Echognome Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj76ha8dkj843cj94]133|100|Scoring: MP1♦ - (2♣) - 3♣ - (P)3♠ - (P) - 4♦ - (P)4♠ - (P) - 4NT - (P)5♠ - (P) - ?[/hv] You are playing with an expert partner. You are playing a fairly basic natural system. After your partner opens 1♦, RHO buts in with 2♣. You bid 3♣ which is a sound raise to 3♦. And this carries on as follows. Your slam bidding is RKCB 1430. What do you do now? What is partner's hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 sounds like he came alive with 6/5.. i'd like to know whether or not he's void in clubs or hearts.. 6♠ i guess... matchpoints Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Good Grief! Call Bridge Police!....3c=Sound raise? This is not sound.....See Al Roth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmum Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I will bid 6♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Good Grief! Call Bridge Police!....3c=Sound raise? This is not sound.....See Al Roth It's the only bid in the system we have to describe this hand at all, although it's minimum. 2♦ and 3♦ would both be weak. This hand is dead minimum for the 3♣ bid yes, but call the bridge police? Go ahead. I'll stand my ground. Else, I always have an insanity plea! I'll wait for a couple more posts then post partner's actual hand. Thanks for the responses thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Good Grief! Call Bridge Police!....3c=Sound raise? This is not sound.....See Al Roth It's the only bid in the system we have to describe this hand at all, although it's minimum. 2♦ and 3♦ would both be weak. This hand is dead minimum for the 3♣ bid yes, but call the bridge police? Go ahead. I'll stand my ground. Else, I always have an insanity plea! I'll wait for a couple more posts then post partner's actual hand. Thanks for the responses thus far. I bid 2D (less than invite), over 2S I rebid 4D. Now I have limited my hand and shown max hand with D values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adf Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 What's with the 4NT bid? It seems to me that the choices are either 5♦, putting on the brakes, or 5♥, cooperating. Anyhow, at the point in question, I'm going to bid 6♦ because of my heart holding--when partner has ♠AKQxx ♥xx ♦Qxxxxx or ♠KQTxx ♥xx ♦ATxxx, the spade slam is hopeless, but the diamond slam is cold, at least on a club lead. Also, if partner has ♠AKQxx ♥x ♦ATxxxx ♣x, we're at less risk of going down after a club underlead and a diamond ruff. (Of course, we may also score our ♣J, but 1390 is still less than 1430.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartA Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Maybe I am not good at MP, I would bid 6D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Maybe I am not good at MP, I would bid 6D. 6D is Good MP. Why? NOt many would bid 3C as we did here. So not many would find slam. I think bid and make 6D will be good enough. 6S would be too greedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blofeld Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I read 3♠ and 4♠ as cue-bids, showing the top two spades. Partner also has a club control, or he wouldn't bid 4♠ after you've denied one with 4♦. As you have the necessary heart control, 4NT seems a reasonable cooperation bid. Now bid 6♦. I think you're missing one of the minor suit aces, but 6♦ should make. I don't like to risk 6♠ or 6NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakq10hq73daq965c6&s=sj76ha8dkj843cj94]133|200|Scoring: MP1♦ - (2♣) - 3♣ - (P)3♠ - (P) - 4♦ - (P)4♠ - (P) - 4NT - (P)5♠ - (P) - P! - (P)[/hv] I have to say I like the arguments that if you're going to bid a slam, you should bid it in diamonds. There may be some people in 4♠ (assuming the wheels haven't fallen off) and you will score well finding any slam otherwise. There are a couple of points of interest. First, I was under the same impression as most of you that partner was showing a 65 hand. If you don't feel that, then explain how partner is able to show a 65 hand. Second, partner's 3♠ could be interpreted as either (a) a natural suit, (:) a stopper looking for no trump, or © an advanced cue-bid (when he bids on over 3NT). When he bids 4♠, I think we can rule out (:). Third, partner thought that when I bid blackwood, DIAMONDS were agreed. I felt that SPADES were agreed. (This was only the second time we played together to be fair.) So when partner showed 2 keycards with the Q of trumps, I know we're off 2 keycards. So unless I'm banking on a void in partner's hand, I didn't dare go past the last making contract. That didn't seem to work too well! Although interestingly enough, 4♠ makes if you let them win the first 3 club tricks discarding hearts in the north hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 There are a couple of points of interest. First, I was under the same impression as most of you that partner was showing a 65 hand. If you don't feel that, then explain how partner is able to show a 65 hand. By opening 1♠. Even if you opened regularly 1♦ with 5-6 3♠ does not show 5 cards, and you should bid 4♥ instead of 4♦ IMO, partner will make it kinda easy for you after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 I think Matt was suggesting that the 4♠ bid should show 5♠6♦. I can understand opening the major if the hand is too weak to reverse, but surely it's right to open 1♦ if you aren't a minimum? And yes, I have no idea what problem people have with 3♣ as a sound raise - it shows a limit raise or better, a direct 3♦ bid would be weaker...the only people who wouldn't bid 3♣ on this hand are the ones who still play 3♦ as limit. I do agree that there's no point worrying about a few MPs between 6♦ and 6♠, should they both make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 And yes, I have no idea what problem people have with 3♣ as a sound raise - it shows a limit raise or better, a direct 3♦ bid would be weaker...the only people who wouldn't bid 3♣ on this hand are the ones who still play 3♦ as limit. This hand is not a limit raise. It is not close to a "SOUND" limit raise in a minor suit. I realize I have not played bridge in many years but if this "sound" Good Grief. This is a very ratty 10 hcp. With unsupported jacks, an Ace in your short suit and terrible 5332 shape. I bid "SOUND" weak 2D and then 4D as I mentioned before over 2S rebid by partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 One of your jacks is abley supported by a nine :) and the fifth diamond is worth something. Although it may come down to a system difference - if you bid 2♦ or 3♦, opener will pass if he has a flat 15 or 16 playing Acol (which Gnome was). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 I'm not sure what the value of knowing that partner may have 5-6 shape when it is clear that diamonds will be trumps - you have denied interest in spades by not doubling originally and by bidding 4♦, so it seems clear that 4♠ is a cue bid. Trying to mastermind into 5-2/5-3/4-3 fits when you have a 5-4/6-5 fit is just making life far too difficult :) Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Cardsharp - Agree with you at IMPs, not at MPs. 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.