6♦. Partner has shown solid diamonds, and thas guaranteed that we have all the aces. If partner has six solid diamonds (which is the least he could have), and a doubleton club, 7♦ is odds on. Considering what partner has shown, if we had ♣AKQxx, 7♦ would be a no brainer. So if we bid 6♣, reinviting, we should show a club-suit that is suited for grand, but not as good as AKQxx. So in my opinion 6♣ is the right bid. The full hand can be seen in the thread "I bid it, you play it."

ditto. Tritto.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj8543hk92dj42c7]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] All white, you open. 2♠ - (3♣) - Pass - 3NT Pass- Pass - Pass

So you give preference to partner on a bad hand with a singleton in the suit, then commend your partners for not overbidding when there is a misfit? You and your partners are a match made in heaven :) I don't understand. 2H is not encouraging in any way, and a 5-1 fit often rates to be better than a 4-2, not to mention a 3-2. My bid would be 2H as well, and although I probably am as unhappy about the bid as OleBerg, I would be even more unhappy playing in 2D. As Ole said, partner will often pass, but could bid on rescuing us to the good contract of 2S or 2NT. /Peter I don't understand. 2H is not encouraging in any way, and a 5-1 fit often rates to be better than a 4-2, not to mention a 3-2. My bid would be 2H as well, and although I probably am as unhappy about the bid as OleBerg, I would be even more unhappy playing in 2D. As Ole said, partner will often pass, but could bid on rescuing us to the good contract of 2S or 2NT. /Peter Yes, and even when partner bids 3♥, we might still be better off than in 2♦.

Seems I am taking to many things for granted, so let me rephrase the question: 5♠ invites grand-slam in diamonds, but you have have not discussed what the difference is betweem 5♠, 5NT and 6♣. You have however discussed, that 5♥ would have asked for the thrumph queen, and that you never ask for kings. What do you bid now; 5NT, 6♣ or 6♦?

Try again. It is not asking for kings, neither number nor specific. And diamonds has been set for thrumphs. A cuebid? Geez, partner could have bid 4♠. Specific suit ask? If partner really meant that as a specific suit ask without prior agreement to using specific suit asks, he should be shot. On 4♥, 4♠ would have been a normal cuebid. You have not discussed 5♠, 5NT or 6♣, but you are sure that none of them asks for kings in any way, but that they are all inviting grandslam somehow. Maybe not an ideal situation, but as it is a pick-up partnership you are stuck with it.

Try again. It is not asking for kings, neither number nor specific. And diamonds has been set for thrumphs.

You are on the track. This is a "what would you bid", but it will be followed by a "how would you play this".

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s1098hk64d5cak10642]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♦ (Opponents silent from here) 3♣ - 4♦ 4♥ - 4NT 5♣ - 5♠ ??? 4♦ = Sets diamonds. 4♥ = Cue 4nt = RKCB 5♣ = One ace 5♠ = Undiscussed, but 5♥ would have asked for the thrumph queen. Edit: Concerning some of the replies below: 1) 5♠ is definately not a transfer to 5NT. 2) In the circles where the hand took place, no-one would expect neither 5♠ nor 5nt to show or ask for either specific or a number of kings.

They do. http://www.blakset.dk/

I agree. But then again, I'm used to taking the odd position. B)

A better contract like 3♦? 3♥? 3NT?? My partner doesn't usually have ♣AKx on this auction! "Diamonds are probably a slight favourite to play better, but on 2♥ partner will occasionally bid again, sometimes taking us to a better contract." Ok, just to be sure it says what I mean The point is that you have this completely backwards. If partner bids again you probably should have passed 2♦. Guess I'm just luckier than the average guy. Sometimes my partners bid spades, clubs or NT. And they are not compulsive overbidders in misfit auctions.

A better contract like 3♦? 3♥? 3NT?? My partner doesn't usually have ♣AKx on this auction! "Diamonds are probably a slight favourite to play better, but on 2♥ partner will occasionally bid again, sometimes taking us to a better contract." Ok, just to be sure it says what I mean

I bid 2♥, but I dont like it. Diamonds are probably a slight favourite to play better, but on 2♥ partner will occasionally bid again, taking us to a better contract. If I played something artificial, where 2♣ from opener showed diamonds, I would bid 2♦.

Well done, especially considering the competition he must be up against.

FYP. :D

what sort of discussion do you have in mind here? My post would give a subtle clue, but I'll be gracious and reveal it: Some players might choose to open 1♦ on the hand.

The curiosity is, that there are two other ongoing threads discussing splinters, including discussions of how excited you get, when you have no wastage facing a singleton. The actual South-player also found it slightly entertaining, that 5♦ was a winner. As for the North hand being an "easy 2♣ opener", that could actually merit some discussion among experts.

Solution: Ignore my posts. Why? Everyone here agrees that this thread is useless. Useless threads clutter up the forum. This is bad for everyone. Well, A bump would be even more useless. Should I?

Solution: Ignore my posts.

No, it is a curiosity. There is nothing curious about this hand either. But then again, your comments are not advanced or expert.

No, it is a curiosity.

Mostly a curiosity: ♠ 1086 ♥ 8652 ♦ 964 ♣ 976 All white at IMP's, partner starts: 1♦ ------- (Pass) - Pass - (1NT) Double - (2♥) - Pass - (Pass) Double - (Pass) - 3♦ - (Pass) 4♥ ------ (Pass) - ? Scroll down for full hand. S c r o l l d o w n f o r t h e f u l l h a n d [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak4h3dakj82cakq3&w=sj732haq4dq103cj84&e=sq95hkj1097d75c1052&s=s1086h8652d964c976]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

On that hand, partner has an obvious 4♥-call on a 4♦ bid. He has already shown his hand. He may be maximum point wise, but trick-producing wise he is a dead minimum. The ♥J may actually be worthless. Give opener the same hand with 3-4-5-1 and you can even remove the ♥J, and slam will be resonable. Make it 2-4-6-1 and slam is excellent.

Hi all, just an input to the "splinter vs exclusion blackwood" When considering whether a bid should be splinter or XBW, you have to consider the alternative routes that can be taken. Can a hand with a singleton be handled by an alternative route? If it can, let the space-consuming bid be exclusion. If not, let it be a splinter. For instance: 1♦ - 3♦ (weak) Well, if my only possible continuation was 4♥, 4♠ and 4NT, I'd probably prefere 4♥/♠ to be splinter. As it is, I can bid 3♠ on the example hand, and have a meaningfull dialogue with partner from there. I like to reserve some bids to show voids, simply because when you have voids, the number of aces you need for slam changes.