Go on?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=st52h8dat8763ca97]133|100|Scoring: MP

(P)-2♦-(P)-4♠,

(P)-?[/hv]

 

Your hand just improved immensely. Do you go on? If so, how do you proceed?

[jdonn]

I definitely go on, because my first bid was such a terrible misdescription that partner would never investigate in the expectation I could have this good of a hand for slam. If I'm wrong it's my fault for the first bid, not the second.

 

Blackwood sounds good.

[Halo]

Pass.

 

Once partner and I have preempted each other, it's too late for investigation.

[gnasher]

Blackwood sounds good.

I agree, partly because I want to see partner's reaction when I bid it.

 

Is there any risk that partner will misunderstand? He might reasonably wonder how a preempter could possibly bid Blackwood; I'd have to hope that he can't think of any other interpretation.

[hotShot]

Could 4♠ be a splinter heading for the ♦ slam?

[Finch]

Well, I wouldn't have opened 2D, but now I have I pass.

If I thought this was a pre-empt, then presumably partner knows I can have this hand for a pre-empt and could have made some form of forcing noise.

 

There's no reason why my hand can't be just enough to make game... wouldn't you bid 4S, at least partly as a pre-empt, looking at

 

KQJxxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

?

[gnasher]

There's no reason why my hand can't be just enough to make game... wouldn't you bid 4S, at least partly as a pre-empt, looking at

 

KQJxxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

?

Maybe one of the opponents would have bid something?

[brianshark]

I bid 5♠. I don't know what's right. But I don't like 4NT because I'm not sure I can place the contract once I know about pard's keycards... I also need pard to have a pretty good hand.

 

My second choice is just pass. But I disagree with opening this 2♦ in the first place, obviously.

[Finch]

There's no reason why my hand can't be just enough to make game... wouldn't you bid 4S, at least partly as a pre-empt, looking at

 

KQJxxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

?

Maybe one of the opponents would have bid something?

Another hand where I hadn't noticed RHO is a passed hand.

 

Well, maybe LHO has a stonking penalty double of diamonds

[helene_t]

If I were going to make a slam try I would prefer 5♣.

[OleBerg]

Go on.

 

I agree that the five-level may not be secure, but the risk of missing a slam is to high.

 

We are highly unlikely to be ahead of the field, as we can expext almost everybody to be in 4♠.

 

I am so fortunate that my methods allow me to bid 4nt, showing excactly two aces. This way I can include partner in the decision of going to slam, or staying in 5.

 

If Blackwood was my method, I'd try a cue in 5♣ instead.

[gnasher]

KQJxxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

[..]

 

Well, maybe LHO has a stonking penalty double of diamonds

Yes, that must be it: RHO has a 1=6=1=5 9-count, and LHO a 1=4=5=3 17-count. Isn't 5♠ a save against their 5♥?

[Guest Jlall]

Pass, don't see how we can bid.

[benlessard]

I think that bidding over 4S automatically show.

 

3 trumps+2 keycard+stiff

or 1 keycard + pts and a void.

 

So it make sense to bid 4Nt when no void and to bid the void when you have 1. But this wanst discussed so ill keep it simple by bidding 4nt.

[ArtK78]

Pass. Too much risk of turning a plus into a minus by bidding (or increasing the size of our minus - I have seen my partner's 4♠ bids before).

 

With a true monster hand, partner could have bid something other than 4♠. He knows that I could have this hand for my 2♦ opening.

[han]

Agree with Frances: I wouldn't bid 2D but now I have to pass.

[the hog]

Pass. Pd has a gazillion ways to investigate and never bothered. Why do I even think this is a problem?

[andy_h]

I'm a passer. If partner knows I can have this hand then it's up to him to find out.

[jdonn]

wouldn't you bid 4S, at least partly as a pre-empt, looking at

 

KQJxxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

?

Both vul at mps? Opposite a pass by one opponent, diamond preempt by partner, and pass by the other opponent? NO!?!?!

 

He knows that I could have this hand for my 2♦ opening.

He does? I guess if your partnership counts points and suit lengths on your fingers he does, but I thought preemptive openings were supposed to be, oh I don't know, preemptive?

 

Maybe pass is right, I don't know, but my point is this is an impossible situation because we have a better hand for slam opposite self-sufficient spades than a 2♦ opener can possibly have.

[Finch]

Maybe pass is right, I don't know, but my point is this is an impossible situation because we have a better hand for slam opposite self-sufficient spades than a 2♦ opener can possibly have.

Yes, this is a circular discussion.

