JEC 11/16 Board 27

[jeffford76]

[hv=pc=n&s=sthakq3daqj932ca8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp2hp4d(undiscussed)p]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you take 4♦ to be, and what do you do next?

[Lord Molyb]

If lebensohl is on here, I guess a splinter in support of hearts?

If not, it's a decent hand with diamond support

[broze]

If lebensohl is on here, I guess a splinter in support of hearts?

 

If my partner made a undiscussed splinter in my opening suit and expected me to work it out then he wouldn't be my partner for much longer! Under my meta-principles there is no splintering in partners known 5-card suit.

 

Also haven't specifically discussed this sequence but as with most unnecessary jumps when you have the option of going a bit slower (via leb which I'm assuming you have here) I would take it as a picture bid. Now keycard.

[CSGibson]

its really annoying that I played these boards, all the things I want to say are tainted...

[nigel_k]

If 3♦ might not be forcing, then partner is agreeing diamonds and making sure we don't have an accident. If we're 100% clear that 3♦ would be forcing then the splinter interpretation does make sense but I still wouldn't expect partner to try it.My hand also suggests he doesn't have it. So I am just going to cue bid hearts and proceed as if diamonds are trumps.

[CSGibson]

Addition to the problem - there are some agreements over reverses, specifically Ingberman (ie, lebensohl, any direct 3 level bid would be forcing to game).

[paulg]

A forcing 3♦ is not the same as setting diamonds as the trump suit for slam purposes. For a start, if opener were to bid 3♥ next then there is scope for a lot of confusion. So I think 4♦ is natural and just sets the suit.

 

Playing it as a splinter for hearts seems perfectly playable and quite useful, but at least 3♥ is available to definitely set the suit in a way that 3♦ does not.

[akhare]

My interpretation would be agreeing to ♦s as the trump suit. Since 4♥ as kickback might be too confusing, how about 4N?

[JLOGIC]

Big diamond fit/good hand for slam is certainly the oldschool meaning and that's still how I'd play it. There's nothing wrong with using up the room in order to make partner not worry about trumps and realize you guys are slamming.

[JLOGIC]

My interpretation would be agreeing to ♦s as the trump suit. Since 4♥ as kickback might be too confusing, how about 4N?

 

Where does it say they play kickback?

 

If you play kickback 4H is obviously kickback. If it would be confusing then it'd be best not to play kickback. If we have some rule that 4H is specifically not kickback in this situation then 4S would be kickback.

 

Kickback becomes a problem if you do not have very good agreements, look at this hand, it's silly that I can't just keycard in some fashion without fear of a mess up.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sthakq3daqj932ca8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp2hp4d(undiscussed)p]133|200|

What do you take 4♦ to be, and what do you do next?[/hv]

IMO

• Whether you employ Lebensohl or not, 3♥ would be forcing, so 4♦ is a natural slam-try, setting ♦ as trumps.
• Now, 4♥ (Kickback) = 10, 7♦ = 7, 7N = 6, 6♦ = 5.

[jeffford76]

I thought this was a splinter since 3♦ was forcing, and bid 4♠ as RKC for hearts. When partner bid 5♦ showing 2 of the 1 keycards I was missing, I knew he had the other hand, but didn't know how to intelligently look for 7, and we pushed the board at 6♦.

 

Had we been on the same page we'd have gotten there - I would have bid 4♥ RKC for diamonds, and when partner showed the queen I was looking at, I would know that he had only 4 cards outside diamonds and spades.

 

I've since been convinced that showing diamonds is the right way to play this.

[the_clown]

I am not sure what partner has, but I would bid 5♣. Looking at my hand I think its unlikely that partner has exceptional diamonds and a slam try, so it may be as well a splinter for hearts. We are surely playing slam so it doesnt hurt to show my 1st round control. Over anything I would try 5N and see if partner can bid 7.

[lycier]

For me，4♦ is minorwood.