An Interesting Problem?

[kenrexford]

A post from rgb got me thinking. No one else seemed to go where my mind went, a not uncommon reality. But, I'm curious of others' thoughts here.

 

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

 

P-1♣(pard)-2♦-2♥(you)

5♦-6♥-P-???

 

My concern (hidden):

 

 

If you bid the grand, there is some reason to consider bidding 7♣, especially if my minor lengths were changed. Partner's clubs should be solid, and he rates to be void in diamonds. So, the risk seems to be a first-round ruff in whichever suit is not trumps. Thus, it seems that I want the opponents most likely to have a void to be on lead. As diamonds are known to be 6-4, we assume, then it seems that I want to have the 2♦ bidder on lead, which suggests a 7♣ call.

 

Granted, a heart void may be more likely than a club void, but I was curious as to whether a club void with the 2♦ bidder is more or less likely than a heart void with the 5♦ bidder.

 

[Impact]

The obvious hypothesis is that partner holds a D void and at least 6 solid C with 4 card H support : minimum hand of the order of xxx xxxx void AKQJxx (and realistically wouldn't you assume some S value and considerably more C?) or alternatively 5H with 6+C (and the D void).

 

My concerns must be twofold:

 

A) void in opponent's hand in non-trump suit and not on lead;

 

:angry: opponents sacrificing in 7S.

 

Firstly we have a known H holding of at least 10 cards (while the C holding could be as few as 8, admittedly unlikely, but far more likely to be precisely 9).

 

Accordingly any opposing void is more likely a priori in H than C.

Hence we should play in H rather than C.

 

Against less advanced opponents there is also good reason to avoid exposing the double fit with C as that will give them 2 bites of the cherry in terms of sacrificing/doubling if there is a profitable position for them....

 

Hence 7H is still the obvious bid...and damn the torpedoes!

regards

[mhais]

pass :)

[mikeh]

If the concern is about a 7 level contract... which sure seems to be a live possibility given that it is impossible (for me, anyway, but maybe I have a limited imagination) to construct a JUMP to 6♥ on less than Kxx xxxx void AKQxxx... then we have to consider the possibility of a ruff in one of our long fits.. the round suits.

 

It seems to me that it is at least as probable, and (I think) more probable, that LHO is ruffing hearts as that RHO is ruffing clubs. Of course, if we bid 7♣ and LHO doubles, we run back to 7♥. So maybe that thought is not an issue, altho some good players wouldn't double, and would expect partner to work out the winning lead... wouldn't we all lead a heart from xx xxx AQJxxx xx on this auction? I like to think I would.

 

What truly is a concern is that we don't know about the ♣J. Given the opposition bidding, it strikes me that a 4-1 club break is as likely as a 3-0 heart break. I can overcome a 4-1 club break in hearts, but not in clubs... and no-one is cluing me in by doubling 7♣ looking at J109x of trump :)

 

Finally, think about RHO's hand. How can he be VOID in clubs? We know he is short(ish) in hearts. He presumably has precisely 6 diamonds, not only because he bid only 2♦ but also because LHO jumped in the suit. He won't have 5 spades. So he is void in clubs ONLY when he is specifically 4=3=6=0. Even if he is the type to preempt with 7 major suit cards and a void, it is surely a low-frequency distribution.

 

So, Ken, not for the first nor for the last time, I think that your concerns, if they are about a 1st round ruff in a grand, are a trifle on the over-thought side of reality B)

[Guest Jlall]

Ken I think the problem is that partner won't know he's supposed to pass 7C only with solid clubs.

[Walddk]

Obvious raise for me. If partner is not void in diamonds and if he doesn't have a running club suit, he is not close to having a jump to 6♥ with four baby hearts and no ♠A.

 

Sure there is a remote risk that RHO can double for the lead (club void). However, if that is the case, LHO can double 7♣ because RHO must be 4360 for his double of 7♥.

 

I am prepared to run the slight risk.

 

Roland

[han]

Yep, 7♥ for me too, 7♣ is just too deep.

[Finch]

I understand the concern, but I would expect partner to have 5 hearts most of the time on this auction as he seems to be a little short of heart honours.

 

Something like

 

K

109xxx

-

AKJ10xxx

 

when I'd really much, much rather be in hearts than clubs

 

In fact, given my surprising heart holding I would suspect a double void opposite - except that an opposing 11-card spade fit seems a little strange.

[ArtK78]

I have a general principal - I never raise a jump to slam.

 

For those of you who are raising, please explain to me why partner bid 6♥ and not 6♦. Granted, he does not have a spade control (or, at most, second round control), but wouldn't 6♦ say that?

[cherdano]

I have a general principal - I never raise a jump to slam.

 

For those of you who are raising, please explain to me why partner bid 6♥ and not 6♦. Granted, he does not have a spade control (or, at most, second round control), but wouldn't 6♦ say that?

6D says "partner please bid 7H if you have mild extras and no wastage". You can't do this with no trump honor and no ♠A.

[mikeh]

I have a general principal - I never raise a jump to slam.

 

For those of you who are raising, please explain to me why partner bid 6♥ and not 6♦.  Granted, he does not have a spade control (or, at most, second round control), but wouldn't 6♦ say that?

Partner was under pressure. He couldn't well pass 5♦ with, say, KQx xxxx x AKQxx.. that looks like a 5♥ call to me. So with Kxx xxxx void AKQxxx, a hand that is at least a trick better, 5♥ simply places too much pressure on partner.. after all, he only needs to catch Axx AKxxx xx xxx to make 6♥ virtually cold, and partner will often not be raising 5♥ on that hand.

 

So 6♥ sends the message that 'we should have a play' opposite a reasonable minimum... it does not say: '6♥ should be cold'

 

To make a strong grand slam try, via 6♦, I'd want something like KQx Qxxx void AKJxxx.

[han]

I'd say holding this hand it is impossible for partner to make a strong grand slam try unless he is 6-7.

[skjaeran]

We've got more hearts than clubs between our hands, probably two more. So I'd not be too concerned about a club ruff in 7♥. I'd be far more concerned about a heart ruff in 7♣ (even without a double) or a trump loser there.

 

I can't fathom a hand for partner where we'll go down in 7♥ avoiding a ruff, so I'll raise.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, I also voted 7♥. But I wondered...

[Fluffy]

At MP I'd try 6♠, partner can have ♦A after all

[Fluffy]

I'd say holding this hand it is impossible for partner to make a strong grand slam try unless he is 6-7.

I am thinking off

 

♠

♥xxxxx

♦A

♣AKQxxxx

[han]

You are right, I take it back.

[whereagles]

This depends a bit on pard's style. Bidding 7 if he can be relied to have a diam void.

[han]

This depends a bit on pard's style. Bidding 7 if he can be relied to have a diam void.

On partner's level, ok, but not on partner's style.