[stelst]

---

What is 5♦?

TU

[gordontd]

I'd expect it to be a hand that wants to raise to 5♥ but would like a diamond lead if they continue to 6♣.

[dake50]

I'd expect it to be a hand that wants to raise to 5♥ but would like a diamond lead if they continue to 6♣. -- gordontd

*** With or without C-control?
What suggestion for higher can mystify C-control??

[gordontd]

dake50, on 2014-July-08, 07:20, said:

*** With or without C-control?
What suggestion for higher can mystify C-control??

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I'm not likely to have a club control on this auction, although I may well be in a position to infer that partner has a club shortage.

[helene_t]

dake50, on 2014-July-08, 07:20, said:

*** With or without C-control?
What suggestion for higher can mystify C-control??

Doesn't matter, partner's 4♥ bid wasn't a slam try and besides he will probably be short in clubs so not interested in our club control.

[whereagles]

Definitely some sort of fit bid.

[mikeh]

While partner wasn't in any way trying for slam, our hand may have grown up enormously. Picture AJx Axxx AKxx xx on this auction.

Partner is a passed hand and any inferences that we can draw will be affected by our style for weak 2 bids, which he didn't use. Would he open 2♥ on say Kxxx KQxxxx Qx x? I wouldn't, altho xxxx in spades wouldn't bother me too much.

The point is that if we are going to 5♥, which we will be doing on almost all hands with 4 hearts and nothing in clubs, we have a free shot at telling partner that the auction has made our hand huge.

I'm not bidding 5♦ to steer the lead against 6♣. The opps have pushed us to the 5 level, so they have done what they set out to do. Who in their right mind bids as N-S have done and then takes a push to the 6 level? Not many, and even fewer good opps.

I'm bidding 5♦ to say to partner that he has truly hit a home run.

[stelst]

---

[MrAce]

stelst, on 2014-July-08, 09:17, said:

---

6♥ or 5 NT or 6♦ or 6♣.Anything but pass or bidding 5♥

[whereagles]

5♥ here.

The hand has 7 losers. The 1NT has an expectancy of 4 cover cards. Even if the fit is good and you find 5 across, it's still 2 losers.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2014-July-08, 10:41, said:

5♥ here.

The hand has 7 losers. The 1NT has an expectancy of 4 cover cards. Even if the fit is good and you find 5 across, it's still 2 losers.

If you would bid 5H here, why did partner bother?

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2014-July-08, 10:41, said:

5♥ here.

The hand has 7 losers. The 1NT has an expectancy of 4 cover cards. Even if the fit is good and you find 5 across, it's still 2 losers.

Jesus!...one of them bidding 4♣... other one raising... pd is NOT doubling...oh ***** in fact he just cued!...you have a VOID in their suit....and instead of worrying about grand slam you are sticking to your formula of losers? Oh dear..and how many losers would a good old 12-14 weak NT cover in your formula?

Ax
Axxx
AQTx
xxx

You may change it to look bad of course but then again nobody asking you to bid grand, you are still not dead in slam if pd tables a total junk for his bid (which I doubt he would bid the way he did with this but..)

Qxx
AQJx
AQxx
xx

[mikeh]

I think we have to bid slam here. It rates to be on nothing worse than a 2-1 trump break and a hook....and on many layouts it will be effectively cold. Give opener the example hand I suggested: AJx Axxx AKxx xx, and we rate to be able to eliminate the clubs, while drawing trump, and then, depending on how the cards have fallen so far, play top diamonds, maybe dropping the Q and, if not, if diamonds are 3-3, the holder of the Q is endplayed (assuming trump 2-1/1-2). And if all else fails we will have a damn good count in spades.

IOW, I'd want to be there, and with our club void it is possible that partner is 2=4=4=3, with xxx in clubs, and now the contract has to be close to laydown.

I can respect anyone who thinks this is a very close choice and elects 5♥, but to anyone who thinks it is a clear 5♥, all I can say is that I don't think you understand bidding very well. What hand type do you think partner has to bid 5♦????

[whereagles]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-08, 10:50, said:

If you would bid 5H here, why did partner bother?

Maybe he wanted to hint a lead. Maybe he actually has diamonds. Maybe he likes frivolous bids, who knows?

