[AL78]

♠-
♥-
♦AKJT432
♣AQT943

MPs, dealer, red against green. What do you bid?

[mikeh]

1D


2C is for dreamers and masochists. My rule of thumb is that if I open 2C, I expect to defeat any slam they bid. I don’t see much defence here, lol


Plus if this goes all pass, I’ll have quite a story, but who’d ever believe it?


How it goes thereafter is impossible to predict. I might try to walk the dog or I might just rebid 6C at my next turn.depends on the auction and my notoriously unreliable table feel.

[P_Marlowe]

1D

In case you have it av., you could open 4NT.

[DavidKok]

I had such a 4NT and would consider this hand too strong for it. If partner makes a signoff we still have no idea whether slam is on. 1♦ for me.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-29, 00:58, said:

I had such a 4NT and would consider this hand too strong for it. If partner makes a signoff we still have no idea whether slam is on. 1♦ for me.

I am not sure, if you get anything out of partner, that helps you with the slam is on decision, if you go slow,
except for one thing, which may be worth it, that you tell him, that your diamonds are longer / stronger, which it is.

The downside is, the auction may die or they have a cheaper entrance into the auction.

[fuzzyquack]

1D followed by 2C should it go 1D-p-1M-p

[AL78]

---

Now what?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

you could try 4C, hoping to get a mild preference from p, will look stupid,
if you end up playing 4C, the alternative is obv. 6C (or 5C), but 5C does
not do the hand justice.

The 2S response only tells you, they dont have a huge (major suit ) spade fit,
that the majors split among the 3 players, ..., no big suprise.

With regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

4♣ seems solid to me. Bonus points if it's forcing, but even if it is not we will almost certainly not get to play it.

[AL78]

My judgement is still less than ideal. I bid 5♣ which was passed out and I made 13 tricks:

---

A 50% board. Due to the spectacular turnout of four and a half tables with the last round not played because of time constraints, the board was only played two other times. One pair found 6♣ and the other pair played in 5♦, both of them making 12 tricks (you can't get to dummy to take the club finesse in a diamond contract).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont think your judgement is bad, ..., 5C tells the story of your hand, it should be 66 given the vul..

The decision is, which risks you are catering for, and which you accept.

But you did bid game, partner saw a reasonable fit and passed. And pass is fine lacking any 1st round
control. You could also make an argument, that he should raise to 6C, but given the field you are in ...

The 4C bid risks to look stupid, but with the hand partner held, he will raise this one to 5C, and you
will raise to 6C. Change partners hand, and he may pass, even if he should not, and ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

North did not bid very well. For that matter I would have doubled as West as well, but this is more subject to partnership agreement. On this hand 4♣ would have worked. I have more sympathy for 6♣ than 5♣ on the second round, but it's a tough hand.

[mw64ahw]

I'd open 2NT on this one playing weak or Strong (22+ or this sort of distribution).
2♠ seems lacklustre white vs red, but may depend on how you play Michaels

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-29, 06:39, said:

North did not bid very well. For that matter I would have doubled as West as well, but this is more subject to partnership agreement. On this hand 4♣ would have worked. I have more sympathy for 6♣ than 5♣ on the second round, but it's a tough hand.

I'm not going to fret over a missed slam as hands like this come up once in a lifetime on average. The decision as far as I was concerned on the second round was 5 or 6. 5m should make on all but the worst layouts but given the unenthusiastic spade raise on my right, I visioned partner loaded in the majors with maybe three cards in the minors, and given the tendency of the odd pair in this field to miss cold and perfectly biddable games, I didn't think it was worth the risk. In a sense it highlights one problem I have in both the bidding and the play in that I struggle to calculate all the possible layouts where action A and action B works and calculate/compare the probabilities.

[DavidKok]

Yeah that makes sense and is a good point, the mere 2♠ suggests partner is loaded in the majors, but didn't have the values to enter the auction(?). Because of this contradiction I didn't put that much stock into the response and figured the Michaels bidder might have a 6-5 or 7-5 and bid again. I was not expecting this layout.

I think it is still worth trying to consult partner on 5 vs 6, so if possible we should take a slow route to 5♣. If they only bid 2♠ they are probably not bidding 5-over-5 later, though you can't be too sure in your field.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-29, 06:39, said:

North did not bid very well. For that matter I would have doubled as West as well, but this is more subject to partnership agreement. On this hand 4♣ would have worked. I have more sympathy for 6♣ than 5♣ on the second round, but it's a tough hand.

Ironically North was the more experienced player, South was an improver. They still managed to finish third with 53.2% which is better than the 48.2% and 7th we could only manage, my streak of underperforming not quite over yet.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-29, 07:52, said:

I think it is still worth trying to consult partner on 5 vs 6, so if possible we should take a slow route to 5♣. If they only bid 2♠ they are probably not bidding 5-over-5 later, though you can't be too sure in your field.

Partner initially wondered whether I should have started with a GF Benji 2♦ and bid the suits later. I don't like doing that on two suiters and on extreme distributions such as this, it is asking for the opponents to barrage and send the auction back round to me in 4M, good luck after that.

As for them not bidding 5-over-5 later, don't take anything for granted. This was the previous board against this pair.

---

+200 and a top was gratefully received.