Stay fixed ?

[sathyab]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s3haq87daq4cakqt4]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(2s)-p-(4s)-X-(p)-5d-(p)-?[/hv]

 

Partner doesn't need much for a slam. ♦KJxxx[x] may be all that he needs, as the heart finesse may be on as well. Do you to think this is worth one more bid and if so is there anything better than 6♦ ?

[Codo]

6 ♦ is enough for me.

Pd did not pass, nor did he bid 4 NT, so he should have real diamonds and xx,xxx,Kxxxx,xxx is enough for a real good slam.

[Fluffy]

Partner could be broke with spade shortness, but such is life, 6♦might get a phantom sacrifice then.

[fachiru]

The title "stay fixed?" (to me) means "pass 5♦?"

But the OP goes on to actually suggesting that bidding the small slam may not suffice...lol

Bidding 6♦ here seems pretty clear to me now and nothing else "fairly sane" comes to mind.

[Apollo81]

I would stay fixed. In my experience partner doesn't always pass the double on the hands where you'd expect him to, so I'd just take the plus and hope for a push.

[neilkaz]

6 ♦ is enough for me.

Pd did not pass, nor did he bid 4 NT, so he should have real diamonds and xx,xxx,Kxxxx,xxx is enough for a real good slam.

I agree. I'll take my shot with 6♦

[MFA]

6♦ for me.

 

Although Codo's xx, xxx, Kxxxx, xxx hardly is enough for a good slam. Try a spade, spade defense...

[rogerclee]

Definitely 6♦

[sathyab]

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

[jdonn]

Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed!

 

No explanation = obvious to the answerer. That in itself is good information.

 

6♦ for me too. Bid because I think it will make a fair amount more often than it will go down. (I guess the prior sentence is what you are looking for, but I don't see what it really teaches anyone?)

[orlam]

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

LOL

[rogerclee]

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum.

[Hanoi5]

6♦.

[sathyab]

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum.

If you don't consider the problem interesting enough for a non-cryptic response, please feel free to post nothing at all. I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

[jdonn]

I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Lol. Vindictive logic is definitely the funniest type of logic there is, though not quite the most logical.

[sathyab]

I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Lol. Vindictive logic is definitely the funniest type of logic there is, though not quite the most logical.

Quite possibly. But "is's obvious that we should be bidding 6♦ because it'll make more often than not" is about as compelling as "it's obvious that we should pass, because 6♦ will go down more often not". I have found stronger logical arguments in grand ma's recipe books.

 

After I posted this hand, I had an opportunity to talk to a player who's National and World champion, at the Burlingame regional. This is how he responded.

 

First of all, he didn't start out by dismissing the problem as "obviously 6♦ rates to make, so bid it". He did say that we should be bidding more, as partner doesn't need much. Not much disagreement there, as I noted myself in the original post. I pointed out that I have only 3 ♦s and if he partner has only a five-bagger, we may have a trump loser in 6♦, while 6♣ could easily be better. He suggested that you should try 5nt as you're happy with any choice partner makes. If he bids 6♣ you're happier. If all he could do was bid 6♦ you are no worse than bidding 6♦ directly and you know that there was probably no other better strain.

[Fluffy]

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

[sathyab]

your diamond loser will still be a diamond loser if you play in clubs, but your heart losers might no longer be losers in diamonds. But maybe they still are losers in clubs. Sorry for not pointing this before, maybe I though it was obvious.

Really ?! What if partner has x Kxx Kxxxx Jxxx. If clubs break 3-1, and Diamonds break 4-1, you can pull trumps, establish Diamonds with one ruff. Partner bids 6♣ only when he has a second suit. If he has a single suiter in Diamonds he bids 6♦.

[sathyab]

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

Partner didn't bid 4nt over the double of 4♠ because of the disparity in his minor suits which you already know about, as you're looking at a 100-honor club suit.

[jdonn]

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

Disagree with diamond loser will exist in clubs. Agree with there is no point in asking since if partner is 5-4 he bids 4NT not 5♦.

[awm]

Agree with 6♦.

 

If partner is balanced, he should have passed 4♠X as this is the percentage action and double is more "I have a big hand" than specifically takeout or penalty. If partner has some 5-5 hand or the types of 5-4 hands Sathya is postulating, it is better for him to bid 4nt (two places to play) over 4♠X as doubler could have a wide variety of distributions and there is no guarantee that diamonds will be the right strain.

 

For this reason, partner's 5♦ is almost invariably a six-card suit. Our hand is really quite good; give partner ♦Kxxxxx and out and we should have quite a lot of play for slam (we could have twelve tops in the minors and the heart ace, and if clubs misbehave we might be able to ruff a spade, or if worst comes to worst we can take the heart finesse through the non-preempter). Obviously partner doesn't have to hold the diamond king, but if he really has nothing he might pass the double, and we are just trying to figure out the odds here. Partner could also easily have both red kings in which case slam is icy cold.

