[mikeh]

anyone who thinks that opener is preparing to direct a red v white save against 6♣, being bid to make (!) is seriously deluded or plays in games far removed from any game in which I have played.

RHO is a passed hand. LHO has made a pre-empt at favourable. They have pushed us to the 5-level.

It is incredibly unlikely that they can make 12 tricks...if we have this xxx AQx AKQxx xx hand, partner has a spade card (or 2), and in any event, in what universe do we have no red tricks on defence?

Get real. It is very easy to see that we may have a slam when opener fits hearts, and has a max with nothing in clubs. That hand type is far more relevant than any fantasy hand on which, having opened a strong 1N, we need to find a red v white 6 level save against pre-empting opps. Since that is (I think) obvious, then we should use the 5♦ call for the needed purpose of a slam try and not the save suggesting near-impossible scenario.

This thread is interesting for the bizarre nature of the posts. We have a self-proclaimed expert applying loser count and cover cards (and insulting a good player who points out how silly that is), another poster thinking that opener is showing a keycard response, when there is no room to do so even if one accepted that opener would dream this up and responder would be on the same wavelength, and another suggesting that we should use this bid to suggest a save.

Bridge isn't that complicated, folks. We listen to the auction. We imagine fairly common hands that partner may hold. If we can picture slam, and of course we can when we have a max with hearts and nothing in clubs, we do something to tell him.

[Mr Rat]

mikeh, on 2014-July-09, 07:19, said:

It is incredibly unlikely that they can make 12 tricks...if we have this xxx AQx AKQxx xx hand, partner has a spade card (or 2), and in any event, in what universe do we have no red tricks on defence?

The tone of your response is such that I would normally treat it as it deserves - not worth replying to.

Except to point out the arithmetically-challenged aspect - when partner has 15hcp in the hand above, how in the name of all that's holy do you make that add up to "partner will have a spade card or two"???
He may have the ♠Q or ♠J, if max (assuming 15-17 NT). Or he may have a min and have nothing in spades, as I stated clearly enough for most.

Nobody said that we have NO red tricks in defence - the point is that we may have only 1 and we need 2. Even if we get 2, we still may get a bad score if we can make a higher contract...

Nobody ever said that 'opener is preparing for a sacrifice', what was said s that opener is simply providing the information for a high-level decision. High cards don't make this 'our hand', in these high level decisions it's all about having the info to make the right decisions.

I dare say you're 'unlucky' a lot.

[mikeh]

Mr Rat, on 2014-July-09, 10:06, said:

The tone of your response is such that I would normally treat it as it deserves - not worth replying to.

Except to point out the arithmetically-challenged aspect - when partner has 15hcp in the hand above, how in the name of all that's holy do you make that add up to "partner will have a spade card or two"???
He may have the ♠Q or ♠J, if max (assuming 15-17 NT). Or he may have a min and have nothing in spades, as I stated clearly enough for most.

Nobody said that we have NO red tricks in defence - the point is that we may have only 1 and we need 2. Even if we get 2, we still may get a bad score if we can make a higher contract...

Nobody ever said that 'opener is preparing for a sacrifice', what was said s that opener is simply providing the information for a high-level decision. High cards don't make this 'our hand', in these high level decisions it's all about having the info to make the right decisions.

I dare say you're 'unlucky' a lot.

Partner is red v white, and I think it fair to say that the odds are that partner has little in clubs. If we hold 15 hcp in the reds, then the odds seem to suggest that our vulnerable partner, even tho acting under pressure, has some cards. Yes, it is possible that he has chosen to act on KJxxxxx(x) of hearts and out, but the odds suggest that he probably has more stuff than that. If so, then the odds are overwhelming that that stuff is in spades. I don't understand why you can't see that. What, pray tell, would you have wanted him to bid with AQxx Kxxxxx xx x??

As for my taking your posts as suggesting we are paving the way for a 6-level decision over their slam bid, I repeat, probably to no useful purpose as far as persuading you, that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the opps, having pushed us to the 5-level, are about to save. If they do, then so what? Are you suggesting that with your example hand of xxx AQx AKQxx xx, you want partner, a passed hand, to bid 6♥? Why?

It cannot be simply because we only collect 300 or so against their contract.....because -100 or -200 our way isn't, actually, better than collecting 300.

As for my being 'unlucky'.....let's not get into personal attacks. I criticized your reasoning, your post. I did take a shot at whereagles, and shouldn't have, but at least I can say he started it

Take all the shots you like at my reasoning, altho I don't see where you have actually addressed my arguments. Your post simply defends your earlier statements rather than what I have positively asserted. And, while I have no idea who you are in real life, the odds are that I have been somewhat 'luckier' than you in terms of bridge accomplishments, so maybe (unless you are in the world's top 100-200 players) pick your targets a little more carefully.

