ArtK78 Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakxxxxhdkxxckxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP1♠ - 2NT*3♥** - 4♠***? * - Jacoby 2NT** - Heart Shortness*** - No slam interest[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 How much does 4 spades say in your partnership? Do you play a serious or frivolous 3NT? Does it say that your hand got significantly worse hearing about heart shortness? If it does, then I'm respecting partner's sign-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 You have described most of your hand. Since partner bid 4♠, it's partner's fault if slam is cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Pass. Partner's told you to go away and I will oblige to it =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilgan Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Do you play a serious or frivolous 3NT? This. This should not be "ooh, I just had a minimum Jacoby and don't want to cue bid". This should show "eek, my hand sucks now". Hence, pass is ez. If not playing some sort of serious/non serious 3 NT after Jacoby, that is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't think pass is clear at all, we need almost nothing for slam. Disagree that we have described our hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't think pass is clear at all, we need almost nothing for slam. Disagree that we have described our hand. Lol, thank you. Was waiting for someone to say this. I'm sure no one would ever jump to 4S over 3H with xxxx KQxx QJx Ax :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I pass uncomfortably. I also feel it is far from clear, but that it's probably right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Uhuh Josh, we all know you wanted to write "pass wtp". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Uhuh Josh, we all know you wanted to write "pass wtp". Lol no I didn't agree but wanted to see if I was nuts, that's why I waited before replying till I had confirmation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 5H. In other words: yes. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 This should not be "ooh, I just had a minimum Jacoby and don't want to cue bid". This should show "eek, my hand sucks now". Hence, pass is ez. If not playing some sort of serious/non serious 3 NT after Jacoby, that is a problem. Agree. I wont say easy but its a clear pass for me. Partner may easily have xxx in a minor wich make 5 too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm sure no one would ever jump to 4S over 3H with xxxx KQxx QJx Ax :rolleyes: Unfortunately he'd also jump to 4♠ with Qxxx KQx Qxx Axx or QJxx AQx Qxx Qxx, so the five level isn't at all safe. Added to that, if I do bid on, getting to slam only when it's right is going to need some quite fine judgement from partner. I'd pass. Maybe the methods need attention? Over 3♥, you have 3♠, 3NT and an immediate cue-bid to show different levels of interest. A misfitting minimum is a very common hand-type; even if slam is less likely opposite this, there's a case for this hand-type bidding something lower than 4♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 There is an old saying, is there not, that if partner has a perfect min then you're worth a slam try. Partner could have this less than perfect hand Qxxx, QJx, Ax, Axxx. ♠Q which we possibly don't even need, and ♥QJ wasted, yet there still seems to be play for 6. This hand would be consistent with the 4♠ signoff. If you never go down in 5, you aren't looking for 6 enough was what my bridge teacher taught. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 There is an old saying, is there not, that if partner has a perfect min then you're worth a slam try. Partner could have this less than perfect hand Qxxx, QJx, Ax, Axxx. ♠Q which we possibly don't even need, and ♥QJ wasted, yet there still seems to be play for 6. This hand would be consistent with the 4♠ signoff. If you never go down in 5, you aren't looking for 6 enough was what my bridge teacher taught. Nick That hand is not a 4S sign-off, it has both minor suit aces. I also think this is pretty close, we can be off at the 5-level here.It's actually quite a good hand for playing 3NT as natural: 3NT as a contract suggestion over 3H tells us partner has a really horrible heart holding, 4S just says he's mininum unsuitable for the auction so far, which is not quite as bad. Another good hand for a simulation.... except that there's clearly some disagreement involved in what constitutes a 4S bid on this auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Partner could have this less than perfect hand Qxxx, QJx, Ax, Axxx. Playing with someone who is so bad at slam bidding that he would bid 4♠ with this, I agree, I should just bid 6♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If you never go down in 5, you aren't looking for 6 enough was what my bridge teacher taught. Nick Really? I've heard this one for "if they never make a doubled contract..." but not really for uncontested slam bidding :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Personally I hate going down at the five level and am very reluctant to go past game when the five level isn't safe, but I suppose that's a bit irrational. If bidding will get you to a making slam more often than it will lead to going one down in something, you should do it. I'm not sure whether this hand would pass that test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Saw this one last night and I think bidding on is very clear. If the 5 level is too high, well, pard doesn't have his call and/or the system is broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fortunately this hand had no bearing on our finishing position in the event, but it was annoying. The exact setting was that we were leading by a small margin over two teams in the last round of a sectional swiss. Over 4♠, I thought my hand was worth another try, but I was not thinking very clearly. I tried RKCB 4NT rather than the far superior 5♥. My partner bid 5♦ showing one key card. This was doubled. I signed off in 5♠, assuinng that partner had the heart ace. These were our two hands: [hv=n=sqtxxhakqtdqjtctx&s=sakxxxxhdkxxckxxx]133|200|[/hv] Diamond lead to the Ace and Club Queen shift at trick two. Down one. If I had chosen 5♥ as my slam try, partner would have signed off in 5♠ and we might not have gotten the diamond lead. For that matter, if we were playing 1430 RKCB, partner's response would have been 5♣, avoiding the lead directing double and again possibly avoiding the diamond lead. And this is beside the fact that it is somewhat unlucky to find the ♦A in RHO's hand and the ♣A in LHO's hand. A further point - the opening lead (from 3 small diamonds) was the ♦3. RHO, on winning the ♦A, saw my ♦2 play, so he considered the possibility that his partner might have the ♦K. However, he worked out that he needed 3 tricks to beat 5♠ so he eventually shifted to the ♣Q. But he did mention that if I were in 6♠ he would have a much more difficult problem. LHO thought that his partner might need count on the diamonds, hence his low lead from 3 small (playing 3rd and lowest leads). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 A leap to 4♠ after 3♥ should, IMO, have serious contraints. Not only as to number of non-heart covers, but also as to contextual key cards. The actual hand is almost too strong. AKQ in hearts converts x-Axx to no losers. I mean, give Opener Axx in clubs, Kxx in diamonds, and a stiff heart... This type of dummy is, again, why I dislike Jacoby 2NT, especially without a really sophisticated approach to rebids and continuations. That's a different battle, though. In practice, I think a better bid by Responder would have been 4♥. No minor cards, non-serious, with heart values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 By the way, for what it is worth, I just corresponded by e-mail with one of my teammates. He told me that the auction was identical at the other table, except that the response to 4NT was 5♣ (1430) so there was no lead directing double and no diamond lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Any reason for not cuebidding 4♥? That seems to end the auction immediately. Also, consider the auction after a 4♥ cue if Opener had held something like ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣Axx. Opener would want diamond cards, not club cards. Conversely, ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦Axx ♣Kxx. A 4♥ cue would allow a 5minor call as an asking bid (if used) or some other methods, hopefully. RKCB would do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 If you never go down in 5, you aren't looking for 6 enough was what my bridge teacher taught. Nick Really? I've heard this one for "if they never make a doubled contract..." but not really for uncontested slam bidding B)But it is obviously right. 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.