[gwnn]

xxx
KQxxxx
-
Axxx

2s*-4d**-4s***-? ****

* 5s+4m
** diamonds and hearts 55
*** to play
**** your bid vul vs not imps

[the hog]

Depends a bit on your Leaping Michaels style. I think I would just bid 6H here.

[Jlall]

7 could be cold really easily. I don't know what the bids mean though. I guess I'd bid 5C and see what happens...maybe partner will bid 5S on a good day. Maybe 4N should set diamonds and 5C should set hearts or something.

[nige1]

gwnn, on Apr 27 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

xxx KQxxxx - Axxx
2s*-4d**-4s***-? ****
* 5s+4m
** diamonds and hearts 55
*** to play
**** your bid vul vs not imps

IMO 4N = 10, 6♥ = 9, 5♣ = 7, 7♥ = 5.
Partner could treat 5♣ as natural. But Partner should treat 4N as Blackwood rather than natural. 7♥ puts too much trust in opponents. Even 6♥ is no certainty. For example, partner may have ♠xx ♥AJTxx ♦AKQTxx ♣ -

[TylerE]

Are people totally discounting the idea of partner being 2-5-5-1?

Couldn't 4♠ be on something like Ax x xxxx KQJxxx or something?

How about 5♥, asking for a spade control? Ideally we'd have some sort of agreement here to differentiate between first and second round control. E.g. direct 6♥ is second round, 5N is 1st rnd, something like that.

[mohitz]

TylerE, on Apr 28 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

How about 5♥, asking for a spade control?

sorry but 5♥ is to play

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on Apr 27 2010, 08:46 PM, said:

Are people totally discounting the idea of partner being 2-5-5-1?

good grief. Pard's leaping Michaels was not a weak bid over a weak two. Missing the club Ace and all those heart honors we will not have two small spades.

But, surrendering to the preemption and avoiding an accident, I choose a mere 6H.
Really like 5C, but don't want to bring home a disaster.

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on Apr 27 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

TylerE, on Apr 27 2010, 08:46 PM, said:

Are people totally discounting the idea of partner being 2-5-5-1?

good grief. Pard's leaping Michaels was not a weak bid over a weak two. Missing the club Ace and all those heart honors we will not have two small spades.

But, surrendering to the preemption and avoiding an accident, I choose a mere 6H.
Really like 5C, but don't want to bring home a disaster.

agreed....on a similar auction in the canadian team trials in 2008, the winning team had to overcome 5♣ being passed out, in the finals.

[Jlall]

mikeh, on Apr 27 2010, 10:22 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Apr 27 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

TylerE, on Apr 27 2010, 08:46 PM, said:

Are people totally discounting the idea of partner being 2-5-5-1?

good grief. Pard's leaping Michaels was not a weak bid over a weak two. Missing the club Ace and all those heart honors we will not have two small spades.

But, surrendering to the preemption and avoiding an accident, I choose a mere 6H.
Really like 5C, but don't want to bring home a disaster.

agreed....on a similar auction in the canadian team trials in 2008, the winning team had to overcome 5♣ being passed out, in the finals.

lol. I mean if my partner is clueless and will pass 5C I would strongly prefer bidding 7H 6, sometimes they will save, and usually it is cold imo.

[debrose]

I don't see why 5♣ can't be natural. Without even getting into more extreme hands, say with 8 clubs, what are you going to do with - e.g., xxx, Kx, x, KQJxxxxx? I could certainly see making an agreement such as Justin suggested earlier in the thread (4N diamond slam try and 5C heart slam try - actually, I think he suggested the opposite, but this makes more sense to me), but I don't see it as at all clueless to think 5♣ is natural without any agreement otherwise.

[the hog]

Jlall, on Apr 28 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 27 2010, 10:22 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Apr 27 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

TylerE, on Apr 27 2010, 08:46 PM, said:

Are people totally discounting the idea of partner being 2-5-5-1?

good grief. Pard's leaping Michaels was not a weak bid over a weak two. Missing the club Ace and all those heart honors we will not have two small spades.

But, surrendering to the preemption and avoiding an accident, I choose a mere 6H.
Really like 5C, but don't want to bring home a disaster.

agreed....on a similar auction in the canadian team trials in 2008, the winning team had to overcome 5♣ being passed out, in the finals.

lol. I mean if my partner is clueless and will pass 5C I would strongly prefer bidding 7H 6, sometimes they will save, and usually it is cold imo.

