ATB missing slam

[kgr]

[hv=pc=n&s=st432hakj5432dc32&n=sakqj5hq6d765432c&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=4hppdp5c5h6cdppp]266|200[/hv]MP'S

[gszes]

[hv=pc=n&s=st432hakj5432dc32&n=sakqj5hq6d765432c&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=4hppdp5c5h6cdppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Blame it on 4h----this hand has two possible suits to play in (spades) and

the 4h bid made it nigh impossible to ever ever find that spade fit. Opening this

hand 3h at these colors (generously worth about 8 tricks) would seem to be much

closer to describing this hand and leaving open the possibility of playing in spades.

 

It is extremely difficult to go from 4h to slam when p was willing to play 4h. Even if p had

AKQJT9 of spades they would not convert to 4s since your hearts might easily be longer

and almost as good.

[ArtK78]

Opening 3♥ leaves open the possibility of playing in spades? I suppose that is literally true, but I have never heard of that as a justification for opening at the 3-level rather than at the 4 level.

 

Quite frankly, it sounds similar to the justification for some of Treadwell's conventions. "The 3♥ opening bid allows partner to convert to spades if he holds as little as AKQJTxx of spades."

 

If you have to assign the blame, it is clearly on South. He chose to open 4♥ with a hand that is hardly a classic 4♥ opening bid, but will often be the winning call due to the pressure put on the other side. Here, he hit his partner with a strong holding in spades, which just happens to match his side 4 card holding, and partner has a void in his 2-card holding! To say that this is unlucky for his choice of opening bid would be an understatement.

 

By the way, I hope that North didn't lead a major suit in which one of the opponents was void. If that happens, they may make 6♣x.

[billw55]

Agree, south made a slightly nonstandard choice of preempt, but with the spades so bad it is not necessarily wrong, on many deals it would work out. At these colors I would stick to 3♥ though (if I preempt at all).

 

However, I definitely disagree with south's double of 6♣. Having preempted, south should now pass and leave this decision to partner. (or perhaps this was supposed to be a lightner double)

[ArtK78]

The double is probably intended as Lightner but might not be interpreted as such in a competitive auction.

[kgr]

Agree, south made a slightly nonstandard choice of preempt, but with the spades so bad it is not necessarily wrong, on many deals it would work out. At these colors I would stick to 3♥ though (if I preempt at all).

 

However, I definitely disagree with south's double of 6♣. Having preempted, south should now pass and leave this decision to partner. (or perhaps this was supposed to be a lightner double)

 

 

The double is probably intended as Lightner but might not be interpreted as such in a competitive auction.

Can it be anything else then lightner after having preempted?

North did lead ♠, South discouraged;

then North switched to ♥Q; discouraged again

It went -3 (bad) iso -4 (good) with sooner switch to ♦ and then South underleading ♥

[Cyberyeti]

I'd be very inclined to bid 6♥ rather than 5 with the N hand. W is on lead without the points, partner has opened 4♥ at unfavourable, what's his likely hand, give him AK 8th and out with no extra shape, and W probably has to find a diamond at trick 1 assuming partner has more than one anyway.

 

Maybe I should have raised first time.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=st432hakj5432dc32&n=sakqj5hq6d765432c&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=4hppdp5c5h6cdppp]266|200[/hv]MP'S

 

 

north,,,south has shown 8 tricks at this vul....I have a zillion tricks outside of d.....

 

 

sure we may be off the AK of d but I dont have a way to find out.

 

I mean are we really surprised pard has short d here after opening 4h?

 

not opening 3h or 1h or pass was not the problem here.

[keylime]

This is a brutal hand now. Not fair to give North something to do!

 

If 4H red has a classical meaning I'd take the push to six.

[rmnka447]

4 ♥ is an extremely aggressive preempt Red vs. White with a 6 loser hand. So I give South the lion's share of any blame that might accrue.

