[JLOGIC]

Kx Axx Jxxx Axxx

r/w imps

Starting with pard

1C p 1D (2D)

Partner asks what 2D is, they say the majors. The auction continues:

P (4S) X (5D)

p p ?

[FrancesHinden]

Hard to answer this without knowing the opponents, i.e. how confident we are that they know what they are doing.

It's a bit suspicious that partner didn't double: that makes it more likely that LHO has diamonds, and more diamonds; rather than LHO has made a clever cue-bid and RHO is confused.
There's always the possibility of getting the TD in for the 5D bid, but LHO might argue that 4S shows there's been a misunderstanding as he couldn't overcall over 1C.

It seems normal to double and see what happens, but I'm somewhat worried that partner has something like

Axx
KQx
x
KQJxxx

and we don't get compensation for the 1370 available.

[JLOGIC]

Sorry, to clarify you can be 100 % from the table action/tempo/glares from LHO that LHO has diamonds, and RHO erroneously thought it was michaels.

[ArtK78]

Is this face-to-face bridge where the partner of the 2♦ bidder gave the explanation?

If so, I can only assume that the explanation was both incorrect and not the partnership agreement*, and LHO has very long diamonds.

I will double 5♦ regardless (after all, if they run to 5♠, I am surely doubling that). If they make 5♦x with my partner opening the bidding while I hold two side aces and Jxxx of trump, well more power to them.

While I was typing this post Frances's post appeared. She may very well be right that whatever we get in 5♦x is inadequate compensation for a missed slam. But there is no way to bid slam intelligently at this point, and, despite the misinformation if 2♦ was not for majors, there is nothing we can do over 4♠ that would get us there (Partner might have bid 3♣ over 2♦ on the hand that Frances proposes for partner).

Perhaps partner would have done something else if he knew that 2♦ was diamonds rather than majors. But we can't do anything about that now.

* Most good players that I know play 2♦ as natural in this auction.

[Phil]

The director would already be at the table.

[FrancesHinden]

Having the TD at the table isn't necessarily going to help us, particularly if their agreement is actually majors, because then you've been given no MI. We have to do the best we can on the assumption that there's not going to be an adjustment (even if we know there is a chance of getting it adjusted to 4Sx, that may not help us much either).

Partner's pass of 5D must promise a singleton or void diamond, otherwise he would double for us, he knows what is going on as well as we do.
RHO surely has 4 spades not 5 or he would have overcalled.
LHO I don't think will have 4 spades because he might pass 4Sx with that (and feel quite smug about it).

So I think partner has 4 spades, and is 4315 or 4414 or 4405 or 4216 or similar, although as has been pointed out with 6 clubs he might have bid them over 2D.

I don't think I can manage not to double, anything else just seems like a complete guess. It's not as if I can do anything at a lower level. I think I committed myself when I doubled 4S.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2011-August-31, 13:25, said:

The director would already be at the table.

lol

[JLOGIC]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-31, 15:18, said:

We have to do the best we can on the assumption that there's not going to be an adjustment (even if we know there is a chance of getting it adjusted to 4Sx, that may not help us much either).

How could you ever expect them to roll it back to 4S X, RHO passed over 1C. 4S is an impossible bid, so LHO can work out their partner took 2D for the majors. At best, it's a fit jump or a splinter.

Trying to make LHO be forced to pass 4S X is criminal, especially when we don't know their hand.

Whatever, this is a bridge problem, if you want to tard up the thread talking about calling the director and litigate then go to the laws forum please. /not directed at frances obv.

[JLOGIC]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-31, 12:56, said:

While I was typing this post Frances's post appeared. She may very well be right that whatever we get in 5♦x is inadequate compensation for a missed slam. But there is no way to bid slam intelligently at this point, and, despite the misinformation if 2♦ was not for majors, there is nothing we can do over 4♠ that would get us there (Partner might have bid 3♣ over 2♦ on the hand that Frances proposes for partner).

Don't you think we are in a forcing pass? If so, when partner passes why is there nothing you can do besides double when he is inviting you to do so?

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-31, 15:24, said:

Don't you think we are in a forcing pass? If so, when partner passes why is there nothing you can do besides double when he is inviting you to do so?

I like this problem.

I agree that we have created a FP and that partner will be short in diamonds.

I also think that some of the hands on which 6♣ works are impossible/improbable given his pass of 2♦, but that there remain many hands on which slam is a good spot.


But if his pass is all (or almost all) about diamonds, and nothing about other aspects of the hand, then I think we have to double. Good tho our hand is, it isn't, imo, quite good enough that we expect slam to be good more times than not, and I do think that the imp odds here are close to 50%.

I think his pass has to be primarily about diamonds because we are completely unlimited, not only as to strength but also as to shape. I think he expects us to double unless we are clearly in the slam zone....since we have zero room to explore, he expects us to usually take the money.

We aren't clearly in the slam zone....we just feel we are close, so I double.

[whereagles]

Well, this is an easy dbl without mix ups, let alone with stuff messed up

[gnasher]

We're unlimited, so partner would pass with a suitable minimum like Axxx Kxx x KQJxx. Add another card to that and he might have acted over 2♦, so I think we should double.

[Hanoi5]

I think double is the normal procedure and although we might have a better contract available there's also a chance we don't (partner hasn't shown anything by passing 2♦ and then 5♦). So I'd double and call the Director in case we missed the slam Frances pictured.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-31, 12:51, said:

I'm somewhat worried that partner has something like

Axx
KQx
x
KQJxxx

Was partner barred from bidding over 2D?

[FrancesHinden]

I did mention later that partner would have bid with a decent hand with 6 clubs. I was too honest to go back and change my original post.

But actually that's partly why I ended up doubling, because when I starting writing down hands that are making 6C, I started to need rather more than I would expect from partner.
This gives rise to one question, however:

What did partner's pass over 2D mean? That is, if 2D shows the majors would double show interest in defending a major (extra high cards, major suit length) or some kind of diamond support? if the former, that's more of an argument for doubling now. If the latter we haven't learnt anything.

I'm not sure partner's forcing pass tells us much i.e. I don't think he would ever bid here, only pass or double, so all he can be doing is telling us he is short in diamonds.

[Flem72]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-31, 12:36, said:

Kx Axx Jxxx Axxx

r/w imps

Starting with pard

1C p 1D (2D)

Partner asks what 2D is, they say the majors. The auction continues:

P (4S) X (5D)

p p ?

Double on GP, but if this is a FP, it seems to me that it is a "sound of the auction/table action" FP. My double of 4S has to sound like a general values kind of double, maybe long Ss, maybe not; with a good hand and long Cs, pard could've acted. If I had to guess, and that's the problem, I'd say pard holds a min 4-4-1-4 or (4)-(3)-1-5 that s/he doesn't like very much.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA