Two interesting hands

[effervesce]

Two similar hands from the Victor Championship Cup in Melbourne involving high level decisions:

 

Hand 1:

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skqjt93hqdj98542c&w=s8hk987datcat7543&e=s5hat6543dkq7ckq6&s=sa7642hj2d63cj982]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The bidding:

(p) - 2♣* - (2♠) - 3♥

(3♠) - 4♥ - (4♠) - 5♣

(p) - 5♥- (5♠) - p

(p) X - all pass

 

*Precision, 11-15, 6+ clubs may have 4+M

 

Assign the blame for not bidding 6, and only getting 5♠X-1 for +100.

 

Hand 2:

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skqjt93hqdj98542c&w=s8hk987datcat7543&e=s5hat6543dkq7ckq6&s=sa7642hj2d63cj982]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

2♣ - (2♠) - 3♥ - (4♠)

5♥ - (p) - p - (5♠)

p - (p) - 6♥ - (6♠)

X - all pass

 

making 6♠X= for -1210.

 

Again, assign the blame (if any).

[Impact]

Ming,

 

1) On the first hand responder holds a fit for C and hears that opener holds not merely 6+C but also a fit for H - and the opponents bid and raise S.

 

Frankly, I think he has a 6C bid of his own in a contested auction (rather than the 5C he bid unless by agreement that was forcing to allow him to get to slam in one of the suits and lessen the risk of the sacrifice).

 

I am not rapt in opener's double of 5S with the singleton S but that depends to some extent on the inferences and agreements from the previous bidding as to whether it was intended to suggest the limit of the hand with 5C or that there was a double fit and forcing.

 

If the 5C bid was forcing (and hence the pass over 5S was forcing) opener can scarcely do less than bid 6!

 

2) The second hand is one of those classics along the lines of "I'm not going to tell opener about the double fit as opponents will realise it too" combined with "if they were happy to pass it out in 4 they can't make 6".

 

Both suggestions have inherent problems and combined produced the disaster.

 

regards

[han]

On the first hand opener should bid 4D imo. What a great hand for hearts!

 

On the second hand responder did not involve opener (could have bid 6♣ instead). Opener really does not have a double.

[gnasher]

On the first hand opener should bid 4D imo. What a great hand for hearts!

What would opener open on a maximum with 4-6 in the minors? If the answer is 1♦, then I agree with Han; if not, I think it's unclear what 4♦ shows.

 

Each player had other chances to show a good hand. IMO East's 5♣ is just competitive, offering a choice of strains, so East might have bid 5♦ or 4NT instead. Once East had bid 5♣, West should surely bid 5♦ rather than 5♥ - he needs only xx AQxxx Kx KQxx for slam.

 

On the second hand responder did not involve opener (could have bid 6♣ instead). Opener really does not have a double.

Didn't 3♥ set up a forcing pass?

[effervesce]

What would opener open on a maximum with 4-6 in the minors? If the answer is 1♦, then I agree with Han; if not, I think it's unclear what 4♦ shows.

 

Yes, I wanted to bid 4♦ but it did seem an ambiguous bid. After 5♣ I should have bid 5♦.

 

Didn't 3♥ set up a forcing pass?

 

Yes, on the 2nd hand it seemed like a forcing pass situation - though perhaps if 3♥ sets up a forcing pass, opener (me) has a double of 5♠? Given no spade or diamond void 6 seems unlikely without responder having more. I doubled 6♠ as telling partner I know 7 is certainly not on.

 

I think on the whole the first hand both me and partner could have done better; on the 2nd hand it's a bit unlucky in that we pushed them into a making slam - given just both our hands it looks like 6♠ is off one.

 

5♠X and 6♠X were very common contracts on the 2nd hand-the datum was NS +850.

[han]

Hmm, ok maybe 4D should be natural, I imagine that opener can even be 5-6.

[Hanoi5]

I'd blame Opener in Nº 1 but in Nº 2 it's too hard to say. At least at this time of the day.

[mikeh]

on the first one, I think that both e-w were slightly conservative, especially opener, who had a 'free' 5♦ call on the way to 5♥.. a call that could not be misunderstood and that would have allowed partner to bid the slam with confidence.

 

on the second one, I do think that responder should have explicitly mentioned clubs at some point (6♣ rather than 6♥). That might have warned opener that neither partner had defence: as it is, opener thinks that partner is bidding to make, and that it is the opps who are saving (as they probably thought themselves).

 

I don't think many partnerships have the type of fp agreements that allow them to not double here, as opener... especially when responder bid slam without mentioning clubs... but even after 6♣, I can't see how we can avoid doubling them.

 

Our fp agreements can never be designed to avoid all doubles of making contracts, on freak hands. So any coherent fp method will occasionally result in a disaster, as here. So while I don't like responder's 6♥, I suspect that opener would have to double anyway.

[mikegill]

On the first one, I'm going to assign the blame to responder, since I think he should just bid keycard over 4♠ (surely this is what 4n means almost regardless of your other agreements). Maybe he wouldn't have gotten a response, but certainly opener can bid a slam over this if they interfere holding 3 keycards and an extra trump. Turns out slam isn't even making - North might take out insurance in 6♠ instead of lightner doubling though.

 

On the second one, I think responder should bid 6♣ over 5♥, or at least 6♥. Heck it might even be making if partner is void diamonds or if they try to cash one too many rounds of a pointed suit. Surely you aren't letting the opponents play in 5♠ (which it seems very likely they'll bid) holding two known 10-card fits (his partner must have 4 hearts to have freely bid 5 over 4). If partner can't double 6♠ (assuming they bid it) then maybe you have to take out insurance and bid 7♥, but these types of decisions are much easier away from the table. If you bid 6♣, partner will know his A of clubs probably isn't worth anything and he may well make this decision for you.

[Apollo81]

On the first one I blame both players, opener for not bidding 4♠ (obv you are going to have to bid up to 5♥ anyway) and responder for not RKCing over their 4♠

 

I think I blame responder on the second one. Certainly I'd replicate opener's bids untill the double of 6♠ (and maybe even that)