[Fluffy]

rectifying 6♦ to 6♠ can have some fun when partner is 0463 or something like that

[CSGibson]

ok, was just curious. Full hand was:

---

Doubling does better than 5♠ when partner can't find the raise, but the real winners on this layout are those that forced to slam

[JLOGIC]

If partner bids 5H over X you will get to 7H

[CSGibson]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-April-30, 09:22, said:

If partner bids 5H over X you will get to 7H

Do you think partner should bid 5H over X?

[mikeh]

 CSGibson, on 2013-April-30, 09:11, said:

ok, was just curious. Full hand was:

---

Doubling does better than 5♠ when partner can't find the raise, but the real winners on this layout are those that forced to slam

I don't think I am masterminding when I say that I think N should bid 5♥. He doesn't need a heck of a lot from partner for that to work out, given that partner will be short in clubs. Give partner a 4=4=4=1 with some Aces and 11 tricks will usually be pretty safe.

Even Axxx Axxx Axxx x isn't hopeless on the auction: we need the non-preemptor to hold length in spades and diamonds, and hearts 2-1, which combo is surely pretty likely on the bidding.

And if he does bid 5♥, we have a trivial 6♣ and we should be able to reach grand if either partner takes a rosy view of their hand: I am not quite as confident about reaching 7 as justin seems to be, but if N cooperates via 6♦, as I think he should, then S can maybe blast the grand on the theory that on a bad day it needs some luck in spades (picture xx QJxxxx Kxx xx for N) and on many days it will be close to cold.

[rhm]

 CSGibson, on 2013-April-30, 09:11, said:

ok, was just curious. Full hand was:

---

Doubling does better than 5♠ when partner can't find the raise, but the real winners on this layout are those that forced to slam

Why does partner not find a bid over a vulnerable 5♠?
Poor judgement, not worth reporting.
I am sure I would find a bid when my partner bids 5♠.
Claiming a 5♥ bid over DBL is not so obvious in my opinion. Certainly much tougher than raising 5♠ (5NT is also possible)
This is exactly the reason why I prefer 5♠ and do not like the DBL with a club void.
Bidding the grand with any certainty is a pipe-dream.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Rainer, what do you bid with AQJxxxx KQx Qxx - over 5♣?

[PhilKing]

FWIW I would remove a double to Five Hearts but would pass a Five Spade overcall.

[mfa1010]

I would try 5N with the intention of passing 6♥ and correcting 6♦ to 6♠. Since 5N implies a flexible hand, partner will have a chance to get us to 7red if he can't stand spades. I feel lucky.

I think double is too feeble. Partner takes it out too rarely. If he does take it out we would just about have a leap to 7 in his suit.

5♠ gets the worst of it, since we'll usually be stuck there. We have all the controls so partner won't raise. We'll miss a ton of slams, have the risk of going minus, and never get a 800/1100 penalty.

It's a good problem. Too bad the layout is already posted, because it might be easier to be brave when one knows what partner had .

[rhm]

 cherdano, on 2013-April-30, 14:04, said:

Rainer, what do you bid with AQJxxxx KQx Qxx - over 5♣?

I do not know, I might pass at these colors, maybe not.
I am not saying if you raise its underwritten by Liyods that it will make, only that it is clearly percentage. I have gone down before.
That is Bridge, particularly after a preempt.
But I refuse to accept that it is percentage to pass 5♠ with this hand but to bid 5♥ over DBL
It is the other way round.
I am well aware that with a strong three suiter you have no choice but DBL.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[PhilKing]

 dake50, on 2013-April-29, 12:42, said:

I'll try 5Nt: "partner, what slam do you like?"
Then correct 6D to 6S.

 mfa1010, on 2013-April-30, 15:24, said:

I would try 5N with the intention of passing 6♥ and correcting 6♦ to 6♠. Since 5N implies a flexible hand, partner will have a chance to get us to 7red if he can't stand spades. I feel lucky.

I feel ill.

These high level situations are a muddle, partly because it seems common to not really have a clear meaning for 5NT rather than 6♣. If you want to have a bid available to just say you want to take a pot at slam (though I would not recommend it), then please don't ask partner to cooperate and then bid 6♠ anyway!

Over 5NT, partner can bid 6♣ to show no clear bid, so 6♦ shows a clear preference for playing in, of all things, 6♦. And don't worry that he is just bidding his lowest playable strain, since he knows that with a genuine big two suiter you would have bid 6♣ over 5♣.

My view on the difference between 5N and 6♣ is completely different, but that is by the by.

[mikeh]

 rhm, on 2013-April-30, 16:29, said:

I am well aware that with a strong three suiter you have no choice but DBL.

