Tactics or science?

[Guest Jlall]

AKTxxx --- AK9xx Jx. Team game.

 

Partner opens 1N, you bid 2H, he bids 2S, you bid 3D, he bids 3S. Do you agree with your bidding thus far or would you have made some tactical bid the round before? What do you bid now.

 

If it matters, RHO (who will be on lead) is one of the top players in north america.

[whereagles]

So the question is whether I make a Zia-like 4♣ lead inhibitor bid, right? :)

 

Sure, why not? :)

[luis]

I agree with the bidding so far, I have a lot to risk a tactical approach, pd hates me if I miss a slam or grand because I decided to be very smart.

 

The serious options are 4♦ and 5♥ exclusion

The funny options are 4♣ and 5♣ exclusion

 

So I think this depends on the state of the match if we are doing well I would bid 4♦ if we are behind I might try 5♣ exclusion.

 

Luis

[Winstonm]

4C-Gerber. :P

[pclayton]

5♣ exclusion would have been fun earlier. A direct 6♠ over 1N has a lot of merit too.

 

I guess now I try 4♦ and 5♦ over 4♥ or 4♠. Its possible were off 2♣'s and my opponents are likely going to find the lead after my slow approach so I might as well follow through.

[mikeh]

5♣ exclusion sounds like fun, but has some potential downsides.

 

Are you going to bid the grand after partner's response? Blowing off the ♣ lead, if that is what you are trying to do, won't help answer the question about 13 tricks.

 

Nor will exclusion prevent the opening leader from underleading the A of ♣: of course, maybe partner has the ♥A and the ♣K and has no choice but to let it ride: indeed a ♣ lead on such an auction is more likely from the A than any other holding.

 

If I am going to psyche, 4♣ is better, since, while misleading, it is a strong slam try and partner may cue. I think I really need to cue here to avoid a grand opposite Jxx (or worse) in ♦.

 

And I think the best route is 4♦. Over 4♥, I bid 5♦ which brings both ♣ and ♦'s into focus.

 

Over 4♠, I am encouraged, in a sense, by the lack of the expected 4♥ cue, and will cue 5♥ myself: again, bringing the minors into focus.

 

I am not good enough to be brilliant. More importantly, my degree of regret from a failed effort at brilliancy will outweigh any sense of accomplishment I would get from a successful effort. And, tipping the scales: this may well be a hand on which honest bidding works as well as or better than trying to emulate a Zia-image.

 

I might think differently if I were comfortable that the opening lead was the only real issue: but that ♦ suit worries me.

[Finch]

I am not good enough to be brilliant. More importantly, my degree of regret from a failed effort at brilliancy will outweigh any sense of accomplishment I would get from a successful effort. And, tipping the scales: this may well be a hand on which honest bidding works as well as or better than trying to emulate a Zia-image.

I agree. 4♦ for me as well. We have no real idea whether we belong at the 4,5,6 or 7 level so let's involve partner sensibly.

 

(If we belong at the 4-level however I may not let partner play there.)

[Guest Jlall]

Another downside of any club bids that I'm surprised no one has mentioned is that LHO may be able to X. That would be disastrous if RHO was not going to lead a club normally.

[Guest Jlall]

At the table this hand was played quite late at night and the 2 auctions reflect that :lol: I chose to bid 7S over 3S. At the other table my counterpart's 2H transfer got Xed. His partner's 2S bid showed 3, so he just bid 7S.

 

Partners hand was Jxx KQJx QTx AKT. The spade queen was stiff, so 7S made. Just another dull push.

[cherdano]

I think 7S was the safe bid, guaranteeing a push.

[Fluffy]

3♠ can be sometimes be made on 2 cards, I will rather bid 4♦ then 5♦ to cope with that posibility.

[jdulmage]

4♦ as a normal bid

4♣ to make the opponents have to guess leads =D