[han]

White against red, chasing jdown in the swiss.

p - (1S) - p - (1NT*)
2D - (3S) - ??

x 10xxxx QJxx AQx

Your call?

[kenrexford]

Some of this depends on what partner's style is. If he is like me, he might have AKxx in diamonds. I'd say AQJx or AJ10x except that I'm looking at the two middle honors.

[cherdano]

I would bid 5♦.

[sathyab]

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Some of this depends on what partner's style is.  If he is like me, he might have AKxx in diamonds.  I'd say AQJx or AJ10x except that I'm looking at the two middle honors.

Introducing AKxx at the two-level over a forcing 1nt at IMPs doesn't sound all that probable. He might have passed in 1st chair instead of opening 2d, assuming you play weak2 in diamonds, because he had four hearts in his hand. If that's the case, we should have a double fit. I'd bid 5d, expecting it to be a good save against 4s.

[pclayton]

5♦. Let's put the screws to 'em right now.

If we are going to catch the best bidder in the world, we are going to need to have some good results.

I would make this call at any form of scoring at these colors, by the way.

[Apollo81]

5♦, doesn't look that close at favorable despite partner being a PH

[kenrexford]

sathyab, on Jul 31 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Some of this depends on what partner's style is.  If he is like me, he might have AKxx in diamonds.  I'd say AQJx or AJ10x except that I'm looking at the two middle honors.

Introducing AKxx at the two-level over a forcing 1nt at IMPs doesn't sound all that probable. He might have passed in 1st chair instead of opening 2d, assuming you play weak2 in diamonds, because he had four hearts in his hand. If that's the case, we should have a double fit. I'd bid 5d, expecting it to be a good save against 4s.

I thought about that possibility, as well. However, give partner nine or more cards in the reds, with longer diamonds, and I would expect a 3♦ call.

P-1♠-P-1NT!-
3♦

That must, IMO, show 5+ diamonds and four hearts. White on red, especially.

But, as I mentioned, that is a style thing.

If the colors were red-on-white, then 2♦, IMO, should show 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

sathyab, on Jul 31 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Some of this depends on what partner's style is.  If he is like me, he might have AKxx in diamonds.  I'd say AQJx or AJ10x except that I'm looking at the two middle honors.

Introducing AKxx at the two-level over a forcing 1nt at IMPs doesn't sound all that probable. He might have passed in 1st chair instead of opening 2d, assuming you play weak2 in diamonds, because he had four hearts in his hand. If that's the case, we should have a double fit. I'd bid 5d, expecting it to be a good save against 4s.

I thought about that possibility, as well. However, give partner nine or more cards in the reds, with longer diamonds, and I would expect a 3♦ call.

P-1♠-P-1NT!-
3♦

That must, IMO, show 5+ diamonds and four hearts. White on red, especially.

But, as I mentioned, that is a style thing.

If the colors were red-on-white, then 2♦, IMO, should show 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts.

Why on earth would you vault to the 3 level even w/r with 5-4 in the unbid suits. Its a potential misfit auction?

I have heard of some (like Meckwell) that play some various jumps over 1N as two suited calls, but I doubt they ever do it with a 5-4. I think you can even bring opener's minor (notwithstanding the OP auction) into play this way.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jul 31 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

sathyab, on Jul 31 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 31 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Some of this depends on what partner's style is.  If he is like me, he might have AKxx in diamonds.  I'd say AQJx or AJ10x except that I'm looking at the two middle honors.

Introducing AKxx at the two-level over a forcing 1nt at IMPs doesn't sound all that probable. He might have passed in 1st chair instead of opening 2d, assuming you play weak2 in diamonds, because he had four hearts in his hand. If that's the case, we should have a double fit. I'd bid 5d, expecting it to be a good save against 4s.

I thought about that possibility, as well. However, give partner nine or more cards in the reds, with longer diamonds, and I would expect a 3♦ call.

P-1♠-P-1NT!-
3♦

That must, IMO, show 5+ diamonds and four hearts. White on red, especially.

But, as I mentioned, that is a style thing.

If the colors were red-on-white, then 2♦, IMO, should show 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts.

Why on earth would you vault to the 3 level even w/r with 5-4 in the unbid suits. Its a potential misfit auction?

I have heard of some (like Meckwell) that play some various jumps over 1N as two suited calls, but I doubt they ever do it with a 5-4. I think you can even bring opener's minor (notwithstanding the OP auction) into play this way.

Why 3♦ with 5-4? Big ones. Maybe the cautious want 6-4. OK.

5-5 would bid 2♠, IMO, or 2NT if minors.

[ArtK78]

Can't see any action other than 5♦.

What is our 2♦ opening bid? I am trying to figure out why partner did not open 2♦ but is able to come into the auction now.

[han]

While I did not think partner had AKxx like Ken suggests, I thought I should allow for AK-fifth at these colors. I bid 4C, leaving the decision to bid 5D or not up to partner. Thoughts? In retrospect I like the 5D call better.

Partner had xxxxx A A10xxxxx - and bid 4D. This was doubled and made exactly.

[jdonn]

Woot I answered 4♦ at the bar. There were two reasons, being they might double us here when they shouldn't, and that I am far from convinced they either have game values or can make game.

[kenrexford]

han, on Jul 31 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

While I did not think partner had AKxx like Ken suggests, I thought I should allow for AK-fifth at these colors. I bid 4C, leaving the decision to bid 5D or not up to partner. Thoughts? In retrospect I like the 5D call better.

Partner had xxxxx A A10xxxxx - and bid 4D. This was doubled and made exactly.

Yeah, that's a fairly typical holding for this sequence.

Ugh! Partner couldn't muster a 1♦ opening? Fair enough, but then why not 3♦? 2♦, I suppose, was part of a plan.

I like 4♣, though. A lot.

[jdonn]

I told Han I hate 4♣, there is just not enough club length to want partner to use his length to sac, like if he has four clubs he will think it's a big deal. Also we are on lead.

Partner's 2♦ bid was completely normal. You don't have to go insane just because you have an unusual hand. Like preempting with two aces and a five card side suit.

[han]

Pff, you were just stuck up after your win.

We're white against red. If partner has 4 clubs on the side I want to sac. If partner has short clubs I want to defend. I think 4C works pretty well but it misses the preemptive effect of 5D and the opponents may also judge better (either in the auction or on lead) thanks to the 4C call.

If we are on defense then the lead direct will only be in our advantage, I do want partner to lead clubs, even though he might not be able to do so at trick 1.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, I dont think this is even close.
It would be good to know, if they played 2NT
in this sequence as some kind of good-bad,
but I dont think is really matters.

I assume partner could have opened a weak two
and is just prebalancing.
Wait and see if they bid 4S, if they do you may
reconsider, maybe your table feeling is better than
mine.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[andy_h]

Jlall, on Aug 1 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

I mean you just can't sell to 4M imo, I love a 5D bid.

ditto

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 31 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

I told Han I hate 4♣, there is just not enough club length to want partner to use his length to sac, like if he has four clubs he will think it's a big deal. Also we are on lead.

Partner's 2♦ bid was completely normal. You don't have to go insane just because you have an unusual hand. Like preempting with two aces and a five card side suit.

I don't think a 4♣ call is so much a lead-director as it is an indication of values. As Han said, 4♣ suggests a sac but shows defensive values in clubs. It allows partner to assess his hand better.

[FrancesHinden]

I didn't get a chance before seeing partner's hand, but I was going to say that given our shortage partner is hugely likely to have 4 spades, not 4 hearts - the 1NT bidder usually doesn't have 3 of them, which makes 6421 or 7411 very likely round the table.