 

If I can have this hand for a 2D opening, then partner knows that and could have investigated further.

 

If I can't have this hand, then I didn't open 2D in the first place.

[pclayton]

2♦ isn't horrible, but its a style issue. Other than the two bullets which some consider a big flaw and others don't, we are well within tolerance. Personally, I wouldn't open this 2♦, but if my suit was a major, I would upgrade this to a 9-13 2M opener that I play with Gnome.

 

What does a 4♠ call look like? Obviously he has a slew of spades, but what else? I see a few possibilities:

 

1. AQJxxxxx Kx xx x. I'd call this a 'classic' 4♠ call. Lots of spades, not much in the way of honors.

 

2. AKJxxxx, AQx xx x. This is more of a power 4♠ call. One less spade, but a compensating card.

 

3. KQJxxx, Ax, Kxx, xx. The diamond fit makes up for the lack of strength.

 

DO I want to be in 6♠ opposite any of these hands? Not #1, but improve it a little and 6♠ is good. #2 is quite good, but this is about as good a hand as I would ever expect. #3. We need luck on the lead, and in diamonds, but the five level is in jeopardy.

 

I don't think its impossible for a weak two bidder to take a call in this auction. It's possible to improve this hand and still for it to be a weak 2. I do believe that 5x should be a cue bid (even 5♦!). 4N could be blackwood, but it should probably be a generic slam try.

[OleBerg]

Maybe pass is right, I don't know, but my point is this is an impossible situation because we have a better hand for slam opposite self-sufficient spades than a 2♦ opener can possibly have.

Yes, this is a circular discussion.

 

If I can have this hand for a 2D opening, then partner knows that and could have investigated further.

 

If I can't have this hand, then I didn't open 2D in the first place.

I do not agree.

 

In many situations, you never play partner for the perfect hand, as he never has it.

 

But this time we might actually have "The perfect hand" for partner. So it isn't unreasonable to let him know.

 

If partner always went out of his way to investigate slam, at the slightest excuse, we would end up accepting way to many of his invites.

 

For example:

 

If partner invited slam in spades, and we had:

 

♠ xx

♥ xx

♦ Axxxxx

♣ KQx

 

We would obviously accept everytime, and thus get to high, all the times partner needed the actual hand.

 

All this depends on how strict your requirements for weak twos are. If you play them constructively, the situation might be as "impossible" as described. But if your style is to open weak twos at any opportunity, you have to move on.

 

 

On another note, this probably isn't a much discussed sequence in many partnerships, but as Ben pointed out, we should have a way of showing shortness, as it is impossible to imagine an advancing hand without shortness.

[keylime]

Bidding with this hand, it frankly, beyond nuts. Tell me how pard is going to generate ten tricks from their hand in a slam, when they could have bid a calm and forcing 2♠ to start. And do I really want to be at the 5 level and hang pard for having a hand that can only play in spades? What if pard has something like a 7420 with a void in diamonds, and like AQJxxxx Kx --- Kxxx? Yuck.

 

I'm passing, saying good luck pard, and banking my 450/650.

[jdonn]

Tell me how pard is going to generate ten tricks from their hand in a slam, when they could have bid a calm and forcing 2♠ to start.

So heart ruffs in the short trump hand are worth 0 tricks each?

 

I don't get it, I said I bid blackwood. What are all these examples of awful slams missing 2 keycards? They aren't 4♠ bids anyway, do you think if you bid 2♠ then 3♠ on that example you will miss game?

[awm]

I like bidding on this hand. It seems that we will often produce 4 tricks on offense (two aces and two heart ruffs). When partner bid 4♠, he wasn't expecting nearly so much -- probably he is only relying on us for a couple of tricks. Even a really good weak two will rarely take more than three tricks in a spade contract. So how many tricks does partner have when he bids 4♠? It seems like if he has less than seven tricks, we will almost never make 4♠ and quite frequently go two down. Certainly it's possible he bid 4♠ "as a sacrifice" but with both opponents having passed this seems against the odds. On the other hand, it's not that unusual for a weak two to provide two-three tricks and if three tricks made slam partner probably would be going slower. So I'd expect partner to have seven-eight tricks. Combined with my four this makes the five-level pretty safe and the six-level a possibility.

 

Looking at Phil's three examples, on two of them he gave declarer doubleton heart. Given my suit lengths, I think it is fairly likely that partner has three hearts. Either of these two hands make 5♠ virtually cold and gives 6♠ some chances if we move one of the small cards in a minor to hearts. And slam is quite good on Phil's other hand.