Fluffy Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 You probably won´t agree with any of all the bids made (except the passes, if you do with any other please say so), but who made the worst?. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakjxhxd9xxxxcaxx&w=sxxxhj9xxxxdckjxx&e=sq109xxhakq10xdaxcx&s=s2hxdkqj10xxcq109xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] And the bidding is.... S - W - N - W4NT-ps -5♥!-X6♦ -6♥ -X -psps - ps not over yet... The lead was ♠A, but north was scared of both South having 3055 or 1066 so switched to a ♥!, so only 500 (tying with some in 5♥X). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 You probably won´t agree with any of all the bids made (except the passes, if you do with any other please say so), but who made the worst?. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakjxhxd9xxxxcaxx&w=sxxxhj9xxxxdckjxx&e=sq109xxhakq10xdaxcx&s=s2hxdkqj10xxcq109xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] And the bidding is.... S - W - N - W4NT-ps -5♥!-X6♦ -6♥ -X -psps - ps not over yet... The lead was ♠A, but north was scared of both South having 3055 or 1066 so switched to a ♥!, so only 500 (tying with some in 5♥X). First question, does anyone know what anyone else is doing? I would guess no. The only bid I agree with was 5♥X. I might agree with 4NT assuming both partners agreed this means bid your better minor. 5♥ is right if 4NT was blackwodd by agreement, wrong if 4NT was bid a minor. 6♦ is just wrong on several levels. It is wrong if 4NT was bid a minor and partner choose to bid 5♥ anyway, and it was wrong if partner had much better clubs than diamonds. Was 4NT alerted (ok, 4NT bids don't have to be alerted in the US)? But can we assume EW know 4NT was for the minors and a preempt? The reason being, it might affect WEST decision to bid 6♥ or to pass (or double) over 6♦. I am not too proud (happy) with the 6♦ bid either. Assuming for a minute that 4NT was for the minors, South might be facing a partner with 9 hearts to the QJ, and bidding 6♦ would be a horrible disaster. So was 6♦ based on UI that north didn't understand the meaning of 4NT? I mean, 6♦ (as good as the suit is), gives up on playing in clubs in case partner has big club fit. It looks like South realizes that north is not on the same page, and doesn't want to risk 5NT or 5S to get north to pick a slam... and if this was a case, 6♦ might be based upon UI of some unacceptable sort. EW have been rooked in the auction. The worse bid was 6♥, as this was a superman bid, trying to mastermind the hand. North showed two ACES (and at least that should have been explained it asked), so WEST knew or should have known that 6H had no play. Add to that, he has at least reasonable defense against 6♦ with club spots behind opener. Sadly he has no trump to lead. But WEST was probably under the same misconception that 4NT asked for aces that north was. With north showing TWO ACES, his partner's double becomes a save suggestion. But come on. WEST has six hearts the the jack, partner can not be suggesting a save without at least five hearts, and not not bad ones at that given WEST had six. North has two aces and south himself has KJ of clubs. That is too much in the other three hands for south's 4NT to be asking for aces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben47 Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Agree with 4NT at favorable.5♥ should be a grand slam try asking partner for a major suit void. It should NOT be natural as partner has both minors and you have to pick one and the level on which to play it. I don't know what it was but it somehow worked :P I would not have bid 6♦. Partner knows what I have and should bid it himself. Have a look at Round 18 Board 17 of Juniors European 2004: [hv=d=n&v=n&w=sqj8632hadak4ck54&e=sh43dqj652caqt762]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] We only bid 6♦ which did not get bid on many tables and was enough to win 14 IMPs but with full trust that partner has his bid AND remembers the convention we could have reached the grand: 4NT - 5♥ (Major suit void?)5NT (♠ void) - 7♦ As it was I just bid 6♦ over 4NT and perhaps for the better because if we go down in the grand because of a bad break and opps are in game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I think the confusion here is pretty high. How can you tell how to assign the blame? I can't believe 5♥ was intended to be asking about voids...a spade void is of no use to him. Sounds to me like he thought it meant aces. I don't know how the responder interpreted it either...maybe as a heart void with no suit preference. Reasonable enough. So he bid 6 diamonds. I don't see how anybody can assign blame on something like this. Which don't know which player, if any, forgot their agreements. I think the heart bidders were fine, though. It certainly looked to West like the opposing contract was going to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 So I was south on this sequence, about the UI believe it or not but I was gonna pass 5♥ from partner untill it got doubled, that amde me change my mind since it looks hard 5♥ will make, and 6♦ will probably give less downs if I can develop ♣ before being shortnened. I didn´t put any explanation in voices since tehre weren´t any question about them at the table. Later I asked my partner, and he said he had too much ♦ to beleive on a minor 2 suiter, he had in mind something like 1-10-1-1 with AKQJ... :) 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.