Rainer Herrmann

That is, in a nutshell, why one should, imo, bid 5♥ as N.

I suppose it boils down to what the double shows. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion of the correct action for North without some basic parameters for S's double.

I suspect that we can all come up with hands on which we would want to make the double and on which pulling with the N hand will prove wrong, but that isn't the point. We need to come up with a hand-type that we want N to play us to have, while knowing that there will always be occasions when our hand diverges, due to shape factors.

My suggestion is that we play partner to hold, as a minimum, a hand such as Axxx Axxx Axxx x or the equivalent of a decent strong 1N.

We bid based on that notion, recognizing that this is an ideal minimum.

As I noted in an earlier post, that hand will usually make if trump break 2-1

We add to that the notion that partner will often have a BETTER offensive hand than our presumptive minimum, and it seems to me that the risk/reward ration makes bidding clear.

Of course 5♥ may go down: but if we're going to wait to be sure we can make, we are never going to be bidding.

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2013-April-30, 16:29, said:

I do not know, I might pass at these colors, maybe not.
Rainer Herrmann

It seems to me that even the fact that you think that 5♠ is borderline on ♠AQJxxxx ♥KQx ♦Qxx ♣- makes it utterly pointless discussing what is needed to raise such an overcall to Six.

Opposite your idea of an overcall, it is percentage to raise. And opposite me, it is a clear pass, since I would overcall if ♦Q was removed.

[the hog]

Passing a 5S bid is absolutely clear. This is not even worth discussing. Bidding 5H over the x is a borderline decision. I think you should.

[mfa1010]

 PhilKing, on 2013-April-30, 16:36, said:

I feel ill.

These high level situations are a muddle, partly because it seems common to not really have a clear meaning for 5NT rather than 6♣. If you want to have a bid available to just say you want to take a pot at slam (though I would not recommend it), then please don't ask partner to cooperate and then bid 6♠ anyway!

Over 5NT, partner can bid 6♣ to show no clear bid, so 6♦ shows a clear preference for playing in, of all things, 6♦. And don't worry that he is just bidding his lowest playable strain, since he knows that with a genuine big two suiter you would have bid 6♣ over 5♣.

My view on the difference between 5N and 6♣ is completely different, but that is by the by.

If you get ill that easily then bridge is perhaps not the thing.
There will be many situations where one has to make a practical but ugly bid that may work out badly.

This situation is a guess, we can't avoid that. My judgement is as I stated. I realize that partner has more of a preference to diamonds if he bids 6♦ than if he bids 6♣. No reason to talk down to me. 5N then 6♠ shows my hand well imo, because partner can still bid. 5N shows flexibility, and 6♠ is not cancelling that. But obviously there is a risk that we get too high, such is life.

If you have a good set of agreements in this situation I would like to hear about them.

[JLOGIC]

I guess 6C is obv your pure 2 suited hand types over 5C, and 5N is 3 suiterish. After that I have no good agreements .

5N is certainly a Hammanesque bid, I find it scary also but we are probably protected by them having a big fit that we will rarely land in a stupid fit even when we land in an inferior one.

All of the challenges involved in 5N make me a take-the-money Xer but I do admire it, when you look at our hand don't you think we probably want to play in a slam when the opponents bid like this? And they might save.

[benlessard]

X,5H and 6C are clear. Over 6C however ill bid just 6H since i have no keycards.

I have some sympathy for 5S instead of X but over the X not bidding 5H is poor.

[CSGibson]

Because I feel like giving the whole hand may unconsciously bias this, I set up a bridgewinners poll to determine the likely outcome if I had doubled instead of bidding. I would appreciate it if this thread was not mentioned in the comments, and that any insider information gleaned from this thread also be kept out of the comments on that poll to help avoid biasing the result.

[JLOGIC]

Isn't whether you bid or not over the X just a question of definition of the X? For instance, I'm pretty sure 655321 just plays double as penalty of a 5minor opening. Not sure if the same applies once they've bid and raised.

I think it is mainstream that you are allowed to bid over a X. Whether or not this applies to J9xxxx and 2 side kings is a different story, that is why I purposely avoided your question of whether I thought north should bid lol. I would definitely bid if it were say KJ9xxx and a king but obviously that is a different hand. Maybe it depends on the opps also, if they can be counted on to have a 10 or 11 card fit bidding seems percentage for this exact reason (you'd love for partner to bid a slam with a club void or the nuts with a stiff club), but the more likely they become to have a 9 card fit the more horrible it is to bid (bidding opposite a doubleton club seems like a disaster).

Usually I think I would bid since I don't expect most opps to have 9 clubs even at this vul very often, realistically against most people 11 clubs is much more likely, but who knows. Given their actual 4C opener...