 

3 ♥ would seem more reasonable at this vulnerability. That makes it possible for North to bid 3 ♠ to find out more about preempter's hand. Preempter could then show the ♦ control with a 4 ♦ bid. Then you might find your way to 6 ♥, if the opponent's don't interevene in ♣s.

 

But there would probably be a sizable number of people who would simply bid 4 ♥ with the North hand.

 

This is not an easy slam to bid unless you have some very good undertandings over preempts. So missing it isn't the end of the world.

[ggwhiz]

After 4♥ on these colours I would go straight to 6♥ with the north hand.

 

7♥ if I really don't like my opps and I hope the guy on lead has both minor suit Aces.

[rmnka447]

Interestingly, it's hard to know if you can get to slam over any other bid by South. The opponents have the 20 HCPs in the minors and a big ♣ fit. They might open/compete if South makes a different original bid.

 

6 ♥ is a complete shot in the dark. It figures to make some percentage of the time, so might not be a bad ploy if you are looking a swing at IMPs or want to go for it at MPs. Everytime I make a bid like that, I seem to find pard with ♦ xx and end up trying to explain my bid.

[Finch]

I don't understand blaming the 4H opening for missing slam, and saying 3H would give N/S a better chance. 4H shows a better hand than 3H. I also think it's a perfectly sensible 4H opening. I'd open 3H with the same heart suit but a 7222.

 

Opposite a vul vs not 4H opening I would move on the North cards. It's obviously a guess because South could have - KJ109xxxx xxx Ax (say) but I think the odds are in favour of slam making.

[kgr]

I don't understand blaming the 4H opening for missing slam, and saying 3H would give N/S a better chance. 4H shows a better hand than 3H. I also think it's a perfectly sensible 4H opening. I'd open 3H with the same heart suit but a 7222.

That is why I opened 4♥

Opposite a vul vs not 4H opening I would move on the North cards. It's obviously a guess because South could have - KJ109xxxx xxx Ax (say) but I think the odds are in favour of slam making.

I'm not sure I would move with the North, but like you said it is a guess

[marcD]

Pass over 4♥ is extremely cautious. I guess 6♥ the practical bid but 5♦ asking (which i would think is pretty standard) is probably the technical solution (no i do not ever play goulash :) so 5♦ natural is not needed). Here the opener could bid 6♦ to show first round control. cool this never comes up in real life i will double check with my partner if we are (still) on the same wave length

[Finch]

I gave the North hand to Jallerton (without him having seen the full hand) and he dithered between the scientific 5C (asking for a diamond control) and just bidding 6H, and went for the latter.

[wank]

mark me down for punting 6♥ as north directly too. i would be more worried about missing 7 than going down in 6. can't investigate 7 though as it will pinpoint the diamond lead versus 6 when partner doesn't oblige with a diamond control.

 

anyone who doesn't expect to make slam on a non-diamond lead obviously opens too many shite pre-empts at these colours.

[kgr]

I gave the North hand to Jallerton (without him having seen the full hand) and he dithered between the scientific 5C (asking for a diamond control) and just bidding 6H, and went for the latter.

What would 4S be? Isn't it a cue also and asks partner to bid a minor cue?

[the hog]

I agree with Cyberyeti. You have he HQ, 5 excellent S and a C void opposite a 4H opening. This is a 6H bid, not a wimpy 5H. Opening 4H has NOTHING to do with missing th slam.

[Zelandakh]

Switch South's minors. Now ATB for bidding the slam when they cash their ♦AK.

 

It is just difficult after a preempt and especially if you believe in a wide-ranging "pressure" style. On this hand I think I agree with Frances' assessment that the North hand is worth a move but I think only a try, not a direct 6♥, is enough.

[wank]

Switch South's minors. Now ATB for bidding the slam when they cash their ♦AK.

 

 

lol

[ArtK78]

Z's post did not deserve an LOL. Anytime you are dealing with high-level preempts you run into strange situations. There is more than one instance of having void opposite void.