What do you think?

[han]

Mike is referring to the well known law of symmetry: we a void, they a void.

 

It wasn't clear to me in your orinal post that this is a minimum for partner.

[655321]

4D, and pass 4H from partner, seems to describe my hand admirably.

What Frances said.

[neilkaz]

I prefer the 4♦ splinter here to the direct blast to 5♦ exclusion.

 

Where do you find these clowns who'd double that 5♦ bid with Qxxxx and a ♥ stack when they will X 6♥ anyhow ? Too likely to give up a trick for no reason when PD leads ♦.

Then again, I see this stuff all the time in MBC and from adv/exp as well.

[ArtK78]

I prefer the 4♦ splinter here to the direct blast to 5♦ exclusion.

 

Where do you find these clowns who'd double that 5♦ bid with Qxxxx and a ♥ stack when they will X 6♥ anyhow ? Too likely to give up a trick for no reason when PD leads ♦.

Then again, I see this stuff all the time in MBC and from adv/exp as well.

The double of 5♦ was incredibly silly, and the double of 6♥ was also quite silly. Interchange my ♥A for partner's ♠A and the bidding could have been identical, but 6♥x will now claim, as the double of 6♥ gives away the location of the trump honors (when the opening spade lead is not ruffed - oh, they led a diamond, didn't they? Well, there is no accounting for taste).

[kenrexford]

I don't like 4♦ at all. I think that it understates the diamond holding, overstates the spade holding, and overstates the heart holding. In fact, as I play them, it understates the club holding, but that part is my own method and not universal.

 

5♦ is sick.

 

2NT makes sense. I can predict a necessary cue of 3♠ from partner (he has a spade card for me), which insreases my value. I might then bid 5♦, if so inclined. But, why jump immediately if I can jump to 5♦ after a 3♠ cue and I really need a 3♠ cue?

 

Again, what next after 3♠? 5♦ is not horrible, but it seems premature. I like the idea of a 3NT call as serious, because it allows a 4♣ call from partner. That might be shortness, but I'm fairly confident that it is not. Partner seems to not have spade support (he'd presumably bid 3♠ instead of 3♣). In practice, that works.

 

Now I'm getting closer. I think that 5♦ at this point should be exclusion as well. It is, again, a jump. I will have knowledge that things are probably good for us.

 

The big problem with 5♦, even here, is that I cannot stand a 5♠ response. Well, maybe I could pass, knowing that partner has an honor with me. That might be enough safety to stab at this. 1430 Exclusion would be better, as 0 is impossible and 1 then would be a 5♥ response. Thankfully, I play 1430 Exclusion.

 

Using that approach, I could bid 5♦. I doubt that I get a double of 5♦, so I'll ignore that. Partner shows two without the Queen. Oh yeah -- that's a bad answer also. Well, maybe hearts will be 3-1 with a stiff honor and partner with the Jack well-placed or J10, or 2-2 hearts.

 

Or, maybe I'll bid 4♦ as LTTC? No -- that causes greater problems.

 

So, I try 5♦ at this late point int he auction and hope for hearts to behave.

 

I might have tried 6♠ after the double. Partner might have Axxx in clubs, clubs 3-3, and the diamond Ace, after all. He does not, but he might have had that. Not sure if that is right or not.

[ArtK78]

The big problem with 5♦, even here, is that I cannot stand a 5♠ response. Well, maybe I could pass, knowing that partner has an honor with me. That might be enough safety to stab at this. 1430 Exclusion would be better, as 0 is impossible and 1 then would be a 5♥ response. Thankfully, I play 1430 Exclusion.

We were playing 1430 exclusion. So that is not the issue here.

[miguelm]

Nice Slam, although not THAT good. You know you are missing one key card and the trump queen.

So, you might be missing the cards you actually do, for a ~65% slam.

Or you might be missing an ace and and the trump queen, for ~53%.

... and there is also no way for you to know which one is it.

 

I prefer my odds to be a bit better in a Major slam :P

 

Regarding the bid you have chosen, the only problem with it IMHO is the possible lack of spade complement in partner's hand, without which I wouldn't want to be at the 5th level.

[kenrexford]

The big problem with 5♦, even here, is that I cannot stand a 5♠ response.  Well, maybe I could pass, knowing that partner has an honor with me.  That might be enough safety to stab at this.  1430 Exclusion would be better, as 0 is impossible and 1 then would be a 5♥ response.  Thankfully, I play 1430 Exclusion.

We were playing 1430 exclusion. So that is not the issue here.

But why rush to offer the diamonds? Find out if she's worth the investment cheaply and then pounce at the right moment.

[ArtK78]

The big problem with 5♦, even here, is that I cannot stand a 5♠ response.  Well, maybe I could pass, knowing that partner has an honor with me.  That might be enough safety to stab at this.  1430 Exclusion would be better, as 0 is impossible and 1 then would be a 5♥ response.  Thankfully, I play 1430 Exclusion.

We were playing 1430 exclusion. So that is not the issue here.

But why rush to offer the diamonds? Find out if she's worth the investment cheaply and then pounce at the right moment.

The reason for the "rush" is that it is often difficult to make the exclusion bid later in the auction. For example, partner might bid 4♥ at some point, figuring that his hand is minimum and bidding what he thinks is the final contract. At least at this point in the auction, the 5♦ call is clearly exclusion RKCB.

[Walddk]

The reason for the "rush" is that it is often difficult to make the exclusion bid later in the auction.  For example, partner might bid 4♥ at some point, figuring that his hand is minimum and bidding what he thinks is the final contract.  At least at this point in the auction, the 5♦ call is clearly exclusion RKCB.

Indeed it is, and I can't rule out that it will work beautifully opposite certain hands. However, as I can't be sure that the 5-level is safe, I think it's wiser to bid a splinter below game.

 

♠ xx

♥ KQJxx

♦ AQx

♣ xxx

 

I assume that this hand meets your requirements for a 2♥ response. The 5-level is not safe.

 

Roland

[benlessard]

To play 1S---2H----3H & 1S----2H-----3S as non-forcing in IMPS is something that doesnt make any sense.

Actually, it does in the context of the system.

 

Well of course i would need to see the full system to better understand. But...

 

If partner 2H is forcing and the 2S rebid is forcing then 2H is forcing the partnership to at least 2Nt with probably a strong willingness to play 3H or 3S (even unfitted) so 2H should not be bid with complete garbage(at least 12 pts imho). Now try to find a hand where you dont mind playing 3M or 2Nt unfitted but are not willing to play game facing a fit ??? Even beginners know that a fit is worth at least 1 trick.

 

The only type of hands that are possibles are hands with solid 6 or 7 carder where partner support is irrelevant (you would prefer partner to have longer side suits instead of trumps and no long suits). No need to tell you that these hands dont occur too frequently and you shouldnt put to much ressources for them. Almost all experts will tell you that playing 3M in IMPS (in uncontested auction) is a losing strategy, its the first thing i tell to students when they ask the differences between imps & MP.

 

Same for 1S---2S ----??? auctions i honestly think its stupid to play game tries here. All inv that will force you to a possible risky contract of 2Nt or 3M in imps are close to worthless IMHO.

 

"lead directing" double of 5♦

A X of a void isnt a lead directing its either Lightner(asking for opponent non-trumps suit (or higher-lowest unbid suits methods) or a maybe an invite to sacrifice (white vs red).

 

Also when a exclusion is made 1 or 2 step before trumps you should play that the trumps bid is not interested.

 

So after 5D----

 

5H = not interested since ive got heavy D wastage

5S = 14

5Nt etc...

 

I prefer to play that ERKC is a way of showing a void instead of a pure asking bid.