Why can't partner have KQJT9xx and outside crap?

[whereagles]

I'll take the middle of the road approach and bid 6♥. More worried of missing 7 than going down here.

If they bid 6♠ maybe pard can pass to show a spade void and we get to 7 after all.

[MFA]

I think that 6♥ is a better shot than 7♥ if forced to guess. Voids are rare, they often have a 5-4 fit here. 7♥ is a bit greedy.

With no agreements at all it's tough. I don't have any here either (but do, if east hadn't bid 4♠).

Perhaps 5NT and then 6♥ on 6♦/6♣?! Trying to indicate the lack of spade control (no 5♠ bid)?!

[medlin]

With my partner pass is forcing, so I bid pass. If pass isn't forcing, I bid 6♥.

[ArtK78]

6♥ is the practical bid. All other bids (even 4NT) risk some sort of disaster and have very limited upside. Even if partner is void in spades there is not a 100% guarantee that there will be 13 tricks (although it is hard to imagine that there would not be 13 tricks). But trying to find out if partner is void in spades and being able to find out if partner is void in spades are two different things, and every idea floated about how to find out if partner is void in spades has some risk of a misunderstanding attached to it.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Apr 27 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

xxx
KQxxxx
-
Axxx

2s*-4d**-4s***-? ****

* 5s+4m
** diamonds and hearts 55
*** to play
**** your bid vul vs not imps

Looks like possible calls are 4NT, 5♣, & 5♥. I will dismiss 4NT out of hand because I don't think RKC is appropriate (if that's what it means) for this hand that 5♣ which partner will hopefully read as a Qbid for either ♦s or ♥s. By making this call now you help partner immediately know what to do with a hand that has 2 small ♣. 5♥ obviously indicates the suit where you want to play and does not possibly confuse partner that you want to play ♣. My choice is to risk 5♣ now.

[debrose]

Very sorry, didn't notice last night that 2♠ was spades and a minor. Was thinking just spades. Now I understand 5♣ being artificial, though still not absolutely clear in my book and I probably wouldn't risk it. Obviously one still could have a hand that wants to bid it natural, with LHO having either minor. Anyway, everyone's comments (except mine!) make a lot more sense now.

[olliebol]

Perhaps 5NT and then 6♥ on 6♦/6♣?! Trying to indicate the lack of spade control (no 5♠ bid)?!

This sounds like a good try to me. And it doesnt risk much.

[mikeh]

debrose, on Apr 28 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Very sorry, didn't notice last night that 2♠ was spades and a minor.  Was thinking just spades.  Now I understand 5♣ being artificial, though still not absolutely clear in my book and I probably wouldn't risk it.  Obviously one still could have a hand that wants to bid it natural, with LHO having either minor.  Anyway, everyone's comments (except mine!) make a lot more sense now.

I think it was in the 1995 Bermuda Bowl Finals that one pair had a disaster after a multi, when one of the non-opening players 'worked out' that opener's major was hearts, and so bid spades at a high-level. Ooops.

Thus here, while 4♦ is the red suits, in theory, there is nothing at all about this auction that says that opener's minor is not diamonds as well.

Are we compelled, by the opponents' methods, to have to pass (or double) 4♠ with say 3=1=1=8? or 2-2-1-8 and so one?

I think that one of the BW standby approaches should prevail here: if an undiscussed bid can be natural, it is natural.

Of course, the odds of holding the long club hand may appear to one to be so small that it makes sense to agree that 5♣ is artificial, but partners who make up these 'agreements' in mid-auction frequently find out that their partner takes one of two positions: (1) they think it should be natural, or (2) they agree that it should be artificial but conclude that their partner wouldn't risk confusion and that therefore, no matter what best usage is, it is natural.

[MFA]

mikeh, on Apr 28 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

(...)
Thus here, while 4♦ is the red suits, in theory, there is nothing at all about this auction that says that opener's minor is not diamonds as well.

Are we compelled, by the opponents' methods, to have to pass (or double) 4♠ with say 3=1=1=8? or 2-2-1-8 and so one?

I think that one of the BW standby approaches should prevail here: if an undiscussed bid can be natural, it is natural.
(...)

The very first(!) board of the 2006 world championships in Verona at our table had that theme.

xx, Kx, AQT987x, xx /none vul.

(2♠)-4♣-(4♠)-?

Decide what you do before you look it up.

Board 8: http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Verona.06...s/01_RR_555.pdf
[Yes, he opened 2♠ with that!]