petergreat Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 [hv=d=s&v=e&n=saxxxhj7dxxxckqjx&s=sxxhakqt9853dcatx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are South. 1♥ (2♦) X - Now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 S is either a 4♦ or a 4♥ bid. If you bid 4♦ you'll find slam, if not, then no. I think 4♦ should show more than 1 card outside hearts so I'd miss slam. edit: I was being influenced by the hand I saw, of course 4♦ should be for spades. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Since I know all hands, I bid 7♥, of course :) Without knowing, bid 4♦ I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades? How can it agree spades if they haven't been bid yet? :) Still, I have that figured out. If pard pulls to spades, I'll pull back to hearts. The hand's strong enough for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'm sure you'll find some who like to open 5♥ on this one. Hopefully, partner is on the same line :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergreat Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 1♥ (2♦) X --4NT - 5♦ X7♥!! All pass Of course I made it.Now is there a more foolproof way of getting to 7♥? And of course at least don't miss 6♥! And, it didn't get top board. For some reason a lucky South got to play 6♥xx+1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 1♥ (2♦) X --4NT - 5♦ X7♥!! All pass Of course I made it.Now is there a more foolproof way of getting to 7♥? And of course at least don't miss 6♥! And, it didn't get top board. For some reason a lucky South got to play 6♥xx+1. Why do you need a better way, being lucky is more important than bidding brilliantly and after a longseq. reaching a doomed contract. Put another way, I think the 7H bid is just ..., but itworked fine, so as your partner / teammates I would notinquire to deeply ihow you came up with the bid. To answer your question, I am pretty sure, I would notreach 6H let alone 7H.I guess your best chance for reaching a slam would be,if you happen to play Acol 2s, it should be possible to construct a reasonable seq. to 6H. It may also be possible to construct a reasonable seq.,if you happen to play Namyats, but this seq. would mostlikely require, that one of the players stretches, sinceit is not clear, that the hand with xxx in diamonds faces a void, and it is not clear, if they will enter the auction aftera 4C opening. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. As south I would bid 3♦, and presuming partner bids 3♥ I would bid 4♦. No prediction as to how it would go from there and no particular confidence I would get to 7, but that start seems quite obvious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 playing precision this looks a walk in the park, but we should get to 7♥ here? I would expect something like this 1♥ - 2♦ - X - P4♦ - ? - 4♠ - P5♣ - P - 6♣ - P6♦ - P - 7♥ Why, because partner should place you with at least 7♥ headed by the AKQ, the ♣A and a ♦ void. If opener has only 7♥ you would also expect the ♠K, more than likely you would be looking at 8-9 ♥. If you do not play the 4♦ bid as determining ♥ then you have to find another method, but 7♥ will be simple for partner once you show the ♥ strength, ♦ void and ♣A. Just a quick point regarding the 4♦ bid agreeing ♠, what sort of hand will this be that cannot be bettered by finding partners strength? and equally be able to show ♠ at a later point? Not saying which is right or wrong, just the logic behind the process and what is the best use of 4♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard.Well, Watson, most of us play that partner has bid spades via the negative double, hence the splinter supports his suit. As it is, this is a hand that is biddable to the grand, intelligently... a description that does not apply to the actual auction... only if we see all the cards... I mean, seriously... we can find the KQJx holding in clubs?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard. It's not true because I say so but it's true anyway. News flash sherlock, no one cares if you either agree something nonstandard or don't know what standard is. The negative double shows 4 spades and is treated like a spade bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_s Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades? Good question. In my current partnership 4♦ agrees spades because the X shows spades. In a previous partnership, that wasn't the case. We played negative free bids, so you had to double with many hand that wanted to force. In that partnership 4♦ would agree hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 this is LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 3♦ first... Maybe this should have been presented as a single hand problem. It's much easier to get unbiased responses without giving both hands if it's a bidding problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. You have to bid as Josh stated with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 It's pretty standard that 4♦ absolutely agrees spades. Exception being for pairs where double denies 4-card spades, then it's obvious that 4♦ is a self splinter for hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 4♦ agrees spades. This isn't open for debate. Saying you can agree anything with your partner is meaningless. 3♦ OTOH does not agree spades and thats what I would bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 4♦ agrees spades. This isn't open for debate. I find this dogmatic attitude is rather saddening. This goes for all that share such a view of how to say things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 4♦ agrees spades. This isn't open for debate. Saying you can agree anything with your partner is meaningless. 3♦ OTOH does not agree spades and thats what I would bid.There has to be debate, or at least explanation. As far as I can see you can have the 4♦ jump bid agreeing either ♥ or ♠. I can see some merits for both approaches and can see a possible edge here to agreeing ♠, but I cannot see it as no where near definitive without the rationale behind that conclusion. So just exactly how do you justify that comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Autosplinters apply when partner has bid no suit yet, like 1M-1NT4m.They don't apply when partner promised a suit. In this case he can have between 4 and 7 spades, so showing shortness in support of partner is generally accepted to be more frequent/useful than showing shortness with a very good one suited hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 what Phil meant, I believe, is that in standard bridge, as in sitting down with a real expert, with whom one has had no discussion of the sequence, if this 4♦ bid arose, your expert partner would take 4♦ as a splinter in support of spades 100% of the time. It matters not whether there is merit or not in other interpretations. It's sort of like arguing that opening 2C, having agreed only to play 'standard' could usefully be used as a weak 2. Who cares? In standard, it's strong and artificial. The problem is that we have, on this forum, a (very) few people who claim to be expert who are not... when they make bonehead comments that reveal that they don't know what they are talking about, they get aggressive towards the better players who point out their error. It doesn't make them more expert, but it may confuse the less experienced players who do not know which advice to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 The difference, michael haargreaves, is that those real experts, in which category I would place Fred for instance, realize bridge situations aren't always clear-cut. Especially those situations where no explicit agreement exists. So they approach them with caution and speak out an humble way, characteristic of true champions. People like you speak in an arrogant and dogmatic way so as to manipulate other people into creating a narcisistic, false image of you them [you] as holder of an (inexistant) "truth". To me, this attitude is a confession of mediocrity. There are very, very few world class players out there that are arrogant but truly good. In all sports. Why? Because the inability to understand different points of view blocks the horizon of competent players like you and prevents them to ever become as good as a world champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 The difference, michael haargreaves, is that those real experts, in which category I would place Fred for instance, realize bridge situations aren't always clear-cut. Especially those situations where no explicit agreement exists. So they approach them with caution and speak out an humble way, characteristic of true champions. People like you speak in an arrogant and dogmatic way so as to manipulate other people into creating a narcisistic, false image of you them [you] as holder of an (inexistant) "truth". To me, this attitude is a confession of mediocrity. There are very, very few world class players out there that are arrogant but truly good. In all sports. Why? Because the inability to understand different points of view blocks the horizon of competent players like you and prevents them to ever become as good as a world champion.oh... I've been put in my place ;) Josh and harald and appollo and gwnn and phil: are they as bad as me?? After all, they agree that 4♦ 'absolutely' agrees spades. Ummm... I rarely say this, but this situation deserves it.... LOL 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.