 

Bidding 5NT seems undesirable for two reasons. First, it is quite possible that this will be (should be?) interpreted as a grand slam try. We do need to have grand slam tries available, and it'd be nice to distinguish between tries with and without a first-round spade control (presumably 5♠ is with and 5NT without). While it's certainly possible to have a grand slam on this hand, we need partner to have two keycards (♠A, ♦K) and even then it's not exactly cold unless partner has club length as well. So I don't think this hand is really sufficient to make such a try. Second, even if we're sure the 5NT is "two places to play" partner has already pretty much shown six diamonds. I'd expect "two places to play" to be more like a 5-5 in the rounded suits hand than a hand with three-card support for the six-card suit, so partner will tend to preference clubs on many hands where diamonds is better (i.e. 6-3 in the minors).

[sathyab]

Agree with 6♦.

 

If partner is balanced, he should have passed 4♠X as this is the percentage action and double is more "I have a big hand" than specifically takeout or penalty. If partner has some 5-5 hand or the types of 5-4 hands Sathya is postulating, it is better for him to bid 4nt (two places to play) over 4♠X as doubler could have a wide variety of distributions and there is no guarantee that diamonds will be the right strain.

 

For this reason, partner's 5♦ is almost invariably a six-card suit. Our hand is really quite good; give partner ♦Kxxxxx and out and we should have quite a lot of play for slam (we could have twelve tops in the minors and the heart ace, and if clubs misbehave we might be able to ruff a spade, or if worst comes to worst we can take the heart finesse through the non-preempter). Obviously partner doesn't have to hold the diamond king, but if he really has nothing he might pass the double, and we are just trying to figure out the odds here. Partner could also easily have both red kings in which case slam is icy cold.

 

Bidding 5NT seems undesirable for two reasons. First, it is quite possible that this will be (should be?) interpreted as a grand slam try. We do need to have grand slam tries available, and it'd be nice to distinguish between tries with and without a first-round spade control (presumably 5♠ is with and 5NT without). While it's certainly possible to have a grand slam on this hand, we need partner to have two keycards (♠A, ♦K) and even then it's not exactly cold unless partner has club length as well. So I don't think this hand is really sufficient to make such a try. Second, even if we're sure the 5NT is "two places to play" partner has already pretty much shown six diamonds. I'd expect "two places to play" to be more like a 5-5 in the rounded suits hand than a hand with three-card support for the six-card suit, so partner will tend to preference clubs on many hands where diamonds is better (i.e. 6-3 in the minors).

What if partner's Diamond suit is disproportionately stronger and longer than his Clubs ? If you bid 4nt with x Kxx Kxxxx 8xxx or xx Kx Kxxxx 8xxx, then your argument about not looking for a second place to play is valid. Does everyone bid 4nt with either of these hands ? Or how about xx Kxx Kxxxx Jxx ? Is this an automatic pass as he's balanced ?

[awm]

What if partner's Diamond suit is disproportionately stronger and longer than his Clubs ? If you bid 4nt with x Kxx Kxxxx 8xxx or xx Kx Kxxxx 8xxx, then your argument about not looking for a second place to play is valid. Does everyone bid 4nt with either of these hands ? Or how about xx Kxx Kxxxx Jxx ? Is this an automatic pass as he's balanced ?

I'd bid 4NT on the given hands. I believe in finding my bigger fit on these hands. I don't think just "having the king in one suit and no honor in the other" is enough to be unilateral here. Partner could easily have a 2425 or 1525 pattern for the double and how happy am I playing in 5♦ now? Bidding 4NT guarantees me to find at least an 8-card fit whereas diamonds could easily by seven.

 

I would also pass with xx Kxx Kxxxx Jxx. It is easy to construct hands that are quite reasonable doubles where we cannot make at the five level opposite this hand and defending 4♠X is pretty much a guaranteed plus score. True it will not get me the best score on this particular hand but what can we do?

[rogerclee]

If you don't consider the problem interesting enough for a non-cryptic response, please feel free to post nothing at all. I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Clever!

 

Anyway all I can say is that you are being pretty obnoxious in this thread to think that only you are capable of seeing the problem here when everyone else thinks the solution is obvious. Maybe you are right, but historically, I have been wrong when this has occurred to me. Similarly, if you think I am not an advanced/expert player, that is fine, but you are being pretty emotional in this thread, so I would stop and consider some of the things you are doing and saying.

 

Your arguments for 5NT are within reason since 6♣ can often be right, but as others have pointed out, it is not that good a description of this hand, since we could have doubled with all kinds of hands with a doubleton (or even singleton) diamond, so 5N should be wrong on balance.

[sathyab]

If you don't consider the problem interesting enough for a non-cryptic response, please feel free to post nothing at all. I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Clever!

 

Anyway all I can say is that you are being pretty obnoxious in this thread to think that only you are capable of seeing the problem here when everyone else thinks the solution is obvious. Maybe you are right, but historically, I have been wrong when this has occurred to me. Similarly, if you think I am not an advanced/expert player, that is fine, but you are being pretty emotional in this thread, so I would stop and consider some of the things you are doing and saying.

 

Your arguments for 5NT are within reason since 6♣ can often be right, but as others have pointed out, it is not that good a description of this hand, since we could have doubled with all kinds of hands with a doubleton (or even singleton) diamond, so 5N should be wrong on balance.

Thank you for allowing that the 5nt bid is within reason, that's mighty generous of you. I'll convey it to the National champion who suggested it, I'm sure it'd mean a lot to him.