Made for each other?

[wank]

Assess each player's drug consumption on a scale of aspirin to heroin. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sjtxxxhkqxdakxxcx&s=sakqxhatxxdckj9xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1C - 1H (spades)

2NT (4-5/3-6 16+) - 3H (5+ spades GF)

3S sets trumps - 4C cuebid

5D - 5H

5NT - 7S

 

North-south are i suppose you'd call them B list pros, but not a regular partnership, on a sponsored team. Out of curiosity what would be a B list pro get in an american tournament?

 

The bidding upto 4C is obvious to understand.

 

5D was meant as a void splinter, even though they'd agreed to play exclusion, on the basis that it wasn't bid directly. Logical or not?

 

5H would be 0/3 as a response to exclusion

 

if 5D was exclusion, 5NT would be a trump queen ask, but was intended as a temporising affair to check partner really did have the ace of clubs (assuming partner wouldn't cue a shortage but wondering if partner had subsequently shown 0 aces), thinking partner couldn't go overboard without the AKQ of trumps

 

7S was based on all the extra goodies he hadn't been able to show until now.

[MFA]

I'm no expert in pharmaceuticals, but:

 

5D was meant as a void splinter, even though they'd agreed to play exclusion, on the basis that it wasn't bid directly. Logical or not?

:)

 

I mean, north just made a cuebid in opener's suit*). Of course that could potentially be enough for south to launch exclusion.

 

*) Cuebidding a singleton in partner's suit is generally wrong if partner could be dependent on finding an honour to run the suit. Here it was a reasonable move since such good strength in the red suits means that a lot of club tricks will rarely be necessary in a spade slam.

 

Perhaps south should void splinter instead of 2NT.

[OleBerg]

South is on Meth. If exclusion have been agreed, it would obviously apply here.

 

From North' point of view: If South wanted his opinion on a diamond void, he

would have shown it a lower level.

 

When South told North they had everything, not jumping to 7♠ would be silly.

 

You could argue, that North could wonder why South didn't bid a direct 5NT, since 0 aces was enough. But if all South needed was the ♠Q, I assume this would be the way to bid.

 

North might have needed a mild sedative after the hand.

[nigel_k]

South was wrong to bid 5♦ if they have agreed exclusion. But North is definitely wrong to bid 7♠ regardless of whether 5♦ is exclusion or a void and I don't like the club cue bid either.

 

I think North is on something happy and rather strong, maybe GHB, and South has done no more than drink a bit too much cheap scotch.

[kayin801]

North is cold turkey, South had one too many pan-galactic garble blasters. I mean, what use is a void splinter here anyway when, if they really want to, they can double cue diamonds?

[ArtK78]

North-south are i suppose you'd call them B list pros, but not a regular partnership, on a sponsored team. Out of curiosity what would be a B list pro get in an american tournament?

Life?

[lmilne]

Did it make? ;)

[Cyberyeti]

North's acid trip when he bid 4♣ is one cause of this, south's expecting J10xxx, KQx, xxxx, A if he thinks he's not playing exclusion here.

 

That said South's been on the sleeping pills as 5♦ is clearly exclusion, so 5♥ is 0/3 and he should only bid 6.

 

Never cuebid a shortage in partner's suit first up, if as I do you cue both first and second round controls without distinguishing, then skip the cuebid and make it later and partner knows for certain it's a shortage.

[OleBerg]

Never cuebid a shortage in partner's suit first up, if as I do you cue both first and second round controls without distinguishing, then skip the cuebid and make it later and partner knows for certain it's a shortage.

That might be the agreement with least strain on memory and bidding-judgement, but it is not without problems:

 

1) A second cuebid will gobble RKC.

 

2) Uncertainty about stoppers.

 

 

 

Assume you have established fit and slaminterest with 3♠:

 

If you bid 4♦ with a singleton club, and partner bids 4♠, you will not know whether it was because a club stopper or a heart stopper is lacking.* Now, if you move on without a heart-stopper, you might risk going down in 5 where you could have avoided it. If you stay, you might miss a stone-cold slam.

 

Furthermore, in auctions where all stoppers are accounted for, a player coming to rest in game, sends the message: "I have exhausted my slam-potential". I have often found this usefull.

 

Of course grand-slams should not be underestimated, but good small-slam bidding comes first.

 

Here it looks like NS plays a well-considered system, but still they obviously need to asses their slampotential further during the cuebidding. Thus saving space in the sequences is also valuable.

 

 

* Should anybody believe, that a heart-cuebid here doen't show a club-stopper, the same problem will surface, all the times you bid 4♦ because you actually lacked a club-stopper.

[Cyberyeti]

Never cuebid a shortage in partner's suit first up, if as I do you cue both first and second round controls without distinguishing, then skip the cuebid and make it later and partner knows for certain it's a shortage.

That might be the agreement with least strain on memory and bidding-judgement, but it is not without problems:

 

1) A second cuebid will gobble RKC.

 

2) Uncertainty about stoppers.

 

 

 

Assume you have established fit and slaminterest with 3♠:

 

If you bid 4♦ with a singleton club, and partner bids 4♠, you will not know whether it was because a club stopper or a heart stopper is lacking.* Now, if you move on without a heart-stopper, you might risk going down in 5 where you could have avoided it. If you stay, you might miss a stone-cold slam.

 

Furthermore, in auctions where all stoppers are accounted for, a player coming to rest in game, sends the message: "I have exhausted my slam-potential". I have often found this usefull.

 

Of course grand-slams should not be underestimated, but good small-slam bidding comes first.

 

Here it looks like NS plays a well-considered system, but still they obviously need to asses their slampotential further during the cuebidding. Thus saving space in the sequences is also valuable.

 

 

* Should anybody believe, that a heart-cuebid here doen't show a club-stopper, the same problem will surface, all the times you bid 4♦ because you actually lacked a club-stopper.

Some of this is true, although quite frequently the "second" cue after you've failed to make the first comes after Blackwood for us (we play the suit above the trump suit as asking, so when not in spades we can have plenty of space afterwards).

 

We do cue hearts if we have them always, so yes if there are 3 club losers, we can go down in 5. Most often there are only 2 anyway or the third is a ruff with 3-2 split honours and it isn't found.

 

This particular hand, the issue wouldn't arise, we'd start 1♣-1♠-4♦-4♥

 

4♦ is exclusion, 4♥ 0/3 and slam interested opposite a fairly minimum 4♦ which this is.