[mikeh]

diana_eva, on 2014-December-10, 00:54, said:

Turns out partner was the one painting the table, after all. And I just noticed it was -5, not -4 Not that it mattered much at that point.

---

The hand proves nothing other than that it is not possible to play thinking bridge with an idiot as a partner. Opening that N had with a 1st seat weak 2 is moronic and anti-partnership. Imagine x AJxxxx Qxxx xx, which happens to be a minimum 1st seat red weak 2 and is consistent with 5♦, and the save looks pretty good. 2=6=4=1 and it is even better

were partner known to be unreliable than we wouldn't ever save

[diana_eva]

mikeh, on 2014-December-10, 09:03, said:

The hand proves nothing other than that it is not possible to play thinking bridge with an idiot as a partner. Opening that N had with a 1st seat weak 2 is moronic and anti-partnership. Imagine x AJxxxx Qxxx xx, which happens to be a minimum 1st seat red weak 2 and is consistent with 5♦, and the save looks pretty good. 2=6=4=1 and it is even better

were partner known to be unreliable than we wouldn't ever save

Yes I knew who'd get an ATB on that one if I posted the whole hand. I was more interested to evaluate how reasonable it is to think about sacrificing assuming pd is not clueless. Sometimes I'm so far off in high level sacs that I needed to check.

[WellSpyder]

diana_eva, on 2014-December-10, 09:31, said:

Yes I knew who'd get an ATB on that one if I posted the whole hand. I was more interested to evaluate how reasonable it is to think about sacrificing assuming pd is not clueless. Sometimes I'm so far off in high level sacs that I needed to check.

I thought it was an interesting question, and credit to you for asking it in the way you did rather than an ATB. I looked at the title of the thread and thought "that's easy - I know the answer to that one. NO!" Then I looked at the hand and thought "actually I'm less sure of the answer than I thought I would be".

[kuhchung]

saving is just terrible bridge, i would never save

[kuhchung]

diana_eva, on 2014-December-10, 00:50, said:

Yours made the news~!

i can retire now!!!

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2014-December-10, 09:03, said:

The hand proves nothing other than that it is not possible to play thinking bridge with an idiot as a partner.

I'm not impressed with east either, but I guess that is west's problem not mine.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2014-December-10, 13:08, said:

I'm not impressed with east either, but I guess that is west's problem not mine.

That was my initial reaction as well, but if he can infer that S's 3♦ was based on a heart fit, looking for a 5-level save, and this isn't necessarily a fair inference, then he can legitimately expect no more than 1 red loser. I would discount the idea of a heart void, since I think W would bid 4♥ with that. So now he is thinking: nothing in hearts, noting in diamonds, and the spade K.....what are his clubs? AQJxx is enough to make this a reasonable slam, since N rates to hold only red values for the 5♦ call.

I wouldn't go so far as to agree with the decision to bid slam, but it is far less offensive to me than the ridiculous 2♥ opening. I didn't like the 3♦ call much either.