too high again

[MarkDean]

[hv=d=w&n=sahakj964dj965cj7&s=s752hq832dk7cak85]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

West opens, opponents silent afterward:

 

(1S)

2H 2S

4H 5C

6H

 

Not a good slam with the opening bidder over the king of diamonds. Assign the blame.

[rogerclee]

What is this 5♣ crap?

 

Edit: Forgot to comment about North's bidding. I agree, but I am pretty sound about bidding 5♣ here.

[jdonn]

What is this 5♣ crap?

If south has Qxxx xx in the minors then would it be crap? Or the ace was in diamonds instead of spades with the same shape? Your opinions really have become quite forceful lately even in very close cases. I think south should pass in a close call.

[rogerclee]

What if north were 3-3 in the minors? What if north had a bunch of spades? I don't think it is hard at all to construct hands where 5♥ is shaky, and even if slam is on, do you think you can get this decision right enough to justify the risk? I think it is a very narrow range where slam is on but partner could not have made a stronger move than 4♥.

 

Honestly I am very surprised you think this is close.

[andy_h]

Blaming South for moving on. There are many ways in which N can bid between 2S and 4H. I'm not risking the 5lvl as it could be off in a few ways, like 2S+1D or there happens to be a diamond lead or something.

[Guest Jlall]

sotyh was a joke whnat?????????

[jdonn]

What if north were 3-3 in the minors? What if north had a bunch of spades? I don't think it is hard at all to construct hands where 5♥ is shaky, and even if slam is on, do you think you can get this decision right enough to justify the risk? I think it is a very narrow range where slam is on but partner could not have made a stronger move than 4♥.

 

Honestly I am very surprised you think this is close.

It's kind of irrelevent of you to point out hands for north that don't make slam to respond to me pointing out some that do, partly since I already said it's souths fault, partly since my entire point was you can't say OMG SOUTH WAS ON CRACK since slam could easily be on. And don't forget south didn't bid slam, he only tried. A hand that makes 5 and stops there is not a loss.

 

By the way, it's easy to focus on south since he should pass 4♥, but don't you think north deserves some blame for just bidding slam having already shown extras? Whose fault would it be if south had xx Qxxxx Kx AKQx?

 

Jlall drunk = amusing.

[kenrexford]

Jlall drunk = amusing.

What? You didn't follow his interesting idea? LOL

 

Seriously, though, I agree with your lessened criticism of South. North did jump to game, after all. A collection of 12 HCP's, flat, with the diamond King poorly placed surely screams the five-level, no? :rolleyes:

 

Or, maybe you can type better when you are drunk? :) :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rogerclee]

It's kind of irrelevent of you to point out hands for north that don't make slam to respond to me pointing out some that do, partly since I already said it's souths fault, partly since my entire point was you can't say OMG SOUTH WAS ON CRACK since slam could easily be on.

Our difference of opinion is on the closeness of the decision.

 

Josh, how is pointing out that slam is often bad irrelevant? I am saying South is on crack because he took a call which had something like a 10% chance to be good, a 50% chance to do nothing, and a 40% chance to be bad. It is rare to see a bridge call which has literally no chance of succeeding; it doesn't make it anywhere close to sensible. I disagree that slam could "easily" be on, the stiff spade in North's hand is pretty critical.

 

I agree I could be more tactful in stating my response, but I really think the 5♣ bid is off the charts.

[kenrexford]

What precisely is North supposed to have for 6♠ to have a prayer?

 

The hand jdonn suggested was ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx. That's a fairly huge hand for just 4♠. First and second-round control of the opponent's suit, two top hearts with a sixth one, so far the same. But, that diamond Queen elevates the hand to a five-loser hand. The extra trump length mitigates the fourth diamond.

 

I mean, would it be that difficult for North to imagine:

 

♠xxx ♥Qxxx ♦AKx ♣Axx or

♠xxx ♥Qxxx ♦x ♣AKQx or

the actual hand?

