4th Seat Monster

[Echognome]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxhajxxdakxcakqjx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction goes:

 

(2♣*) - 3♣** - (P) - 4NT

(P) - 5♣*** - (P) - ?

 

* Ekren. Weak hand with at least 4-4 in the majors

** Shows 5♦ and 5♠

*** 0 or 3 keycards

 

Your left hand opponent showed both majors and partner is showing spades and diamonds. You ask for keycards and partner apparently has none. What do you bid now?

[inquiry]

6♦ at imps, 6NT at matchpoints

[Blofeld]

Is there an implied suit agreement with 4NT? Otherwise asking for keycards seems a little odd.

[Guest Jlall]

stupid matchpoints..I got for 6N assuming 5C was not 0 keycards for spades :)

[luke warm]

i wouldn't have any idea what was trumps.. seems better to play 6 ace kc here... anyway, agree with ben and justin at matchpoints... 6d @ imps

[Echognome]

I'm not exactly sure what 4nt was. Maybe it was simple blackwood.

[mikeh]

6♦ at all scoring.

 

There is something odd here: the bidding is unfamiliar to north amercian eyes, so maybe this defence to this opening is 'standard' where this arose, but I would have expected any pair with this type of agreement would know what 4N meant.

 

Assuming that partner would have shown keycards in his suits, he appears to have stretched to make his ovecall. So the field may never find the ♦ fit and/or slam. Therefore, I see no reason to risk a zero by bidding 6N off the ♠AK... it is not as if opening leader will have trouble leading them if he holds them (or doubling for that matter).

 

6♦ rates to have more of a play and therefore rates to score over 50% in mps (maybe a top) and to be the soundest imp slam as well.

 

I think the obsession with notrump slams at mps (an obsession I usually share) has to be tempered by estimating whether the field will always get to any slam. If the auction begins with 3 passes, and partner shows ♠ and denies a fit for you, can you both find ♦ and reach slam? I doubt it.

[Echognome]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq9xhxdxxct98xxxx&w=sjt8xxhkt98xd98xc&e=sakxxhqxxdqjxxxcx&s=sxhajxxdakxcakqjx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

This was a UI case at the club tonight. I was west and opened 2♣ showing the majors. It is not that common here. North bid 3♣ alerted and explained as spades and diamonds quieting my p's bidding. South bid 4nt (not alerted) and North passed!

 

I asked what 4nt meant and was told keycard. So i lead a heart and they made 430. Since they had an easy 6♣ on, we didn't bother complaining. Besides, it was only a club night, not the bermuda bowl.

 

Anyway, I got to thinking and decided that if I was directing and had ruled this I don't think I'd let them play in anything less than 6♦. It sounds like I would have been justified in my reasoning.

[Blofeld]

If 3♣ should show some strength, surely North might have passed 4NT even without partner's explanation of the 3♣ bid?

[Echognome]

I could do only one part of the UI at a time. The real question here is whether passing 4NT is a logical alternative. I don't see how you can without a real break in partnership trust. You overcall a natural 3♣ and partner blasts blackwood. Can you really now decide that (1) you don't like your call enough that you won't cooperate with an unpassed partner and (2) that you won't end up in a ridiculous contract such as 4NT going off when 5 or 6 clubs is cold. The case in point is that THIS HAND is a reason why you shouldn't pass 4nt. Imagine that partner had not alerted 3♣ and you were on your merry way. Now are you telling me that the s**t wouldn't hit the fan if you passed 4nt? I cannot imagine passing a blackwood ask by partner as ever being a logical alternative.

[Fluffy]

I woudl bid 6♦ any form of scoring