Seven-six, what a fix

[pescetom]

MP

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthajt9763dk98c2&w=saq9873h5d53caj53&n=shdaqjt742ckt9764&e=sk6542hkq842d6cq8&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=2s(Spades%20%2B%20Another)3h4s?]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's a head scratcher that appeared late last night in the Friday evening club tournament. Opponents are solid bidders and 4♠ will be the works. Yours is not a regular partnership and double is undiscussed here, 4NT would be RKCB in hearts. It's unthinkable to pass as both sides probably have game, plus you have the advantage of knowing 10 cards of LHO which will not be the case at most other tables. Could just KISS with a natural 5♦, but it seems better to keep clubs in the picture if possible. Double? Your thoughts with these agreements, or indeed your own?

 

For experts, what agreements would an expert pair be likely to have here and would they be able to depict North's hand, given the auction? What would you be thinking as North?

[mw64ahw]

KISS with a self-sustaining ♦ suit

[pescetom]

KISS with a self-sustaining ♦ suit

 

Usually a good idea at midnight, easier to say after seeing all four hands.

Thinking about it, the diamonds suit is so strong that it is hard to envision a situation where only clubs would make game (although it might well be the only slam).

The questions about agreements remain valid all the same (imagine a more equal balance of suit texture).

[mikeh]

I doubt that more than a handful of full time players in established partnerships have any agreement that permits North to make a descriptive call, and I may be overestimating even that modest suggestion.

 

Furthermore, for any call that you imagine might be useful in the context, ask what that call would mean if you didn’t have that specific call.

 

4N keycard. Too useful to give up….even ‘solid’ bidders bid 4S with say 5+ spades and a stiff heart, which gives you some chance of needing keycard

 

5N pick a slam is probably the most plausible use, expecting partner to bid a 3 card minor, what if he is 3=6=2=2? Or 2=7=2=2? Some might even want to use 5N as GSF, although it’s tough to construct a hand where that’s needed.

 

Actually, I’ve at least temporarily talked myself into thinking that 5N is a reasonable use, but I’d never throw this at partner at th3 table unless I was truly desperate for a great result and willing to see a disaster as irrelevant.

 

5N is the kind of call I’d not make but would discuss with partner after the session.

 

So I’m left with 5D, hoping partner isn’t 3=6=1=3 or the like.

[LBengtsson]

Good problem. 5♦ looks sensible, though I would like to give partner a choice of ♦ or ♣ here. One definitely for partnership agreement. If 4NT is RKCB, then the only other bid available (without confusing partner imo) is X.

 

My partnership agreement (with an experienced partner) would be X is always takeout, except in the sequence 1NT- X on the first round of bidding whatever level it is used. Then it is not ambiguity. We might miss a few good penalty contracts by having that option when the opps. pre-empt heavy at favorable vulnerability as a sacrifice, but I think the takeout option will come up many times more.

 

At this board I hope to respect the opps. as they have bid 4♠ at red/white, so the possibility that they are sacrificing is less and they have their bid, and if the vulnerability was reversed, I guess you want X as takeout so you do not miss a vulnerable game.

 

It is easier suggesting a bid seeing all 4 hands. Partner could have a less suitable hand with 37(21) or 2722 shape given your own voids in ♥/♠ as North. But you must bid as North. Seven/Six = Fix, or Six/Seven = Heaven :)

[pescetom]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I did consider 5NT, but quickly excluded it not just because of the GSF risk but because 6♦ on 2-2 or even 3-1 could be a very poor contract.

I disliked double for the ambiguity and the presumed default of penalty.

But then I figured: whatever double might mean, partner knows from his hand and the auction that I have at most 1 spade.

He doesn't yet know that East has 5 hearts, but if I double rather than bid 4NT or 5♥ then he should at least figure out that I have 2 at most.

Which leaves me with at least 10 cards in the minors and if I did not state a preference then I have both.

It's midnight, and the time of the Stop card is running out, so double it is.

Partner bids 5♥ and with a heavy heart I pull to 6♦.

I ruff the ♠A and played a trump to dummy, then run the ♣2 covered by A.

West puts in the last trump and we are down 1 for 40%.

[DavidKok]

But then I figured: whatever double might mean, partner knows from his hand and the auction that I have at most 1 spade.

He doesn't yet know that East has 5 hearts, but if I double rather than bid 4NT or 5♥ then he should at least figure out that I have 2 at most.

Which leaves me with at least 10 cards in the minors and if I did not state a preference then I have both.

I've always strongly disliked this argument. It makes the meaning of the call dependent on partner's (presumed) cards - which also introduces a list of disclosure issues. How do you alert your double - "it is penalties unless partner can figure out from their hand that it cannot reasonably be penalties?". You also pay up if the opponents hid extra spade length, which is plausible since many players have an aversion to jumping to 5♠ or 6♠ with length.

 

Anyway, I think you're just fixed on the auction. 5♦ and pray something good happens.

[pescetom]

I've always strongly disliked this argument. It makes the meaning of the call dependent on partner's (presumed) cards - which also introduces a list of disclosure issues. How do you alert your double - "it is penalties unless partner can figure out from their hand that it cannot reasonably be penalties?".

I agree that an agreement "it is penalties unless partner can figure out from their hand that it cannot reasonably be penalties?" would not be reasonable. I would never dream of formulating or agreeing that. But in a situation of no agreement and with unusual knowledge of all four hands plus an intelligent partner I decided it might work: with hindsight, it was still unlikely.

 

Anyway, I think you're just fixed on the auction. 5♦ and pray something good happens.

Agreed.

Even at 6♦ something good could happen: two other tables made 12 tricks, one on a clubs lead and the other when West in with ♣A failed to return the trump.