OleBerg Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I pass. It is correct, that we have a loser less in spades, than we might ordinarily have. But that is a loser less than a mediocre minimum-hand. If I was opener, and my partner bid 6♥, turning a plus to a minus, I would only shrug my shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 What would a 5m bid mean? That depends on what a 4NT bid would mean... personally I play- 5m as a natural slam try- 4N as an ongoing move inviting a minor suit cue bid but I bet very few other people posting here do, I imagine the popular vote is- 4NT RKCB- 5m cue bid Better be carefull with such statements. According to Jlall, this constitutes highjacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If that is accurate, I would imagine 2♠ to be (obviously) forcing 3♥, with an assumption that 3♥ might even fail by a trick on occasion. In that scenario, which is unusual, I don't agree that a forcing pass in in effect, frankly. Not at these colors. If that assumption is accurate, then what are new suit bids? What has a 2♠ bid got to do with anything, other than being insufficient? Good point. I somehow missed that the cue was 3♠ rather than 2♠. Tougher problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 It's obviously relevant to our call now what partner's 5m would have meant.Just as the assumptions about what our 3S bid showed matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 What would a 5m bid mean? That depends on what a 4NT bid would mean... personally I play- 5m as a natural slam try- 4N as an ongoing move inviting a minor suit cue bid but I bet very few other people posting here do, I imagine the popular vote is- 4NT RKCB- 5m cue bid Better be carefull with such statements. According to Jlall, this constitutes highjacking. Lol, another idiot troll, great! You have mentioned my name in just about every thread recently, do you have anything useful to say? What is your obsession with me? It's getting a little scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I am late to the thread, having been tied up with losing an event :P I agree with the passers, for most of the reasons advanced by Justin and Frances. Let me add a thought. We have made a 3♠ call that created a fairly good image of our hand, which image was probably sharpened by the 4♠ call. We are a passed hand, that forced to game over 2♠. Hence we have a shapely 9-11, with 4+ hearts and (due to the 4♠ bid if not already clear) short spades. Partner KNOWS THIS. He could have asked us whether we liked our hand within the context of our bidding to date. Had he done so, I think most of us would be very happy to say we love our hand. He didn't ask that question. He doesn't want to be in slam opposite a very good 3♠ call... which is the hand we have. If you bid over 5♥, then you are insulting your partner. If slam is good opposite this or similar hands, then partner doesn't have a 5♥ bid. Now, that is not to say that there are no hands on which you can override partner here. void xxxx AQ10xx Axxx is a hand where bidding seems odds-on. But this hand is extraordinary.... we hold 3, count them, 3 1st round controls and a good potential source of tricks. The hand we actually hold is very nice, but it is NOT extraordinarily nice in the context of what partner already should be expecting. Simulations here are of very little use. However, my suspicion is that if slam makes, we should be running simulations from partner's perspective over 4♠. In other words, if slam is a good contract opposite this responding hand, then I would like to see if a simulation were to support partner's decision to bid 5♥... and I would strongly suspect that it wouldn't. One reason I think that such a simulation might be practical, whereas a simulation based on this thread would not, is that the responding hand is defined by its original pass, its 3♠ call and, to some degree, the opposition action, whereas I think that defining opener's constraints is far more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 ..., do you have anything useful to say?I already have, you just don't get it. 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.