[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: NS Scoring: IMP

♠ 4 ♥ 2 ♦ AKQ9742 ♣ KQ62

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♦
 1♥    Dbl   2♥    3♣
 3♥    5♣    Pass  Pass
 5♥    Dbl   Pass  ? 

[jtfanclub]

Um I win the opening lead and return a high diamond...

[rogerclee]

Pass. If you never pull a single five-level penalty double in your entire life, you will do better than a lot of people.

[andy_h]

Pass. Slam's likely to be off 2 cashing tricks.

[Impact]

Agree with the general advice about passing but the main reason you are concerned here is that your bid of 3C to show your side value has not cast any light on your prima facie solid 7 card D suit!

You can take it that I am not a fan of the 3C bid!

Whether your best bet would have been a 3H cue bid (assuming it is not agreeing S) depends on your agreements, but I far prefer that to the Caspar Milquetoast 3C...

regards

[the hog]

Impact, on May 21 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

Agree with the general advice about passing but the main reason you are concerned here is that your bid of 3C to show your side value has not cast any light on your prima facie solid 7 card D suit!

You can take it that I am not a fan of the 3C bid!

Whether your best bet would have been a 3H cue bid (assuming it is not agreeing S) depends on your agreements, but I far prefer that to the Caspar Milquetoast 3C...

regards

Actually Fred I prefer 4NT provided pd reads it as this sort of hand, (and not Bwood please).

I pass too by the way.

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♦
 1♥    Dbl   2♥    3♣
 3♥    5♣    Pass  Pass
 5♥    Dbl   Pass  6♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Just lucky or crazy I guess, hoping partner has a major Ace for his X of 5♥.

[pclayton]

Are you playing Walsh doubles of 1♥? Is this a typical hand?

I think 6 of a minor is a crap shoot, but its the kind of call I would make if I were behind. It's very speculative. I think its just as likely pard holds AKxx x xx JTxxxx. We are getting a lot out of 5♥, but 6m has two obvious problems.

[jillybean]

As usual, no agreements and I dont know what Walsh doubles are. I understood the double as negative, likely 4♠.

Impact; with no special agreements 3♥ would show ♠ support, Im not going down that track.

[rogerclee]

jillybean2, on May 21 2008, 07:48 AM, said:

Just lucky or crazy I guess

Neither. Your partner has a 2♣ bid. Just ask for aces after that if you can handle a response of "1" at 5♣ or below.

[pclayton]

jillybean2, on May 21 2008, 08:46 AM, said:

As usual, no agreements and I dont know what Walsh doubles are. I understood the double as negative, likely 4♠.

Impact; with no special agreements 3♥ would show ♠ support, Im not going down that track.

Walsh doubles of 1♥ specifically deny 4♠ (1♠ shows 4). Thats all.

[neilkaz]

rogerclee, on May 21 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

jillybean2, on May 21 2008, 07:48 AM, said:

Just lucky or crazy I guess

Neither. Your partner has a 2♣ bid. Just ask for aces after that if you can handle a response of "1" at 5♣ or below.

Bravo !! Yes, responder has a decent 5 card ♣ suit and 10 HCP with 2 bullets and no flaws.( JT in opener's suit doesn't deserve a downgrade.) So rather than muddy the waters with a negX with only 3♠, I'll just bid my ♣ now.

After that, it is for opener to RKC and if playing 3041 she's fine if the response it 1♦ also and she's fine if responder doesn't even know which minor suit is intended since she holds the kings and thus there's no ambiguity as to a key card response not being aces.

After 2♣ this hand becomes similar to http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...15&#entry282869 where we've discussed another super-swan where, all that is needed is to know how many aces pd holds.

On the actual bidding, I think the 3♣ response was rather weak unless playing GB2NT, but a 3♥ bid might cloud the issue and create guesswork over 4 or 5♥ but 3♣ was rather weak.

Was it reasonable to assume PD had 2 aces for his free raise to 5♣ and then penalty double of 5♥ or was it a lucky guess ? The pay off for 6♣ vs 5♥x is big at this vul, but N should've bid the obvious 2♣ right away and there's be less guessing.

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

Good points, I cant however cater for both my own and my partners bad bidding

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on May 21 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Good points, I cant however cater for both my own and my partners bad bidding

Seriously, ask your PD why he/she didn't bid 2♣ and preferred a negX instead and you may be more in synch next session !

[Echognome]

I'm surprised no one has suggested opening 5♦. This is actually the type of 7-4 hand I'd consider doing it on. My partners beware!

[ArtK78]

Echognome, on May 21 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I'm surprised no one has suggested opening 5♦.  This is actually the type of 7-4 hand I'd consider doing it on.  My partners beware!

So, opposite a major suit ace and the ♣J you are likely to claim 12 tricks, and you open 5♦?

That one is hard to figure.

EDIT: Sorry - miscounted aces. Still, it is not unreasonable for partner to have the cards you need for slam. This is a very heavy 5♦ opening.

[Echognome]

ArtK78, on May 21 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Echognome, on May 21 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

I'm surprised no one has suggested opening 5♦.  This is actually the type of 7-4 hand I'd consider doing it on.  My partners beware!

So, opposite a major suit ace and the ♣J you are likely to claim 12 tricks, and you open 5♦?

That one is hard to figure.

I hope my opponents fall for the claim coup there. I can score up my 620. Certainly opposite two aces and the ♣J I'll miss slam. Sometimes we preempt ourselves!

[whereagles]

Echognome, on May 21 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

I'm surprised no one has suggested opening 5♦. This is actually the type of 7-4 hand I'd consider doing it on. My partners beware!

That would be a bit swingy, because pard might have 2 aces and you miss a slam.

Anyway, definitely something to think about at matchpoints. In teams you can try a lower opening, because you can always bid 5♦ if opps bid to 4M.

[han]

I don't like 3♣, not sure if this has been said yet.

[jillybean]

han, on May 23 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

I don't like 3♣, not sure if this has been said yet.

Yes it has been said, what is the alternative?