 

I would hope that North would bid something more exciting than 4♠ with that hand or any other fitting hand I can imagine.

[rogerclee]

The hand jdonn suggested was ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx.

I would bid 4♥ for sure with this. It is something like ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣Qx that I think should go slamming, or ♠Ax ♥AKJxxx ♦Axxx ♣x.

[kenrexford]

The hand jdonn suggested was ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx.

I would bid 4♥ for sure with this. It is something like ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣Qx that I think should go slamming, or ♠Ax ♥AKJxxx ♦Axxx ♣x.

Wow. When slam seems VERY favorite opposite xxx-xxxx-AKx-Axx, not blasting to 4♥ seems rather obvious to me.

[jdonn]

Still no one else seems to have pointed out that perhaps, just maybe, north shouldn't bid 6♥? 5♦ anyone?

 

Ken there are disadvantages in divulging your hand when slam seems unlikely. Also I don't give much credence to an example for partner with xxxx of hearts since he will usually have the queen as part of his values. It's just too oh-so carefully chosen. Even Roger who thinks it was awful of south to bid on admits at least the he could miss slam by passing.

[benlessard]

I like to play that 4H = gambling into 4H. Any slight extra with north i make a splinter or bid a new suit at the 3 level. So for me 5C is short by 2-3 pts.

[gnasher]

Still no one else seems to have pointed out that perhaps, just maybe, north shouldn't bid 6♥? 5♦ anyone?

I don't suppose that anybody had anything to add to what you had already said. Nobody disagreed, did they?

 

Ken there are disadvantages in divulging your hand when slam seems unlikely.

I agree with this, except that it isn't forceful enough.

 

I like to play that 4H = gambling into 4H. Any slight extra with north i make a splinter or bid a new suit at the 3 level.

I disagree strongly with this approach. 19 times out of 20 we'll have no slam interest whatsoever. On those hands all we do is help the defence against our game.

 

A better answer is to play 3♠ over 2♠ as showing acceptance of the game try, and leaving room for slam investigation if that's what advancer is planning. I usually use 3NT for this purpose, but on this auction we probably need that as a natural bid.

[kenrexford]

Still no one else seems to have pointed out that perhaps, just maybe, north shouldn't bid 6♥? 5♦ anyone?

 

Ken there are disadvantages in divulging your hand when slam seems unlikely. Also I don't give much credence to an example for partner with xxxx of hearts since he will usually have the queen as part of his values. It's just too oh-so carefully chosen. Even Roger who thinks it was awful of south to bid on admits at least the he could miss slam by passing.

I picked an 11-count. Add in the Queen, and you only creep up to 13. Plus, I thought the general principle here was to assess whether slam is possible opposite a normal minimum and only move if so. This is a fairly normal minimum.

 

Furthermore, I provided additional examples earlier. Including the actual hand.

 

How about Kx-Qxx-KJxx-Axxx? QJx-Qxxx-AJx-Axx?

 

Although not divulging info is good, in principle, there are a vast number of suitable holdings here. If you are cautious, bid 3♠ in response to 2♠; you are giving up little in the way of useful information for the defense other than that you have very keen interest in slam. Partner can decline that BS and bid 4♥ with unsuitable values. But, at least with AK-A and the heart Q you'd hear noise. For my part, though, when I can rattle off example after example of normal hands for partner where slam makes, with little difficulty finding out, I'll at least start a stab at it.

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&n=sahakj964dj965cj7&s=s752hq832dk7cak85]133|200|Scoring: MP

West opens, opponents silent afterward:

 

(1S)

2H 2S

4H 5C

6H

 

Not a good slam with the opening bidder over the king of diamonds.  Assign the blame.[/hv]

IMO

• :) In theory, both players overbid. South more than North.( Nevertheless, if North held ♦Q rather than ♦J, we would be complimenting the pair on excellent judgment
  
• :) In practice, at pairs it isn't an awful slam ... because, at pairs, good defenders tend to lead aces against slams.
  • :) If West doesn't have ♦A then the slam is reasonable.
    