[bluechip10]

stelst, on 2014-July-08, 06:31, said:

---

What is 5♦?

TU

Agrees that hearts are trumps and showing ace of dia. So, obvious slam try.

[aguahombre]

I think Mikeh is trying to say that "high-level competition" in the title maybe should mean more than the 5-level...that the posters and West should rise to the presumed high level of East and of this particular forum.

[ArtK78]

FWIW, I agree that the 5♦ bid is a slam try showing diamond control with hearts and a suitable hand, too good for a mere 5♥ call.

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-09, 13:53, said:

FWIW, I agree that the 5♦ bid is a slam try showing diamond control with hearts and a suitable hand, too good for a mere 5♥ call.

If responder were not a passed hand that's a possibility. But for the passed hand case 5♦ as lead-directing seems more likely.

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on 2014-July-09, 14:06, said:

If responder were not a passed hand that's a possibility. But for the passed hand case 5♦ as lead-directing seems more likely.

With all due respect, the actual hand shows how unimaginitive this argument is. There are many passed hands that partner can have that give good to excellent play for slam opposite a 1NT opener with hearts and diamonds with a spade control.

Suppose you opened 1NT holding Ax Axxxx AKx xxx. Admittedly, not everyone would consider this a 1NT opening bid, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that you chose to open 1NT. Now the auction proceeds as stated back to you. Wouldn't you say that this hand is worth more than a mere 5♥? Or, to put it another way, wouldn't you want your 5♦ bid to say more than lead a diamond against 6♣? Opposite this hand, partner needs very little other than long hearts, a club void (a virtual certainly) and a card in one of the pointed suits. As little as Kxx KTxxxx xxxx --- would be a claim. And I am sure there are plenty of players who would not venture a 4♥ call on those cards.

Of course, as the actual hand shows, the opening 1NT bid need not be so perfect for a heart contract, and his partner's hand just has to be reasonably consistent with the auction. Still slam is cold.

But Mike has already made these arguments and they appear to be falling on deaf ears.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-09, 14:28, said:

But Mike has already made these arguments and they appear to be falling on deaf ears.

Some people, when they read or hear reasoned criticisms of their thinking, are grateful for the opportunity to expand their own knowledge, or to correct flawed thinking. In my own case, I sometimes have to wrestle with a bit of ego and/or embarrassment over the mistake that has been identified but, on the whole, I try to learn when others set out detailed and coherent/plausible explanations for the criticism. I think most posters here share that attitude.

There are some, however, whose response to criticism is to double down....to repeat and repeat the original argument. Such posts are generally characterized by a refusal to debate the merits of the criticisms, and to, instead, simply repeat the original argument as if the critics hadn't 'got it' the first time around.

That's why, when one reads the posts of some posters, it appears that criticisms have fallen on deaf ears. It is sad, because my own view is that these forums have added significantly to my understanding of the game and, I expect, to the understanding of many readers/posters. However the 'stick to one's guns' posters don't seem to learn, or to want to do so. Too bad.

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-09, 14:28, said:

There are many passed hands that partner can have that give good to excellent play for slam opposite a 1NT opener with hearts and diamonds with a spade control. (...) wouldn't you want your 5♦ bid to say more than lead a diamond against 6♣?

Well, it is certainly possible to have a slam opposite a passed hand. Just that it seems more likely to me that lead-directing is commoner in this case.

Regardless of passed/unpassed, I would be weary of assuming a precise meaning to a bid like this.. even if there is a "correct" meaning (in absence of agreement of course), people simply think different and act accordingly. Assuming one thing and pard showing up with something else might win you the post-mortem, but that's not where battles are won.

By the way, if you ask me what meaning I would define for the bid in the unpassed case, it would be slam invite. Just so you know.

[bluechip10]

I have to agree with Art. I can just imagine the West Hand:

X
JTxxxxxx
Qxxx
VOID

I would never preempt with this hand. But when pard opens 1NT, I know he has at least two hts. If he passes we probably make 4hts easily. If pard doubles, I know he has a one or two club winners, for he knows I have no defense. The 4cl bidder has a similar hand but with top club honors and probably a void in hearts. I love the 5dia bid from pard. Then I can cuebid 6cl. This gives pard a chance to look for the grand.

[johnu]

Mr Rat, on 2014-July-09, 10:06, said:

The tone of your response is such that I would normally treat it as it deserves - not worth replying to.

..........................

