Pass or go on?

[Phil]

I have some very good agreements with my partners that allow CHO to sign off in 4♣.

 

Only those that count points believe a 2N rebid (or opener for that matter) fall within a 'narrow range'.

 

We have the stone nuts and if you make a reasonable effort constructing likely hands partner can have, 6♣ is warranted.

[Hanoi5]

It's sort of funny how these discussions can turn into fights. There are many issues to be discussed (I didn't mention that you played support doubles but I have to ask, do you support double with 18-19 HCP's?) but the main one is, is your partner's bid final? I believe that those who pass think so and those who bid 6♣ leave the door open for re-evaluation.

 

Of course there is the other issue, if partner's bid is not final, is our hand good enough to go on? I think it is, but I see some people don't.

 

I find this issue very similar to another hand I recently posted, you held ♠x♥KQJT8xx♦Qxx♣xx, LHO opened a weak NT (12-14) and you showed your hearts through Hamilton and partner bid 3NT, do you leave it there, do you take it out?

 

The situation is also similar when your partner doubles for penalty and you have to decide whether you take it out or not. Is Pass obliged? Can you use some judgement?

 

I find these three issues very important in bidding, is there a standard? does it depend on agreements?

[dake50]

Now we all have gone 6C.

 

WHAT DOES PARTNER NEED TO GO 7C?

 

Can he revalue his A as the only one missing?

His 6th club as the grand trick?

 

Go back over the arguments for us to go 6C.

Then let partner see the same for going 7C.

[mtvesuvius]

WHAT DOES PARTNER NEED TO GO 7C?

LOL

 

"I want to sign off opposite a limited hand"

"I have an incredibly good limited hand, with all working values, let's play slam!"

"I have an amazingly good sign off, and have discovered that I feel like raising to a grand slam! Good luck! If you need me, I'll be in the restroom."

 

FWIW I'd bid 6♣, it's tough to construct reasonable hands where 6♣ cannot make (or at least is at worst on a finesse).

[dake50]

Could I be answering exclusion?

[MrAce]

I think that this is a decision that can be argued both ways, and partnership style may ultimately be the only basis upon which to know which way is best. I don't think that knowing the actual result even matters much here....I suspect that the passers know they may miss a good slam and I am sure that the bidders know they may be getting too high.

 

Amen

[rhm]

Believing that a reasonable player would prefer the 11 trick game over 3NT with long ♣s headed by ♣ ace makes no sense. All these constructions are pipe dreams. Of course 5♣ might still play better than 3NT even with such hands, but partner has no way to know and it is against the odds. Among others you might be 3 tricks off the top.

With the ♥ ace and long ♣s the bid is mode credible but still dubious at best and why would partner rule out slam with such a hand by skipping 2 levels of bidding? Given the bidding up to 2NT, I do not think your actual holding is such an extra ordinary hand for ♣s, which a good partner can not visualize. 6♣ might have been more understandable with something like ♠AJx,♥Kx,♦Axxx,♣AKxx; still a gamble, but this is the type of ideal hand partner should not play you for.

However, if partner has no quick entry and long ♣s headed by the jack at best, from his perspective 5♣ may play better than any number of notrumps even if 5♣ goes down. He may well have gambled against you holding AKxx in ♣, which is sensible in my view. Also a shortage in ♦ would be more scary than in ♠ after this bidding.

Partner could have ♠xx,♥QJxxx,♦-,♣Jxxxxx

 

Rainer Herrmann

[pooltuna]

Mike has a good argument! You are allowed to override partner's unilateral action at your own risk. Nevertheless it is hard for me to imagine partner trying 5♣ with ♠x ♥QJxx ♦Kx ♣Jxxxxxx. I would expect his scant values to be in his suits and we are covering his short suits with Aces and still have strong♣ so an override makes sense.

[MrAce]

Believing that a reasonable player would prefer the 11 trick game over 3NT with long ♣s headed by ♣ ace makes no sense. All these constructions are pipe dreams. Of course 5♣ might still play better than 3NT even with such hands, but partner has no way to know and it is against the odds. Among others you might be 3 tricks off the top.

With the ♥ ace and long ♣s the bid is mode credible but still dubious at best and why would partner rule out slam with such a hand by skipping 2 levels of bidding? Given the bidding up to 2NT, I do not think your actual holding is such an extra ordinary hand for ♣s, which a good partner can not visualize. 6♣ might have been more understandable with something like ♠AJx,♥Kx,♦Axxx,♣AKxx; still a gamble, but this is the type of ideal hand partner should not play you for.

However, if partner has no quick entry and long ♣s headed by the jack at best, from his perspective 5♣ may play better than any number of notrumps even if 5♣ goes down. He may well have gambled against you holding AKxx in ♣, which is sensible in my view. Also a shortage in ♦ would be more scary than in ♠ after this bidding.