  • :) If West does have ♦A then he may well lead it.
    
  • :( Admittedly, if West has both ♦AQ then prospects are bleaker.
    

[Finch]

West is not on lead

[nige1]

West is not on lead

:) :) :) OH! :( :) :(

:( Then 6♥ is a bit high :(

[xcurt]

:rolleyes: If West does have ♦A then he may well lead it.

You are north and have this auction to 6♥. RHO leads the ♦A out of turn. Do you accept? Probably no and you bar a diamond lead.

[ArtK78]

This hand is quite interesting.

 

Personally, I think that North was too strong to merely bid 4♥ after his partner's cue bid. I think his hand is worth a 3♠ call. South is an unpassed hand, and is unlimited. He could certainly have enough cards in the minor suits to produce a slam.

 

South can then bid 4♣ and North can sign off in 4♥. South should know that his side is missing the ♦A at this point, and that it might be dangerous to make another try. Even if South does bid 5♣ at this point, there is little chance that North will do anything more than 5♥ as South has not indicated any control of diamonds.

 

It is somewhat paradoxical that NS are less likely to get to slam (and possibly even avoid the 5 level) if North cue bids 3♠, a stronger action, rather than merely accepting the "game try" by jumping to 4♥.

 

Query: How can NS get to the good 6♥ contract if North had Qxxx of diamonds instead of Jxxx of diamonds?

[nige1]

:) If West does have ♦A then he may well lead it.

You are north and have this auction to 6♥.  RHO leads the ♦A out of turn.  Do you accept?  Probably no and you bar a diamond lead.

Sufficient unto the day :) I get the mesage :) but you might, in fact, accept the lead :) you have four losing ♦ :rolleyes: You're unlikely to be able to discard all of them :( Granny says:

 

Seriously consider accepting a lead out of turn: those who have completely lost the place are unlikely to find the best lead.

[oldman5757]

About 40% of the blame to South and 60% to North. Once North bid only game over partner's raise, South has little reason to go on. The fact that P didn't bid either 3♦ or 3♠ should convince S that game is enough. BTW, altho it is close whether N should bid 3♠, the 4 bad ♦ would convince me not to do so.

 

Once S bids 5♣, N should retreat to 5 ♥; N is still looking at two or more ♦ losers, with no promise of 1st or even 2nd round control. 5♥ could easily go down. Sounds to me like N was trying to catch up for not bidding more agressively earlier.

 

There is no "good" way to reach slam should N hold ♦ Qxxx instead of Jxxx. However, should N elect to bid 3♠ with that holding, S can now bid 4♣. When N retreats to 4♥, S can take one more push by bidding 5 ♣. Now, N may judge that S must have the ♦K, or perhaps a singleton, and bid the slam.

 

I said it wasn't a "good" way to bid it -- just a possible way.

 

 

:)

[kenrexford]

It is somewhat paradoxical that NS are less likely to get to slam (and possibly even avoid the 5 level) if North cue bids 3♠, a stronger action, rather than merely accepting the "game try" by jumping to 4♥.

 

Query: How can NS get to the good 6♥ contract if North had Qxxx of diamonds instead of Jxxx of diamonds?

I'm not sure if "paradoxical" is the right word. I'd suggest that it is somewhat retarded that this pair was more likely to get to slam (and commit to the 5 level) is North merely accepted the game try by jumping to 4♥. LOL

 

As to how to get to the slam if Overcaller had held ♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxxx ♣(J/x)x. Responder holds ♠xxx ♠Qxxx ♦Kx ♣AKxx.

 

After 3♠ by Overcaller, a clear slam move, Responder has good cause to show serious slam interest and to bid 3NT. That does it.