kenrexford Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 ♠Q ♥QJxx ♦K ♣AKQJxxx You open (red on white) 1♣, expecting that it might come back at you rough. Sure enough, you hear 1♦-X-4♦-? Oops. Forgot one other factor. IMP -- teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 4H, whats the problem? We need 3 keycards for slam so presumably you aren't thinking of slam trying... are you thinking of bidding 5C fearing a tap in 4H? If so I'd say it's more likely we're just off 3 tricks and 5C is down and 4H makes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 4♥ seems easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Partner showed 4 hearts, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 If you play (as I do) that 1♣-1♦-X shows the same number of cards in both Majors (precisely to cater against this sort of problem) then you know you have a fit in hearts. If you don't play that at least you have to try and anyway partner would probably bid 5♣ (or 4♠) in case he didn't have a fit for hearts. Anyway, would partner try for slam with ♠A and ♥AK after 4♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 At first sight I was going with 5♣, but since pard is short in clubs and diamonds, he probably does have 44 majors, which makes 4♥ much more attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 4♥, I don't see the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 At first sight I was going with 5♣, but since pard is short in clubs and diamonds, he probably does have 44 majors, which makes 4♥ much more attractive. and theres the fact that partner SHOWED 4-4 in the majors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 So two-dimensional. I mean, if you are going to reject an option, acknolwledge the real reason for considering the alternative and then shoot that down, unless, I suppose, you don't see the real reason for the alternative... ...Of course, review the post. I added something. On the other hand, if MP/IMP made a difference, someone could have noted that (as I did when presented this question). But, no. Too many wtp's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 How do you play X here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Um, 4♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 So two-dimensional. I mean, if you are going to reject an option, acknolwledge the real reason for considering the alternative and then shoot that down, unless, I suppose, you don't see the real reason for the alternative... ...Of course, review the post. I added something. On the other hand, if MP/IMP made a difference, someone could have noted that (as I did when presented this question). But, no. Too many wtp's. It is a WTP hand because what realistic options do you have other than 4♥? 5♣? 5♦? Now 5♥ may be a viable option, perhaps that is what you meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 OK. Here's the real world results. One could claim that "the results are irrelevant" as a means of suggesting that the call made at one table is unsound. However, one might also question whether the call made at the other table was based on "the results being irrelevant," meaning that the two-dimensional call (bid what I have) is more important than the hypothetical four-dimesnional call (bid what makes the tabel result likely best). I have an opinion on the auction, but I posted this more as a thought. Table One: 4♥ was bid, the opponents bid to 5♦. 4♥ would have made 4. 5♦X was down two. +300. Table Two: 5♣ was bid. The opponents, now needing only three tricks to beat this (4♥ requires four defenive tricks) and not knowing of the major fit, opted to defend. 5♣ made for +600. Read into that what you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Table One: 4♥ was bid, the opponents bid to 5♦. 4♥ would have made 4. 5♦X was down two. +300. Table Two: 5♣ was bid. The opponents, now needing only three tricks to beat this (4♥ requires four defenive tricks) and not knowing of the major fit, opted to defend. 5♣ made for +600. Read into that what you will. If south thinks contracting for 11 tricks is fine, why couldn't he bid 4♥, then 5♥ over 5♦? Besides that, heart slams could be lost if we don't support now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Table One: 4♥ was bid, the opponents bid to 5♦. 4♥ would have made 4. 5♦X was down two. +300. Table Two: 5♣ was bid. The opponents, now needing only three tricks to beat this (4♥ requires four defenive tricks) and not knowing of the major fit, opted to defend. 5♣ made for +600. Read into that what you will. If south thinks contracting for 11 tricks is fine, why couldn't he bid 4♥, then 5♥ over 5♦? Besides that, heart slams could be lost if we don't support now. Um... He could. The 5-level heart contract failed, but the five-level club contract succeeded. The point to this hand was that perhaps this swan plays better in clubs, such that the extra level to play in clubs warrants consideration, because a sacrifice in diamonds over 5C is less interesting to the opponents than a sacrifice over 4H. Whether this is or is not sound thinking, this was an interesting hand for the psychology of the thing. When selecting between contracts, if the major contract at the four-level is likely to produce on trick less than the minor contract at the five-level (a big if, perhaps), then the bid of the minor might make sense to avert a luctrative sacrifice. Or, if the two contracts would be at the same level (not this situation, but illustrated by this auction), then you may avert a sacrifice by bidding the contract that hides the known fit rather than the one that reveals the known fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 He could. The 5-level heart contract failed, but the five-level club contract succeeded. Interesting ... I was expecting that not to happen, reasoning that with four hearts opposite four (or five), the number of losers in the suit would be the same whether they were trumps or not. So what happened? A club ruff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 He could. The 5-level heart contract failed, but the five-level club contract succeeded. Interesting ... I was expecting that not to happen, reasoning that with four hearts opposite four (or five), the number of losers in the suit would be the same whether they were trumps or not. So what happened? A club ruff? Less interesting than that. Dummy had the spade King, which provides a pitch in hearts. Hearts were 4-1. This is a common theme with swan hands. 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.