email discussion, hand evaluation-2

[mike777]

email hand:

 

MATCHPOINTS

 

"You hold QTx,xxxx,xx,KQxx.

 

Partner opens 2C……you respond 2D (guaranteeing at least a K and is GF). The opponents are silent.

 

Partner bids 2S, you 3S, partner 4N KCB, you bid 5C (0 or 3).

 

Partner now bids 6H.

 

Your bid………..???"

[PhilKing]

It's a bit confusing. For me, this asks for 3rd round control, so partner has something like:

 

♠AKJxxxx

♥AKx

♦Ax

♣A

 

So I bid 7NT.

[mikeh]

Partner's failure to Queen ask does suggest the AKxxxxx length posited by PhilKing.

 

At the risk of quibbling, I see AKxxxxx AKJx A A as equally consistent as his 7=3=2=1 (or the companion 7=3=1=2) and if 7321 why not AKxxxxx AKx AK A?

 

Anyway, I agree with the final decision of 7N.

 

If partner is AKJxxx AKJx Ax A, then maybe the heart hook will work, or the Q drop stiff offside, and maybe he'll learn not to imply holdings he doesn't have.

[DJNeill]

6♠. I've seen this as a "pick 6♠ or 6N". But I just don't know enough either way.

[PhilKing]

At the risk of quibbling, I see AKxxxxx AKJx A A as equally consistent as his 7=3=2=1 (or the companion 7=3=1=2) and if 7321 why not AKxxxxx AKx AK A?

.

 

We promised a king, so I think pard would possibly punt grand on the first hand. He can count thirteen tricks on the second if spades break.

[mikeh]

We promised a king, so I think pard would possibly punt grand on the first hand. He can count thirteen tricks on the second if spades break.

Yes, I didn't mean that we wouldn't bid 7N on the second example: I was quibbling, as I said, by pointing out that I didn't think we needed to be quite as specific as you seemed to be in inferring his actual hand. All hands that I could construct, consistent with his bidding, made 7N the optimal MP call. I'm a lawyer, thus susceptible to falling into a quibble, or of being a pedant. I'd say: so sue me, but lawyers never say that :P

[PhilKing]

Yes, I didn't mean that we wouldn't bid 7N on the second example: I was quibbling, as I said, by pointing out that I didn't think we needed to be quite as specific as you seemed to be in inferring his actual hand. All hands that I could construct, consistent with his bidding, made 7N the optimal MP call. I'm a lawyer, thus susceptible to falling into a quibble, or of being a pedant. I'd say: so sue me, but lawyers never say that :P

 

As I lawyer, you should have spotted that I gave myself outs by saying "something like". B-)

[wanoff]

Yes, I didn't mean that we wouldn't bid 7N on the second example: I was quibbling, as I said, by pointing out that I didn't think we needed to be quite as specific as you seemed to be in inferring his actual hand. All hands that I could construct, consistent with his bidding, made 7N the optimal MP call. I'm a lawyer, thus susceptible to falling into a quibble, or of being a pedant. I'd say: so sue me, but lawyers never say that :P

 

You've lost me there - at least Phil King gave an example where a question does need to be posed.

You're probably both right that 7N is the 'odds' contract though you may need all of your courtroom skills if partner has AKxxxxx AKx AKQ --

[mike777]

I think that raises the issue, can pard have a club void on this auction?

[PhilKing]

I think that raises the issue, can pard have a club void on this auction?

 

Only in a different sub-forum. :P

[ArtK78]

Only in a different sub-forum. :P

I believe you are dismissing wanoff's example hand too quickly.

 

It is clear that you and MikeH agree that 6♥ asks for third round control of hearts. Assuming that there is no obvious second way to ask for third round control of hearts in OP's methods, why is wanoff's hand not consistent with the auction? Because you don't bid Blackwood with a void? But what if that is the only way to discover if partner has third round control of hearts? And if partner has the ♣A, 7NT will be easy on wanoff's hand assuming that there is a spade entry.

 

You can construct hands which are consistent with the auction on which 7NT is the correct final contract, And, as wanoff has shown, you can also construct hands which are consistent with the auction on which 7NT would be a disaster.

 

Why not just answer the question asked, but do so in a way that gives partner some say in determining the final contract - bid 6♠ without third round heart control, but bid 7♣ with third round heart control and KQ of clubs. Now, with the hands that you and MikeH provided, opener can bid 7NT. But on the hand that wanoff provided, opener can bid 7♠.

 

On the actual hand, that would not work. But at least you would not get to 7NT off the ♣A if you held wanoff's hand.

[PhilKing]

I believe you are dismissing wanoff's example hand too quickly.

 

 

4NT would be fine on that hand, but I would punt grand opposite no ace, which just needs xxx xxx xx Kxxxx to have good play (as well as many other combos where it is cold opposite the right jack or they make an ill-advised ace lead).

 

6♥ seems like bad bridge to me. Just stick it to them and try and make it.

[Zelandakh]

I feel the need to back this discussion up a little. After the 5♣ response, 5♦ would be the queen ask, right. So what is 5♥? Playing the traditional way with 5NT as the king ask, 5♥ is a SSA. But if that were the case then 6♥ as the same thing is superfluous. Similarly, if we assume the modern way with 5♥ as the king ask, then 5NT becomes the SSA for hearts. Still no need for 6♥ to do this. So I am not at all certain that this should ask for third round heart control.

 

For me, the continuations after 5♣ are:

5♦ = trump Q ask

5♥ = K ask

5♠ = to play opposite 0

5NT = SSA for hearts

6m = SSA

6♥ = ask for "extras"

 

In any case, a side KQ seems to qualify. I might quibble that we should bid 7♣ to show where our side trick source is and let partner decide which grand to bid but signing off in 6♠ looks to be out of the question.

[ArtK78]

I feel the need to back this discussion up a little. After the 5♣ response, 5♦ would be the queen ask, right. So what is 5♥? Playing the traditional way with 5NT as the king ask, 5♥ is a SSA. But if that were the case then 6♥ as the same thing is superfluous. Similarly, if we assume the modern way with 5♥ as the king ask, then 5NT becomes the SSA for hearts. Still no need for 6♥ to do this. So I am not at all certain that this should ask for third round heart control.

 

For me, the continuations after 5♣ are:

5♦ = trump Q ask

5♥ = K ask

5♠ = to play opposite 0

5NT = SSA for hearts

6m = SSA

6♥ = ask for "extras"

 

In any case, a side KQ seems to qualify. I might quibble that we should bid 7♣ to show where our side trick source is and let partner decide which grand to bid but signing off in 6♠ looks to be out of the question.

What you say makes sense, but I don't believe it is the way that Kantar presented the SSA in his books on RKCB.