A bid that makes you think ....

[doria_55]

Folks, I would like your opinion on this bidding which took place in my tournament yesterday. Does it seem technically correct to bid 7 nt without two KING? And, once achieved a wrong bidding, declarer seems so lucky to guess position of missing K...

 

 

NORD ♠ 875 ♥ KJ9 ♦ K52 ♣ 7643

SUD ♠ J642 ♥ 10 652 ♦ 6 ♣J 952

WEST ♠ kq109 ♥ A843 ♦ J7 ♣Q 108

EAST ♠ A3 ♥ Q7 ♦ AQ109843 ♣ AK

 

DECLARER : EAST

1♦ - P - 1♥- P - 2NT - P - 3♠ - 4NT (REQ ACES) - P - 5 ♦ (1 ACE) - P - 7nt

 

tell me , folks :)

[manudude03]

The auction seems very strange, assuming there is a pass missing (you normally would not go into blackwood when you have limited your hand and partner hasn't). Hands like this is why normal blackwood is all but extinct among competitive players as the people playing RKC in the same auction up to 4NT would find out partner has ♠KQ and will have the chance to show the ♦K if they had it.

 

There is nothing wrong with bidding 7NT missing 2 kings, as long as you have the tricks to justify it.

 

By the way, the king of diamonds is missing in the deck, and there are two ♦4s

[doria_55]

The auction seems very strange, assuming there is a pass missing (you normally would not go into blackwood when you have limited your hand and partner hasn't). Hands like this is why normal blackwood is all but extinct among competitive players as the people playing RKC in the same auction up to 4NT would find out partner has ♠KQ and will have the chance to show the ♦K if they had it.

 

There is nothing wrong with bidding 7NT missing 2 kings, as long as you have the tricks to justify it.

 

By the way, the king of diamonds is missing in the deck, and there are two ♦4s

 

By Doria_55 : LOL .. Wrong Typing...K ♦ in North... ty

[nullve]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj642ht652d6cJ952&w=skqt9ha843dj7cqt8&n=s875hkj9dk52c7643&e=sa3hq7daqt9843cak&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1dp1hp2np3sp4n(REQ ACES)p5d(1 ACE)p7nppp]399|300[/hv]

[nige1]

IMO. Suspicious but inconclusive without more evidence.

[Cyberyeti]

IMO. Suspicious but inconclusive without more evidence.

 

Presumably he could have asked for kings in some way

[doria_55]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj642ht652d6cJ952&w=skqt9ha843dj7cqt8&n=s875hkj9dk52c7643&e=sa3hq7daqt9843cak&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1dp1hp2np3sp4n(REQ ACES)p5d(1 ACE)p7nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Doria_55 How did you find it and publish the diagram of the hand? I have not able to do that :(

[nullve]

Doria_55 How did you find it and publish the diagram of the hand? I have not able to do that :(

When posting, click on the hand editor symbol (a black spade inside a rectangle with brown edges).

[apollo1201]

When posting, click on the hand editor symbol (a black spade inside a rectangle with brown edges).

Doria, it has to be done on a computer and not on the phone. The editor is not available on the phone.

[aawk]

You reached 7nt and made it. If it is right to bid it depends on the situation like are you way behind in a team match then yes take a gamble. Bidding 7 depending on a king being onside is not winning in the long run. The way you reached 7nt is up for a debate but I would get to 6♦.

[nekthen]

On the face of it a bad bid comes good, that happens. We do not know the context. May be a "Hail Mary" dictated by the need for a top.

[dsLawsd]

Bidding 7 risks a good score where 6NT might be made on a finesse or squeeze. Did the 3♠ bid confuse or was it at IMPS vs a superior team. In that case 7♦seems better.

[nudnikbp]

Here is a different wacky bidding sequence. As East, open 2C, then rebid 2NT. After that the partnership will get to 6NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Here is a different wacky bidding sequence. As East, open 2C, then rebid 2NT. After that the partnership will get to 6NT.

 

Which is probably the wrong small slam particularly at teams.