I dare say you're 'unlucky' a lot.

LOL, gotta love those newbies, or maybe not. On the internet, anybody can be anybody, but in this case, mikeh is a somebody, one of the handful+ of posters who have represented their countries in world championships.

[whereagles]

....

[Mr Rat]

mikeh, on 2014-July-09, 10:36, said:

Partner is red v white, and I think it fair to say that the odds are that partner has little in clubs. If we hold 15 hcp in the reds, then the odds seem to suggest that our vulnerable partner, even tho acting under pressure, has some cards. Yes, it is possible that he has chosen to act on KJxxxxx(x) of hearts and out, but the odds suggest that he probably has more stuff than that. If so, then the odds are overwhelming that that stuff is in spades. I don't understand why you can't see that. What, pray tell, would you have wanted him to bid with AQxx Kxxxxx xx x??

There is nothing in all of that to disagree with my own analysis. If he has that hand then (in possession of the knowledge that opener has values in the reds) he will see the position and place the contract. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that you want to be in 6♥ opposite this hand when opener has the hand I suggested.

Quote

As for my taking your posts as suggesting we are paving the way for a 6-level decision over their slam bid, I repeat, probably to no useful purpose as far as persuading you, that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the opps, having pushed us to the 5-level, are about to save. If they do, then so what? Are you suggesting that with your example hand of xxx AQx AKQxx xx, you want partner, a passed hand, to bid 6♥? Why?

No I am not suggesting that, I said that it was possible (in similar situations) that he may do this when he knows it's right.

Why would the opposition bid 6♣? Because they've heard the subsequent bids just as much as we have - they are entitled to draw conclusions from our bids as much as we are as the auction develops so presumably they can add 6 hearts to 5 diamonds and diagnose 11 tricks the same as our side can. So if they decide that they don't have 3 fast defensive tricks, then bidding 6C makes sense whether it makes or not (it will be good compared to -650).

These high level wars are often about each side bidding the lowest game contract they can get away with, often until one side judges to bid the highest making contract and the other side then try to diagnose that that's happened and decide if they should bid on (likely doubled) to achieve 'par'. Here it may well be that 4♥, 5♣ and 5♥ are all bid in an attempt to play there, and it may well be that they all make, so E/W need to diagnose that and bid 6♣. More on that below.

The key thing is that the OP asked "what is 5♦?" and my response is essentially that it shows where his values are along with the known 15-17 balanced so that partner has the captaincy and can make the best possible decision. Whether he can do that or not on this particular hand is moot, we can only give ourselves the best possible chance to get it right.

Quote

It cannot be simply because we only collect 300 or so against their contract.....because -100 or -200 our way isn't, actually, better than collecting 300.

Of course not. In the hand that the OP provided for West, once he hears that opener's values are in the red suits, there is concern over the location of the spades. AQJ sitting over your king and 8 clubs on your right, 3 on your left is concerning, but we cannot know if hearts are 4-0 and diamonds 4-1, but I am not suggesting that (holding the W hand given) he should play them for, say:

---

That would be nuts.

The point is that when he bids 5♦ opener doesn't know which of the possible hands his partner may have (including hands such as long broken hearts - and yes, I am aware that he needs to have a reason not to have pre-empted but that depends on matters of style, partnership agreements in that area etc).

Like you, I also expect W has 1 or more cards in spades, but he may have only the 1 that he does have, so the point is that in order to consider a sac (or an insurance bid) partner will be staring at a case other than the hand we were given for West - likely to be where he has longer diamonds and shorter spades. As more spades migrate to the diamonds he becomes increasingly concerned at the big double-fit scenario in both directions. Now defending 6♣ starts to look a dangerous option, doubled or otherwise.

Quote

As for my being 'unlucky'.....let's not get into personal attacks. I criticized your reasoning, your post. I did take a shot at whereagles, and shouldn't have, but at least I can say he started it

Do you really not understand that your first words quoted below are personally insulting to me?...

Quote

anyone who thinks that opener is preparing to direct a red v white save against 6♣, being bid to make (!) is seriously deluded...

I can't see anyone else that would refer to. Or is it that you believe that describing someone as 'seriously deluded' is not going to offend them? Despite the fact that you take offence at being described as 'unlucky'? At least I can say that you started it

Quote

... the odds are that I have been somewhat 'luckier' than you in terms of bridge accomplishments, so maybe (unless you are in the world's top 100-200 players) pick your targets a little more carefully.

There's an expression 'arguing from a position of authority'. Essentially it's something that should never happen - in that any discussion should be conducted on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not 'I'm more famous than you so I win'.
And as I say - I didn't 'pick a target', you did.

