High-level decision

[Finch]

Vul against not

Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sak98h2d1053cj9863]133|100|Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?[/hv]

 

They don't really know what 5H means

[Echognome]

Vul against not

Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sak98h2d1053cj9863]133|100|Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?[/hv]

 

They don't really know what 5H means

Do we know what 3♥ means?

[Guest Jlall]

w/e 5N we may be cold and stuff

[mikeh]

Vul against not

Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sak98h2d1053cj9863]133|100|Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?[/hv]

 

They don't really know what 5H means

Do we know what 3♥ means?

Let me know if you find out. Undiscussed, I'd assume that it asks for a stopper for 3N.. 1.e a solid minor, presumably diamonds, but usually with at least a semblance of a stopper in the side suits, and this is still possible even with my hand... rho has a minimum and rho has a void and 6 card support.

 

Heck, they may even be cold for 5♥ if LHO has short spades and rho a minor void.

 

But I am not answering until I have had 3♥ explained

[han]

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

[Echognome]

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

I'm inclined to bid 5N as well. However, imagine that 3♥ is "good michaels" showing a pure 5♠/5m hand with opening values. Change your mind yet? :)

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sak98h2d1053cj9863]133|100|Scoring: Total Points

1♥ 3♥ 5♥ ?

Vul against not

Aggregate (total points) scoring, 30-board KO match.

They don't really know what 5H means[/hv]

IMO 6♣ = 10, 5N = 9, _X = 8, _P = 1

In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop". I fear that the popular 5N may be misinterpreted as an attempt to comply with the conventional request, whereas I hope that partner can more easily read 6♣ as "pass or correct".

[andy_h]

5NT

[NickRW]

In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop".

I am not sure "usually" is a good word. I cannot recall ever seeing a jump cue mentioned in a text and I've never seen it bid at the table. If I sat down with a pick up partner who bid that and rho gave me a quizzical look as if to say, "what does that mean", I'd simply shrug and probably guess it was some massive michaels.

 

Nick

[han]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

 

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

[Guest Jlall]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

 

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

[Finch]

I assumed that 3H was asking me to bid 3NT with a stop, but we had never discussed it (this is a pivot teams event). However, that is what partner intended it to mean - I was pretty confident about that at the table.

[han]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

 

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

Maybe. I think I had a good chance of finding the heart king so I was happy with this auction.

[Guest Jlall]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

 

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

Maybe. I think I had a good chance of finding the heart king so I was happy with this auction.

I think you are reallllllly underestimating the chances the opps bid something when you have this hand. If they bid something you are not going to find the HK. Even if you do find the HK there's no guarantee that you make 7. I think the goal of this hand should be to induce the opponents to make a mistake in judging what to do rather than trying to find 7.

[dburn]

I can tell you right now that I'm bidding 5NT.

You may not make it. And if I were your partner, I can tell you right now that I would pass it.

[han]

I sit down on my knees and raise my hands to the great dburn.

[dburn]

I imagine most of us would consider that after (1♥) 3♥ (4♥), 4NT would be an attempt to play there, showing a heart guard and a trick to go with partner's eight winners.

 

I don't imagine the sequence (1♥) 3♥ (5♥) has occurred often enough for any one of us to know what any other one of us would intend by 5NT. But one possible way to think about it is this: the 5♥ bid is presumably sacrificial in intent, so that at least one of our opponents believes than we can take eleven tricks in a minor. That being so, why - if we have a heart guard - should we not be able to take eleven tricks in notrump, without being able to take twelve tricks in the minor?

 

Of course, there is also some danger in bidding 6♣ without discussion - partner might think "he could have bid 5NT to ask me to bid my suit, so he must be bidding his own suit and I will pass despite having solid diamonds". My view is, though, that a pragmatic partner would tend to assume that the likelihood of making 6♣ and not 6♦ was not all that high, and that 5NT might therefore be more useful as an attempt to play in 5NT.

[pclayton]

I imagine most of us would consider that after (1♥) 3♥ (4♥), 4NT would be an attempt to play there, showing a heart guard and a trick to go with partner's eight winners.

 

I don't imagine the sequence (1♥) 3♥ (5♥) has occurred often enough for any one of us to know what any other one of us would intend by 5NT. But one possible way to think about it is this: the 5♥ bid is presumably sacrificial in intent, so that at least one of our opponents believes than we can take eleven tricks in a minor. That being so, why - if we have a heart guard - should we not be able to take eleven tricks in notrump, without being able to take twelve tricks in the minor?

 

Of course, there is also some danger in bidding 6♣ without discussion - partner might think "he could have bid 5NT to ask me to bid my suit, so he must be bidding his own suit and I will pass despite having solid diamonds". My view is, though, that a pragmatic partner would tend to assume that the likelihood of making 6♣ and not 6♦ was not all that high, and that 5NT might therefore be more useful as an attempt to play in 5NT.

This thought had crossed my mind, but I had a hell of a time coming up with a hand that wants to play exactly 5N.

 

6♣ for me and I would think it has to be p/c.

[pclayton]

Yeah I think Nigel is right, 6♣ is better than 5NT.

 

By the way, in the LM pairs I picked up the extreme ♥AJx ♦A ♣AKQJ10xxxx and my RHO opened 1S in third seat. 3♠ seemed the only reasonable bid. My partner bid 3NT. I bid 4♣, my partner bid 5♣ and I bid 6♣. Partner would have cued the heart king I am sure.

I think overcalling 6C is reasonable.

Maybe. I think I had a good chance of finding the heart king so I was happy with this auction.

I think you are reallllllly underestimating the chances the opps bid something when you have this hand. If they bid something you are not going to find the HK. Even if you do find the HK there's no guarantee that you make 7. I think the goal of this hand should be to induce the opponents to make a mistake in judging what to do rather than trying to find 7.

Han didn't give the vulnerability, but I agree this only if we were r/w.

 

Otherwise I think its reasonable to look for a ♥ card along the way.

[cherdano]

In the hand Han gave, the vulnerability was w/r at matchpoints. I doubt there is much of a chance they would bid on over a direct 6♣ or a delayed 6♣.

[Edmunte1]

I would have bid 6♣ for 2 reasons:

 

-We may make it: Partner usually should have an Ace outside his solid suit (8 fast tricks), and if we add a queen (♣Q or♠Q) we have good chances of making even if hearts are 1-1

-West will probably preempt, as long as he will look at his hand with little defense, and as long as he doesn't know that we have a heart loser

[jdeegan]

:P dbl

Way back in the 20th century, the jump Q bid meant a running suit and asked for 3NT with a stopper in the opponent's suit. We seem to have a heart loser and likely a club loser or two. So, I say hit 5H and hope to beat it.

[skjaeran]

I'm bidding 6♣, P/C.

 

We might make a slam, but more often, opps will take the 6♥ save.

[gnasher]

In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop".

I am not sure "usually" is a good word. I cannot recall ever seeing a jump cue mentioned in a text and I've never seen it bid at the table.

I think it's sufficiently close to standard that I wouldn't bother discussing it with a new partner. It was described by Crowhurst in Acol in Competition (1980), as an alternative to what was then the standard meaning of natural.

[NickRW]

In the UK 3♥ usually promises a solid suit and asks partner to "bid notrump with a ♥ stop".

I am not sure "usually" is a good word. I cannot recall ever seeing a jump cue mentioned in a text and I've never seen it bid at the table.

I think it's sufficiently close to standard that I wouldn't bother discussing it with a new partner. It was described by Crowhurst in Acol in Competition (1980), as an alternative to what was then the standard meaning of natural.

Ah well. Wasn't on my reading list.