[gwnn]

Partner had a heart void. That's not %. If he does not have a heart void he should have a solid suit opposite our known void. That's not % either, even if we combine it with the last "not %" clause.

[andy_h]

I don't quite buy the argument that "because partner is a good player therefore they must have a heart void". First of all we don't even know what partner think of us like if they trust to know if the auction will go smoothly if they started with a 2♥ cuebid. 8(+) card minors are well known to be tough hands to bid because there are many options available (5m opening, 1m-5m, 1m-2m-4m, 1m-2m-5m, 1m-3m-4m, 1m-3m-5m etc), so could partner not be making life simple? Given the actual hand, could they not have bid the same way with Kx x AKxxxxxx Kx or maybe a 9 card suit of Kx K AQJxxxxxx x? We're also informed that the partnership has not played much together so that argues more for simplicity.

[pooltuna]

andy_h, on Jun 22 2010, 08:44 AM, said:

I don't quite buy the argument that "because partner is a good player therefore they must have a heart void". First of all we don't even know what partner think of us like if they trust to know if the auction will go smoothly if they started with a 2♥ cuebid. 8(+) card minors are well known to be tough hands to bid because there are many options available (5m opening, 1m-5m, 1m-2m-4m, 1m-2m-5m, 1m-3m-4m, 1m-3m-5m etc), so could partner not be making life simple? Given the actual hand, could they not have bid the same way with Kx x AKxxxxxx Kx or maybe a 9 card suit of Kx K AQJxxxxxx x? We're also informed that the partnership has not played much together so that argues more for simplicity.

Partner bid 5♦ on the assumption that our negative double showed some ♠ and ♣ cards and we have a lot more that he should have expected. Do you not think he is bidding to make? IMO he was and missing 2 black aces I find it very unlikely that he has ♥ losers.

[andy_h]

pooltuna, on Jun 23 2010, 12:57 AM, said:

andy_h, on Jun 22 2010, 08:44 AM, said:

I don't quite buy the argument that "because partner is a good player therefore they must have a heart void". First of all we don't even know what partner think of us like if they trust to know if the auction will go smoothly if they started with a 2♥ cuebid. 8(+) card minors are well known to be tough hands to bid because there are many options available (5m opening, 1m-5m, 1m-2m-4m, 1m-2m-5m, 1m-3m-4m, 1m-3m-5m etc), so could partner not be making life simple? Given the actual hand, could they not have bid the same way with Kx x AKxxxxxx Kx or maybe a 9 card suit of Kx K AQJxxxxxx x? We're also informed that the partnership has not played much together so that argues more for simplicity.

Partner bid 5♦ on the assumption that our negative double showed some ♠ and ♣ cards and we have a lot more that he should have expected. Do you not think he is bidding to make? IMO he was and missing 2 black aces I find it very unlikely that he has ♥ losers.

Yes I have mentioned and agreed (refer to my second post) that we have more than a minimum negative double. I believe that partner's 5♦ bid is a bid that will maximise our chances of making a game and if not preempt LHO of a low level rebid. By maximising I mean partner might be hoping we have the ♠A to lead a club up to his king, or maybe partner is hoping we have more than 0 diamonds so diamonds could either break or maybe he can take a finesse (with his AQJ-8th). We don't need many face cards for partner in order for game to make (which is your point yes) but that does not assure a heart void with partner or a singleton heart and solid diamonds. If you looked at the example hands I've given, you do not need much from partner in order to make 5♦ but 3NT might be going down (and partner did not want a dreaded auction that begins with 2♥ - remember this is an unestablished partnership). However we cannot be sure that we are not off 2 red losers as the opponents are on lead and we do not have a single diamond to provide partner with a hopeful diamond break or a diamond hook.

Also, you reckon partner has no heart losers, missing 2 black aces and has a solid (or near solid) diamond suit? If that's the case then why did partner not bid 2♥, jump to 4♦ and then keycard?

[CSGibson]

BTW, I raised partner to 6 (to push the board). Here were my thoughts:

(1) We're vulnerable, and opponents have not been aggressive in the auction. Partner is bidding to make.

(2) Partner likely does not have a void in spades because the opponents would have bid that suit if they have 9 of them. The same inference is available, though less strong, in clubs.

(3) To have her bid, partner almost needs either solid trump or a heart void, with the latter being more likely because she did not attempt to get us to NT. Otherwise, the hand she has is looking at has at least one loser in each suit, which would not be a good vulnerable 5 diamond bid. A heart void with a one loser diamond suit would also explain partner's reluctance to try for 3N.

(4) Having worked that out, 6 diamonds is the percentage call, because even if partner does not have the club king, the finesse is likely onside given the overcall and lack of response by LHO.

[Phil]

LOL @ making a questionable call and posting it on the forums for justification.

[gwnn]

Phil: you of all people

pooltuna: partner was bidding to make, but we, besides having a lot more aces than average, also have a lot less diamonds than promised.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Jun 22 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Phil: you of all people

pooltuna: partner was bidding to make, but we, besides having a lot more aces than average, also have a lot less diamonds than promised.

I don't look at it that way. For a 5♦ call partner needs 8-9 tricks in hand to justify it we have either 2 or 4 so we rate to make anywhere between 10 and 13 tricks.

[CSGibson]

Phil, on Jun 22 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

LOL @ making a questionable call and posting it on the forums for justification.

I wouldn't have posted it if I thought my action was anything but questionable. I'm not arguing with posters, either, I'm just explaining my reasoning in the hope that the people I respect (not you at the moment after that last comment, in case you are curious) would comment and point out where my reasoning might be flawed.

[gwnn]

They just take their heart ace and their trump trick, then we will have 7 more diamond tricks+our two aces+KQJ of clubs! yay! and the K of spades, that's 13

[andy_h]

pooltuna, on Jun 23 2010, 03:39 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 22 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Phil: you of all people

pooltuna: partner was bidding to make, but we, besides having a lot more aces than average, also have a lot less diamonds than promised.

I don't look at it that way. For a 5♦ call partner needs 8-9 tricks in hand to justify it we have either 2 or 4 so we rate to make anywhere between 10 and 13 tricks.

I think you are forgetting that the opponents are on lead. We may have between 10-13 tricks but we may also have 2 losers off the top. If partner has Kx in both black suits that would contribute 2 spade tricks and 4 club tricks but that is of no use to him if a heart is led. Putting it another way, if partner has Kx in both black suits (6 tricks from the black suits), that means if partner has ♦AQJxxxxx producing 7 diamond tricks, does that mean we have 13 tricks?

Edit: Sorry, gwnn was faster and shorter.

[gwnn]

andy_h, ur a slow typist

[lmilne]

Phil, on Jun 22 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

LOL @ making a questionable call and posting it on the forums for discussion.

and here was me thinking that's what the forums were for!

[jdonn]

I would raise, 5♦ is not a call to be taken lightly! That being said partner's hand is pretty ridiculous for that bid.

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

I would raise, 5♦ is not a call to be taken lightly! That being said partner's hand is pretty ridiculous for that bid.

Now that you have both hands, how do you think the auction should have been bid? (RHO overcalls 1 heart over 1 diamond if possible).

Scoring: IMP

---

[jdonn]

3♦ - 3NT - 4♦ - cuebidding - 6♦ seems about right after the negative double.

[whereagles]

5♦ jump sure looks attractive. I would probably have passed it, though.

[hanp]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

3♦ - 3NT - 4♦ - cuebidding - 6♦ seems about right after the negative double.

Don't agree with 3D, I'd bid 2H unless I'm playing with a complete idiot. (just teasing you Gibson)