N.B. As a side note, I see that the OP posted both hands while I was composing my first post in the thread. I would never open that hand with a 15-17 NT. 1♦ seems normal since you can adequately describe the hand via a reverse. Off-shape NT opening bids should be those that are difficult to express by opening normally because the expected rebid does not describe the hand adequately.

I think I've had enough of this forum after about 2 threads worth. It simply reinforces my view that bridge players have a social gene missing, probably why I stopped playing for a decade and probably will again soon. Have the last word by all means, I won't be here to read it - I have better things to do than be insulted, misunderstood, preached to and have to write 4,000 painstaking words to clarify what should have been clear enough in the first place. And then to add insult to injury, have someone brandish their great bridge career at me. Goodbye.

[ArtK78]

Mr Rat, on 2014-July-10, 13:00, said:

N.B. As a side note, I see that the OP posted both hands while I was composing my first post in the thread. I would never open that hand with a 15-17 NT. 1♦ seems normal since you can adequately describe the hand via a reverse. Off-shape NT opening bids should be those that are difficult to express by opening normally because the expected rebid does not describe the hand adequately.

Ax
AQxx
AQxxx
xx

is not my idea of a reverse. Maybe not everyone will open 1NT on these cards, but I certainly would. It is only 1 card removed from a classic 1NT opening (move the 5th diamond or the 4th heart into one of the black suits), and it is well within the required strength parameters. If one is going to open 1♦ on this hand, and one gets the expected 1♠ response, the rebid by opener is going to be either an underbid of 1NT or 2♦ or an overbid of 2♥ or (ugh) 2NT. Opener also has problems if partner responds 1NT. Opening 1NT avoids the rebid problem.

[PhantomSac]

Are we not allowed to open 1N with 6 diamonds?

[ArtK78]

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-10, 16:14, said:

Are we not allowed to open 1N with 6 diamonds?

What's your point?

[PhantomSac]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-10, 16:18, said:

What's your point?

I would certainly want to bid 5D with 6 diamonds and nothing in clubs since we probably belong in 5 or 6 diamonds in that case. We are allowed to infer reasonably that partner has a club void esp if we have 3 clubs (but even with 2 small clubs and 6 diamonds I would almost always want to bid 5D). For an extreme example with Ax Ax AQxxxx Jxx if I had one bid for my life it would be 6D, partner as a passed hand is very likely to be 4630. I mean I would bid 5D with that hand not saying it's right to bid 6, partner can still bid 6 themselves, but to be forced to X or something because 5D is considered artificial would be very sad.

[ArtK78]

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-10, 16:24, said:

I would certainly want to bid 5D with 6 diamonds and nothing in clubs since we probably belong in 5 or 6 diamonds in that case. We are allowed to infer reasonably that partner has a club void esp if we have 3 clubs (but even with 2 small clubs and 6 diamonds I would almost always want to bid 5D). For an extreme example with Ax Ax AQxxxx Jxx if I had one bid for my life it would be 6D, partner as a passed hand is very likely to be 4630. I mean I would bid 5D with that hand not saying it's right to bid 6, partner can still bid 6 themselves, but to be forced to X or something because 5D is considered artificial would be very sad.

You could reserve the 5♦ bid for hands where you opened 1NT with a 6 card diamond suit. This would work when 5 or 6 diamonds was the correct contract. I would guess that would happen once in about 76 years.

Or you could use 5♦ for a slam try in hearts, which probably comes up once or twice a year.

You choose.

[mikeh]

I don't see where anyone has yet discussed this, but are we in a forcing pass situation here? I would think not, since the 4♥ call was under pressure, but otoh we are red v white and we have bid game. I think this is one of those areas where it can be reasonable to play it either way.

If we are in a f/p situation then we may be able to make use of the pass and pull to 5♦ as one hand type and the immediate 5♦ as another.

This is a very unusual situation in which we don't need a lot of gradations for opener's hand. In many normal fp situations, one of the strong side is either unlimited or at least wide range, but here the 1N bid narrowly constrains the hand type, and the desire to compete at the 5 level and/or try for slam further refines the hand anyway.

We'd need agreement, but my take would be that this is a great situation to play that pass requests a double, while double shows a desire to bid 5♥ and but without slam interest, and bids of 5red show a slam try. With long diamonds, wanting to try 5♦, pass and then pull.

It is late, after a long, busy day, and so I may be deluding myself about this idea, and in any event, it seems unlikely that the opportunity to use it (remember it) would rarely arise. The more interesting question is the initial one: are we in a fp situation? If we are, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too, in terms of what 5♦ means.