Swiss teams hand

[awm]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sahkt76dak43cqt86]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Unfavorable at IMPs, partner opens a standard 1♣. RHO bids 4♠. You double; this is basically "cards" and one would expect partner to sit with a balanced minimum and bid with a shapely hand. Partner pulls this to 5♣. So the auction is, partner dealing:

 

1♣ - 4♠ - X - Pass

5♣ - Pass - ???

 

What's your call?

[Guest Jlall]

I'd give him 5S. Certainly we have to bid a slam (that's not to say certainly it must make, but I can't imagine not bidding it), whether or not we are worth 5S I think we are, we don't need much at all for a grand. I believe that if partner bids 7 we will get to far more good grands than bad grands. If partner bids 5N I'll just sign off in 6C.

[mikeh]

I agree with Justin: I will add that I will also pass 6♣: I think 5N by him should be 'too good to bid 6♣, not good enough to bid 6 red', but I confess that I have never discussed this with anyone :)

[pclayton]

I will make a try for grand as well with 5S, however I dont expect pard to able to cooperate inteligently.

 

5N would be last train for me (over 5S) but i have no idea how much strength it conveys.

[Apollo81]

5♠

[Winstonm]

I like the idea of bidding 5D with a trusting partner - this simply should never be taken as a suit else no card-showing double. The benefit of 5D instead of 5S is that it gives partner the chance to bid 5H with that ace and grand slam interest and 6 clubs with no interest.

 

So I think it might be better to bid:

5D-5H

5S-

 

Now 5N should be a general grand try I would think.

[pbleighton]

Simple Simon Sez Say Six.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

I like the idea of bidding 5D with a trusting partner - this simply should never be taken as a suit else no card-showing double. The benefit of 5D instead of 5S is that it gives partner the chance to bid 5H with that ace and grand slam interest and 6 clubs with no interest.

 

So I think it might be better to bid:

5D-5H

5S-

 

Now 5N should be a general grand try I would think.

I agree 100% with everything in this post.

[cherdano]

I would bid 5S but won't be surprised about 1390. How should partner know that 3 keycards and the queen in his longish red suit are enough for the grand?

 

As for bidding 5♦, I would expect this to be a natural suggestion of strain. E.g. a strong 1462. I think you need to allow for some off-shape flexibility for "takeout" doubles that high, and can't expect a single bid to set trumps.

 

Arend

[pclayton]

I would bid 5S but won't be surprised about 1390. How should partner know that 3 keycards and the queen in his longish red suit are enough for the grand?

 

As for bidding 5♦, I would expect this to be a natural suggestion of strain. E.g. a strong 1462. I think you need to allow for some off-shape flexibility for "takeout" doubles that high, and can't expect a single bid to set trumps.

 

Arend

Agree. 5 red would be nice if pard interprets it, but why should he? Besides, I won't learn anything useful over 5♦ anyway.

[han]

Agree with Arend, and 1-4-6-2 seems the right shape. With 1-5-5-2 partner would bid 4NT and 5D.

[awm]

Well this hand lost us a swiss match. Here's partner's cards:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj8hqj94d8cak9754&s=sahkt76dak43cqt86]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Perhaps not everyone opens the north hand, but it's rule of 20 or whatever and it was opened at both tables. When our opponents held the N/S cards:

 

1♣ - 4♠ - X - Pass

5♣ - Pass - Pass - Pass

 

When partner and I held the N/S cards:

 

2♣(1) - 4♠ - 6♣ - All Pass

 

(1) Precision; 10-15 hcp with 6+ clubs, rule of 20-24 opening

 

While 6♣ would appear to have a decent chance, the lead was the singleton heart eight and a heart back for the setting ruff. Everyone on our team was amazed by the pass of 5♣ at the other table (by someone who's supposed to be a strong player), as this hand seems closer to a grand slam try than a pass at the five level.

[mikeh]

I'm not sure who it was (I'm guessing Justin) but we had a recent post advising against making bids that the bidder thinks 'must' mean a particular hand (always, in these forums, a hand that matches what we hold) because, no matter how compelling we think our reasoning is, there is simply too much risk that partner, who is not looking at our hand, will think it means something else. A very wise post.

 

So to those who think that 5♦ 'must' be a cuebid, take note: my guess is that the vast majority of partners would at least consider the possibility that 5♦ was natural. I think it was Rubens (of the Bridge World) who said that his advice was that if an undiscussed bid could be natural, it should be natural.

 

I am not denigrating the logic behind '5♦ is a cue'. I am denigrating the idea of inflicting this on partner. While I recognize that good partners should be afforded the opportunity to draw delicate inferences, I really, really doubt that this is the time to do so. We are morally certain that we have a small slam. We doubt that we have a grand, but would like to at least sniff at it. We absolutely DO NOT WANT to be declarer in 5♦: if there is one chance in 100 that we will get to play 5♦, that is too much.... after all, it is not as if the magic inferential auction will assure us of reaching a good grand, while it is a sure thing that 5♦ will be the wrong spot.

[inquiry]

I'm not sure who it was (I'm guessing Justin) but we had a recent post advising against making bids that the bidder thinks 'must' mean a particular hand (always, in these forums, a hand that matches what we hold) because, no matter how compelling we think our reasoning is, there is simply too much risk that partner, who is not looking at our hand, will think it means something else. A very wise post.

It might also have been Fred who,at the very least, said something similar. To paraphrase, my memory is he said something like "if an undiscussed bid might be natural, then it is natural."