effervesce Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 You hold [hv=d=n&v=b&s=s5hajt7daj8cq9872]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] as west. Partner opens 1♠, 11-15, 5+ suit. You bid 1NT, 5-12, forcing. Partner bids 3♦. Your call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 does 3d show max with 4+ diamonds or does it necessarily show extra shape? I think I'll try 3nt here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 3NT seems totally clear; 5♦ seems far away, pass is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 In a precision setting, 3♦ can't be a phony JS nor should it be forcing. Our cards aren't working that well, so I will bid 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted April 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 does 3d show max with 4+ diamonds or does it necessarily show extra shape? I think I'll try 3nt here. Playing precision of course it shows extra shape. Any maximum without much shape would only bid 2♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 3N, hard to tell how well our cards are working for slam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 3NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted April 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Why 3NT? Surely 5♦ is at least as good as 3NT. Should a 4♦ bid be forcing? (I think not, given the 1NT, but partner disagrees). Besides, slam looks very possible.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Whereas slam may be possible, it seems improbable, and there is not enough space to explore this possibility. I seem to have no options below 3NT to explore a diamond slam, and I am not comfortable that the four-level is safe. Further, I'm not sure how I get sufficient answers below 4NT even if I try to explore slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Why would I be thinking slam? 27 at most, probably 8 card fit, singleton in partner's first suit, lots of values in his short suit....what am I missing, 3NT wtp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 agree with jdonn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted April 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 I took the low road, and we ended up in 5♦. The full hand: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sqjth653dt76ckt64&w=s5hajt7daj8cq9872&e=sak9643h4dkq542c3&s=s872hkq982d93caj5]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 I think the auction should go 1♠-1nt-3♦-3nt-4♦ and then you have better chances to explore for the 6♦. Not that 6♦ is ice cold just looking single dummy. But yes that is an awkward hand for many big club systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted April 19, 2008 Report Share Posted April 19, 2008 Angling towards 6♦ is just resulting. Of course, without seeing the companion hand, I could tell that this hand made it here only because 6♦ made in this one instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.