[Fluffy]

all vul IMPs

♠K962
♥A72
♦853
♣Q94


1♣!-(1♥)-1NT!-(2♥)-
pass-(pass)-2♠-(pass)
4♥-(pass)-??


1♣=16+ any
1NT=9-14 balanced with stopper in hearts

[JLOGIC]

4S, I have minimum HCP with the worst possible shape.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-03, 17:30, said:

4S, I have minimum HCP with the worst possible shape.

But the best possible heart holding. This is a whole trick better than Kxxx KJx xxx Qxx. Also, the opponents have been fairly quiet, despite their 9-card fit, suggesting that the suits will break.

It's a shame that we're playing the spades - AQxx x AKxxx AJx would make a good slam from partner's side.

[bluecalm]

What would dbl/3♥/4♥ mean round before from partner ?
It's difficult to assess the problem without knowing the answer to those questions.
It seems to me that partner is likely in lower range now so I signoff in 4♠ but I think that other ways of playing that makes sense too. Just very difficult without any prior discussion.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2011-May-04, 05:37, said:

It's a shame that we're playing the spades - AQxx x AKxxx AJx would make a good slam from partner's side.

Well, I'm not so sure about that...

[Fluffy]

bluecalm, on 2011-May-04, 06:05, said:

What would dbl/3♥/4♥ mean round before from partner ?
It's difficult to assess the problem without knowing the answer to those questions.
It seems to me that partner is likely in lower range now so I signoff in 4♠ but I think that other ways of playing that makes sense too. Just very difficult without any prior discussion.

We have no agreements on what things do specifically mean after we made a forcing pass at the 2 level. I doubt many pairs do.

However partner made a splinter and this is very basic stuff.

A question that arises on this problem is: When partner makes a splinter that forces us to either sing off or go to the 5 level, what percentage of the time should we move on? Do we need a hand just above the average hand, or something in the 30-40% best hands is needed?

[whereagles]

By FTL lore we have 25+ working points for an SST of +1. That means 11 tricks should be there if opener is on the lower end for his splinter.

Seems like a slam try is in order, but there's no room for making one. Besides, it is likely pard isn't very interested in slam and is just passing the bucket.

Finally, if all this still wasn't enough to bid 4♠, how about

AQJx
x
AKxx
Kxxx

[gnasher]

mfa1010, on 2011-May-04, 06:14, said:

Well, I'm not so sure about that...

Yes, it wasn't much of an example.

[Fluffy]

It was kinf of a 50-50 slam you have to guess trumps for no losers to bring it home, partner had

♠A108xx
♥x
♦KQx
♣AKJx

[bluecalm]

Quote

partner had

♠A108xx
♥x
♦KQx
♣AKJx

Why didn't he bid 2♠ round before ?

[jdeegan]

4♠ is easy. Give partner 4-1-4-4 and 16 HCP and count your losers. For slam partner needs to produce two additional tricks even if all the suits split normally. With such extras, he may bid some more. I just noticed the actual hand with 17 HCP and a 5th spade. He won't bid anymore, but it's only a 50-50 contract.

[gnasher]

Why would partner make a slam try with a 4144 16-count when he knows that we have wasted values in hearts and a maximum of 14?

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on 2011-May-06, 02:25, said:

Why didn't he bid 2♠ round before ?

He would probably have been happy to sit for a double had we done so. If he bid spades next, we will probably be able to guess the general nature of his hand (bad suit, good defense, good playability for other strains). Presumably fluffy and his partner play a double would be penalty by either side since they're in a forcing auction, so this is the equivalent of Xing 2H for takeout planning to bid spades next, seems perfect to me (side note: I now much prefer takeout Xs in strong club auctions even when in a force).

Bidding over 4H is crazy in my opinion. I once made a joke that I think people bid more often over a splinter with xxx and a complete minimum than with KQx and the same values. Of course that is absurd, but my point is that people go too crazy upgrading for the "perfect holding," and too crazy downgrading for the bad holding. We still need overall values and tricks to make a slam.

Ok, so we have Axx of hearts, the best heart holding for this auction. That's great. We also have the complete minimum in a SIX point range. We also have the worst shape (I think even 42(43) is worse in this case), a doubleton minor would be a true asset worthy of note. We don't even have the trump ten or jack which would be good if we're planning to ruff 2 hearts in dummy. At the end of the day, our hand is well below par. I would much rather have KJTx QJx Ax Qxxx which has a horrible heart holding, which I can just see people "downgrading". That is just a much better hand and it isn't close. Bidding anything other than 4S is just ludicrous to me, it is just another case of thinking too much about your heart holding and not enough about the rest of your hand over a splinter. If I had the space to last train here and I could, I wouldn't and also wouldn't consider that to be close.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 01:23, said:

Why would partner make a slam try with a 4144 16-count when he knows that we have wasted values in hearts and a maximum of 14?

How about AJxx x AKxx AKxx? There is a fine hand, well within the right to slam try in this auction. Slam is just terrible. If what we have is all partner needs for a slam, it's likely he should have taken another route. This is a good example where we have all working cards, no wastage at all, and we cannot make a slam because we simply do not have enough values. Even your own example from this thread of:

"AQxx x AKxxx AJx"

Is an awful slam. You said it was "not much of an example" but it seems pretty telling to me.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-08, 01:33, said:

How about AJxx x AKxx AKxx? There is a fine hand, well within the right to slam try in this auction. Slam is just terrible. If what we have is all partner needs for a slam, it's likely he should have taken another route. This is a good example where we have all working cards, no wastage at all, and we cannot make a slam because we simply do not have enough values. Even your own example from this thread of:

"AQxx x AKxxx AJx"

Is an awful slam. You said it was "not much of an example" but it seems pretty telling to me.

I wasn't arguing that we should move, but only that we shouldn't be playing partner for a 4144 16-count. And my poorly constructed example wasn't supposed to be a reason for moving, but a comment on what we might have missed.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2011-May-04, 05:37, said:

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-03, 17:30, said:

4S, I have minimum HCP with the worst possible shape.

But the best possible heart holding.

That's not correct. The best possible ♥ holding is actually more like xxx or xxxx, the Ace doesn't help much and would be better placed in a side suit.

I agree with 4♠ btw, if I had ♥xxx or similar I might make a move.

[gnasher]

Free, on 2011-May-10, 06:40, said:

That's not correct. The best possible ♥ holding is actually more like xxx or xxxx, the Ace doesn't help much and would be better placed in a side suit.

Do you also think we have 9 points more than a minimum, and four more spades than we might have had?

[Free]

gnasher, on 2011-May-10, 07:06, said:

Do you also think we have 9 points more than a minimum, and four more spades than we might have had?

Apparently you don't agree with my statement, but it's a well known fact that opposite a splinter you better have no values rather than an Ace. Let me prove it to you with an example:
Say your partner has AQJT8-3-AKQ-K52. If you have K962-A72-853-Q94 (the example hand), slam has absolutely no play unless you find ♣JT - good luck with that. If you have K962-742-853-AQ9 on the other hand, slam is cold. All I did was switching ♥A with a ♣.

The only reason not to call you any names is that we already showed a ♥ stopper, so on this hand it's the best holding, except perhaps JTxx.

[Fluffy]

He surelly agrees with your statement that it would be better to have ♥xxx Frederick, but he disagrees on the current hand.

[Free]

Fluffy, on 2011-May-10, 07:51, said:

He surelly agrees with your statement that it would be better to have ♥xxx Frederick, but he disagrees on the current hand.

Then lets keep it at that...