Phil Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 KO. r/w. KQJxxx AKxx xx x. 3♣ - 3♠ - pass - 3N; pass - ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 KO. r/w. ♠ K Q J x x x ♥ A K x x ♦ x x ♣ x. 3♣ - 3♠ - pass - 3N; pass - ? I rank4♥. Esp if 4♣ would show 5+ 5+ in Ms.4♠. A 6-1 or 6-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-2 or 4-3.Pass. Protects partner's ♣s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 4♥ seems normal to me. Did we miss an easy slam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 4♥ seems normal to me. Did we miss an easy slam? Much depends on your agreements about 4C here. Much also depends for your agreements on strength for micheals originally. We are limited by failure to double first, so I would not use it for slam going here given the choice, but more doubt about strain. Then 4h direct would be 5-5 hearts, and 4c followed by 4h suggests 4h and longer spades. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Agree to show hearts by agreed method. I could hardly construct a hand that looks more suit-oriented. Partner should know to correct back with 23 in majors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Partner should know to correct back with 23 in majors. Does this mean that you have to pass 3N with 55 here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Does this mean that you have to pass 3N with 55 here?No. It just means that, lacking methods to distinguish exact shape, you might end up playing a 52 fit when 53 is available. Would this be worse than playing in 3NT? Hard to say. Also partner knows that michaels was not used. This increases the odds of 64 shape, as some 55 and 65 hands are excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted September 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 I reasoned the same as Phil except I actually held a hand I posted on BW: Kqj8x qj98x jx k. Unfortunately partner corrected with T Ax KT9XX Qxxxx. But the story had a happy ending. Lho had A9xxxx xxx aqxx and didn't x. Win 12 lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 No. It just means that, lacking methods to distinguish exact shape, you might end up playing a 52 fit when 53 is available. Would this be worse than playing in 3NT? Hard to say. Also partner knows that michaels was not used. This increases the odds of 64 shape, as some 55 and 65 hands are excluded. Sure But if those were my constraints of no discussion I would assume that 4H showed 55 and with 6-4 you just rebid your 6 card suit and live with it. 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.