Partner could have ♠xx,♥QJxxx,♦-,♣Jxxxxx

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Thats exactly what i think. The 6 bidders actually miss the point that partner would bid 3NT with any 6 card ♣ holding starting with ACE. Just out of curiosity, i made a poll asking;

 

What would you bid over 2 NT with

 

A- x Axxx xx Jxxxxx/xxxxxx

 

B- x Qxxx(Jxxx) xx AJxxxx (Axxxxx)

 

 

For the answer to A out of 8 experts, 2 bid 3 NT, 6 of them bid 5♣

For the answer to B 8 of them bid 3 NT (common comments were "is there any reason why we can't play 3 nt ?" )

 

But don't go with my word, and ask the same question to your friends that you give credit, i don't think you will recieve much different answers.

 

My point is, 6 bidders actually aiming a very small target as oppose to what they think. And that target is to find partner specifically with ♥ Ace, letalone all the yarborough hands i listed (as if they wouldn't respond to 1♣ with those hands)

 

I have to admit, all those top players i asked, also bid 6♣ with south hand. All 7 of them except 1. It is interesting indeed.

[l milne]

The situation is also similar when your partner doubles for penalty and you have to decide whether you take it out or not. Is Pass obliged? Can you use some judgement?

 

I find these three issues very important in bidding, is there a standard? does it depend on agreements?

 

FWIW, I think best (and most likely 'expert standard', whatever that is) is that 'final' bids are very rare. Most of the time, due to the difficulties in passing information with such limited language and time, the situation will be that one of the partnership will have a fair idea what is best (based on his hand and the bidding so far) but cannot be certain - his partner could still have a very unusual hand for his bidding so far. So, if you do have this unusual hand, you should not assume that partner knows this or that you have shown it - most of the time you haven't (think of other hands you would bid this way).

 

This leads to the conclusion that if you think partner has made a decision on incomplete information, you are justified in bidding again, sometimes. One example I remember from earlier this year was when a very strong opponent of mine bid 3♠ on ♠QT98543 ♥J2 ♦- ♣KJ76 over a strong 1NT on his right, nil vul. His partner bid 3NT, and he passed on the reasoning that he had shown a preempt and that preempts don't bid again unless forced. His partner had ♠AJ7, the spades broke 3-0, the king was held up and he went 3 off when 4 spades was gin for 11 tricks. He hadn't really shown the nature of his hand, so IMO the preemptor should have bid 4♠. Hopefully this makes some sense (??)

[han]

I was reading mikeh's posts and agreed, especially with his expectation of what kind of hands partner bids 5C on.

[gwnn]

When my partner bids 3♠ and I have ♠AJ7, I usually don't bid 3N.

[l milne]

This thread needs some results. What was partner's hand this time?

 

I realise that whoever's bid didn't work out will be blaming their partner :)

[karlson]

I find the Jxxxxxx constructions a lot more plausible than the Axxxxx ones, so I would pass.

[Hanoi5]

The 5♣ bidder held:

 

♠x

♥Axxx

♦Kxx

♣J8xxx

 

6♣ can be made (how would you play it?) and I think it's a reasonable contract but, how can it be reached less problematically? At the other table 3NT was bid and made with an overtrick.

[mike777]

6c I guess pard's hand is:

 

xx...JT95...x......Axxxxx

 

she cant only have 5 clubs.

 

 

In any event I opened 1d not 1c with this shape.

or mexican 2d if that is an option in advanced.

[ewleongusa]

Team match:

[hv=pc=n&w=sak9hk5da976ckqt6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1cp1h1s2np5cp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Do you pass or do you go on?

 

Of course, you go on. Partner clearly has very good trumps and probably shortness somewhere.

I would want to be in at least 6C but 7C is not out of the question.

I would bid 5H to show the heart king and clear intent to go further than 6C.

Also, this should promise first round controls in spades and diamonds.

Partner should have all the information he needs to bid a grand if he has the right hand such as:

S x H AQxx D xx C Axxxxx.

 

Eric Leong

[655321]

Partner should have all the information he needs to bid a grand if he has the right hand such as:

S x H AQxx D xx C Axxxxx.

 

Eric Leong

 

Um, down here on planet Earth x AQxx xx Axxxxx would not have bid 5♣ last round.

[ewleongusa]

Um, down here on planet Earth x AQxx xx Axxxxx would not have bid 5♣ last round.

 

And what would you bid?

 

Eric Leong

[effervesce]

And what would you bid?

 

Eric Leong

 

A super duper obvious 4c?

[Fluffy]

What's the lead Hanoi?, My plan is to try 1 round of trumps before ruffin 2 hearts

[Hanoi5]

Lead was a spade and that's the right line. Another problem of the hand is that declarer claimed upon winning the first trick and both defenders accepted: Clubs were 1-3 and Diamonds 5-1, so declarer had to play one round of trumps, trump a heart, enter dummy with the ♦K, ruff the last heart and then lead his remaining trump.

[Phil]

And what would you bid?

 

Eric Leong

 

Not 5♣ for sure.

 

Eric - are other rgb'ers going to be coming over too?

[olien]

I would definitely go on, and I would've opened 2NT, this hand is worth more than 19 points...

[wank]

easy 6c imo. it can't be worse than a heart hook through the overcaller. ac qh makes 6 cold.

 

just seen partner's hand - obviously absurd