You see, that's the problem of taking risks in undiscussed auctions. Regardless of what you may think the bid "should" show, it is quite possible partner is using it for other purposes.

[strings11]

Can partner be "Answering" Keycards? The suit is known, seems to me that answering keycards lets You figure out what it is that needs to be done...

[MrAce]

strings11, on 2014-July-09, 01:04, said:

Can partner be "Answering" Keycards? The suit is known, seems to me that answering keycards lets You figure out what it is that needs to be done...

There ya go. You nailed it imo!

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2014-July-08, 09:03, said:

I'm bidding 5♦ to say to partner that he has truly hit a home run.

It's probably a good general principle that when there is only one slam (or game) try available, then that call is just a general slam (or game) try. Espcially when lead-directing is not a big priority.

I was wondering if pass is forcing here. If it is, 5♦ could say something about diamonds.

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2014-July-09, 00:46, said:

hmmm... did you remember to take your medication?

My prescribed medications are

-Black coffee in the a.m
-***** loads of beer p.m

In between, I work. And I never ever forget to take them.

How about you sweetheart? Where did you forget your common sense and logic when you decided to reply the way you did? I am not against 5♥ as much as the reason why you chose it. Where is this resistance coming from? Another poster just wrote that 5♦ over 5♣ can be used as showing keycards...as if there is enough space between 5♣ and 5♥ to show them even if we agreed to that in a moment of insanity. I mean why there is such a huge attraction to the shortcuts such as trying to apply loser count in a situation where there are so many hints screaming that loser count-hcp count-whatever count will be flawed by far for obvious reasons. Why is it so hard to read what Mike wrote in this topic (and in general) and try to digest it and improve and why is it so attractive to rely on magical formulas-shortcuts?

1-About lead directing: In order to lead against a contract, our side needs to be in DEFENSE! What is our genius pd planning, if god forbid they decide NOT to declare? After all his 5♦ took out the responsibility of taking 11 tricks in clubs from the shoulders of opponents! I am just saying...
2-About 5♦ being natural: He opened NT, and at 5 level he decided that we should play in diamonds, even though more or less we know his

a-Strength
b-Shape

when he does not know a ***** about ours! We may have a 3622 13 hcp or we may have a 4711 5 hcp in this auction with various hands types in shape and strength.

What does this tell you? Your name need not to be Meckwell in order to figure out that all of this comes down to 1 and only 1 thing = I have a ♥ fit! (unless you really want to spare this bid for "I opened NT with a 6 card solid suit")

The argument of whether ♥ fit+lead dia if they bid on or ♥fit+slam desire is easy. Hands which want to give these 2 different messages will be very similar in most of the cases. We are talking about hands that wants to compete to 5 level and does not want to defend 5♣. How can you go wrong by approaching high level competitive auctions and decisions by being flexible-logical-thoughtful instead of trying to apply a formula?

[stelst]

---

12 easy tricks in 6♥. West didn't understand 5♦.

Thanks for your reactions.

[Mr Rat]

To me it shows fit along with length and values in diamonds. It's not a slam try in the true sense, it's an attempt to help partner get the high-level decision right when they bid on. It seems important to realise that this is not just abut deciding what we can make, opps can make a large number of tricks in clubs as well.

I'm not sure why everyone is assuming that opener has 4 hearts on this auction. When partner has shown 6, a 10-card fit is beyond requirements. I'd expect something like this for the 5♦ bid:

---

11 tricks and no real likelihood for 12 (A♠ almost certainly offside) although partner has room for the ♠Q for a possible 12 tricks [*] - but then ♠A and another for a ruff is not so unlikely on this auction.

Partner has warned you that his values are in the red suits, he has a source of tricks in ♦ to the extent that our combined defensive tricks are not that great since out ODR is high with a double fit in the reds, we may need to bid 6♥ as a sac if we have ♠AQ(J) sitting over the king and 8 clubs on our right, 3 on our left. Now the decision over 6♣ is whether we can cash 2 red-suit tricks fast - it's probably too risky, so we may take the small minus in 6♥ along with the chance that it may make depending who has the ♠Q.

But we don't realise the danger unless partner shows us the lie of the land with his 5♦.

[*} Assuming 1NT is 15-17, the OP doesn't say.