[Endymion77]

---

[TylerE]

Not really sure there is any B to A. I might take the money in this position too. Swap the K and A of ♦ for instance and it could easily be the same auction.

[PhilKing]

North is doubtless a fine fellow, but his slam bidding needs a little work.

[Endymion77]

I was South. Do you agree with 4♣ and the forcing pass of 6♣?

[PhilKing]

Endymion77, on 2013-September-17, 13:59, said:

I was South. Do you agree with 4♣ and the forcing pass of 6♣?

Yes to both.

[Cyberyeti]

I can understand the 4♣ bid but 3♥ fit works much better here as partner now knows about the double fit.

1♠-(2♣)-3♥(fit)-(5♣)
5♦-6♣-P-P
X-P-6♥-P
7♠

The pass/pull over 6♣ should show a first round club control I think as it invites partner to bid at the 7 level.

In competition, our fit jump suits don't have to be the best, so 6♥ shows 2 of the top 3 to give partner a chance to make an intelligent decision, he can count 13 opposite Kxxx, KQxxx, xxxx, void.

[mikeh]

TylerE, on 2013-September-17, 13:52, said:

Not really sure there is any B to A. I might take the money in this position too. Swap the K and A of ♦ for instance and it could easily be the same auction.

Incorrect.

It is debatable whether N should bid 5♠ over 5♣ if his diamonds were Kx...he has a lot of losers for S to take care of, especially since he can't be sure he has no club loser...the opps might be bidding this way on a 10 card fit.

He has a forcing pass available.

As it is, I agree with 5♠...his hand is too strong to pass and then pass a double and not strong enough to pass and then pull (give him AQxxx Ax AQxx xx and I'd opt for pass and pull).

However, the key is S's pass.

I have learned from recent threads that not everyone plays the pass the same way, but to me it seems automatic that the fp shows a void in clubs.

We need to remember what information partner has and what message he is sending, with that knowledge.

We limited our hand with 5♠. Yes, we 'limited' it to a pretty good offensive hand but with true slam values we'd bid slam and with real slam interest we'd pass and pull. So we are merely 'better' than a regressive double.

Despite this, and despite the fact that partner has NO aces, he has chosen to invite us to bid a slam if we have a suitable hand.

I fail to see how our hand could be any better for slam purposes, given that we denied strong slam interest already. We have close to the ideal club holding and we hold Aces, and we aren't even 5332.

IMO, failing to bid slam as North reveals a gap in understanding bidding.

[billw55]

As north, I think I would try 5♦ instead of 5♠. The hand looks pretty good opposite the club splinter - fine controls and no waste.

[Fluffy]

wtf means 5♠? does anyone know? I think it shoudn't even exist.

[ahydra]

Fluffy, on 2013-September-17, 17:16, said:

wtf means 5♠? does anyone know? I think it shoudn't even exist.

How about "I think we can make 5 spades"?

ahydra

[RSClyde]

mikeh, on 2013-September-17, 14:36, said:

Incorrect.

It is debatable whether N should bid 5♠ over 5♣ if his diamonds were Kx...he has a lot of losers for S to take care of, especially since he can't be sure he has no club loser...the opps might be bidding this way on a 10 card fit.

He has a forcing pass available.

As it is, I agree with 5♠...his hand is too strong to pass and then pass a double and not strong enough to pass and then pull (give him AQxxx Ax AQxx xx and I'd opt for pass and pull).

However, the key is S's pass.

I have learned from recent threads that not everyone plays the pass the same way, but to me it seems automatic that the fp shows a void in clubs.

We need to remember what information partner has and what message he is sending, with that knowledge.

We limited our hand with 5♠. Yes, we 'limited' it to a pretty good offensive hand but with true slam values we'd bid slam and with real slam interest we'd pass and pull. So we are merely 'better' than a regressive double.

Despite this, and despite the fact that partner has NO aces, he has chosen to invite us to bid a slam if we have a suitable hand.

I fail to see how our hand could be any better for slam purposes, given that we denied strong slam interest already. We have close to the ideal club holding and we hold Aces, and we aren't even 5332.

IMO, failing to bid slam as North reveals a gap in understanding bidding.

I think that 5♠ is the wrong bid. If he does make a slam try, partner shouldn't go with a dog. So once we give the splintering hand the extras needed to accept, isn't slam looking good? Opposite Kxxxx, Kxxx, KQJ, x it doesn't work (not that he would necessarily go on this). But opposite anything else it at least has a play and is frequently cold. With the hand you gave, AQxxx, Ax, AQxx, xx, he should just drive to slam. I mean is 3 kings too much to hope for, or a 5 card red suit that we can run failing that. It's got to be on a finesse at absolute worst.

I agree that north was sleeping through the pass of 5♠ but I actually think he was sleeping through the entire auction.

[RSClyde]

TylerE, on 2013-September-17, 13:52, said:

Not really sure there is any B to A. I might take the money in this position too. Swap the K and A of ♦ for instance and it could easily be the same auction.

And 6♠ still makes. Besides, my view is that north underbid, this is hardly refuted by, "But he would have bid that way with a weaker hand".

[RSClyde]

By the way, to verify how wayward I believe that North's hand evaluation was,
I took the liberty of simulating this:
opposite a 10 count (which I assume would be about the minimum) and a low singleton club rather than a void, slam was at 42%. This is a hand that wouldn't accept a further slam try.
We're easily in the money if we start adding things: change responder to a 12 count and a stiff club and we are up to 75%! Make it a club void and you probably can't miss.
Playing with a partner who didn't play slam tries , 6♠ is a better bid than 5♠, it's 42% even opposite a minimum and a strong favorite otherwise.