[Fluffy]

---

[wank]

east. lazy 5d bid.

[gszes]

I am not all that sure assigning blame is good here. West can probably deduce
east has 2 spades and with the spade overcall there really is a pretty fair
chance 6d would go down at trick 2. I would have bid 4c (over 3d) but in the
long run it still seems like west should settle in 5d. Game of % sometimes the
cards are friendly against the odds and it is a short leap from sound bidding to
las vegas trying to figure out which hand is going to be the long shot that pays off.

[ahydra]

 gszes, on 2014-December-11, 09:09, said:

I am not all that sure assigning blame is good here. West can probably deduce
east has 2 spades and with the spade overcall there really is a pretty fair
chance 6d would go down at trick 2. I would have bid 4c (over 3d) but in the
long run it still seems like west should settle in 5d. Game of % sometimes the
cards are friendly against the odds and it is a short leap from sound bidding to
las vegas trying to figure out which hand is going to be the long shot that pays off.

But what about 6NT? I think I prefer a 2NT rebid by West rather than 3D, to show the stop. Then when East continues with 3D it should show a slam try in diamonds. Naturally West accepts with his KQxx, and then eventually should convert to 6NT since he can see the danger of the spade ruff.

Yes, 6NT goes off on a H lead, but the opps have got to find it...

ahydra

[ArtK78]

I hate the 5♦ bid. East can visualize a slam if partner has as little as Kxx of diamonds and the ♠A. In fact, there may be a grand if partner has another trick (♥K or Jxxx of clubs).

Ahydra is also right that 6NT is a reasonable contract. Even on a heart lead it has play - hope that North has 7 hearts (lol). There is no squeeze, as South can always come down to the ♠A and a heart.

I like wank's description of the 5♦ bid. Lazy.

[rhm]

Maybe there is merit opening such hands with 2♣?
The loss opening such hands with 1♦ is not obvious initially, but it is there.
It is easy to criticise the jump to 5♦, it is harder to produce a convincing alternate sequence to slam after 1♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

 ahydra, on 2014-December-11, 10:01, said:

But what about 6NT? I think I prefer a 2NT rebid by West rather than 3D, to show the stop. Then when East continues with 3D it should show a slam try in diamonds. Naturally West accepts with his KQxx, and then eventually should convert to 6NT since he can see the danger of the spade ruff.

Yes, 6NT goes off on a H lead, but the opps have got to find it...

ahydra

On the combined hands 6n (played by west) looks interesting. The hard part is the
details of how to get there and how to avoid 6n when east is void in hearts vs the ace).

What would you do with the west hand after 2n 3d looking for slam? 3s seems reasonable but
will partner assume that can be A or K (maybe they should but the k is a ton less slammish
than the ace) and if not 3s I guess 4d is a must but that leaves us in the same untenable
condition we were in before because east now has to decide which way to go for ex would 4h
always show the ace or could it be a void or could it be exclusion (my favorite)? That's a
lot of well oiled machinery in place.

[mike777]

agree that east needs to bid 4c then west needs to come up with a 4s cuebid.

[WesleyC]

100% to the 5D bidder. If partner has the ♠A slam will at least have play, and will often be excellent.

On this layout I'd be very happy to be in a diamond slam. Even if there is a spade ruff available (not very unlikely given LHO only bid 1S), the opponents won't always find it.

[Fluffy]

So I have to take the blame here , I though 3♦ denied a stopper, and was afraid that 3♠ would show half a stopper then, but clearly I was lazy with 5♦.

[rmnka447]

I'm not sure this slam is that easy to bid. But I don't like the 5 ♦ bid because it gives up on any hope of a possible slam. There's just no way that West can envision East's hand or ever bid slam if it's there.

First of all, some have suggested that maybe East's hand is a 2 ♣ opener. I don't share that view. For me, a 2 ♣ minor suit hand must have 3 losers or less. No matter how you define a 2 ♣ opener, it's necessary to have a way to show the hands that are just short of qualifying for a 2 ♣ bid. That would be as here, beginning with a cue (or reversing without intervention) and then rebidding the minor. At the very least, that sequence defines a hand that's too good for a simple jump rebid in the minor.

3 ♦ is simply a positive response showing a ♦ fit. It clears the way for East to further define the opening hand. Opener could have a number of hands as the cue only showed value but didn't describe the hand.

At this point, East knows there's at least a 10 card ♦ fit. Opener should see that if responder holds as little as ♠ Kx and ♦ Kxx, then slam is a good bet. So the problem is finding out about that possible holding or similar slam worthy holdings. Since a doubleton ♠ is held, the most important immediate info is whether responder holds a ♠ control or not.

Over 3 ♦, 3 ♥ must suggest a fit with responder's presumed ♥ suit and a big hand. Depending on bidding agreements, 3 ♠ either shows a ♠ control or asks about a stopper (not necessarily a control) for NT. 3 NT would presumably be to play(?).

If 4 ♦ just shows ♦, then it must be slammish. Opener has gone past 3 NT with a big hand and positive response, so is in a virtual game force situation. 4 ♦ does give responder the chance to show a ♠ control.

However, some pairs will play 4 ♦ as Minorwood (minor suit KC). Minorwood is Ok if Responder shows 2 keycards. Unfortunately, if responder shows 1 keycard, you're still in a quandary about a ♠ control.

What about 4 ♣? Since responder has already shown a ♦ fit, it would seem to show a ♣ control. It again gives responder the chance to show a ♠ control. It may be necessary to be bid it if 4 ♦ is Minorwood. The downside is that responder might bid a ♥ control instead of a ♠ control. But if 4 ♦ by responder over 4 ♣ isn't Minorwood, an upside is that responder has two possible ways to show a ♠ control via a direct 4 ♠ or 4 ♦ followed by 4 ♠.

[wank]

 Fluffy, on 2014-December-13, 03:42, said:

I though 3♦ denied a stopper

i thought that might be the source of the problem. imo 2s just asks for west to describe his hand. of course showing a stop is one of the most important ways to do so, but if your hand is particularly suit orientated you should do that first - it's easier to get from diamonds back to NT than to convince partner your hand is so suitable for diamonds after bidding NT first.

[wanoff]

 wank, on 2014-December-13, 16:34, said:

i thought that might be the source of the problem. imo 2s just asks for west to describe his hand. of course showing a stop is one of the most important ways to do so, but if your hand is particularly suit orientated you should do that first - it's easier to get from diamonds back to NT than to convince partner your hand is so suitable for diamonds after bidding NT first.

Since the hand is so suitable for diamonds maybe it'd be better to show them immediately with an inv. 2♦. If opener has a reverse in hearts the fit could still be found.
Having got the diamonds over you could then bid nt.

[beatrix45]

I have to go along with 4♣ instead of 5♦. With two glaring losers in ♠, I think one try is enough, but it ought to be made. You can't bid 3♥ lest it be considered to play. Partner will likely bid 4♦. Now 4♥ should get you to slam. Once in a while ♠ will be 6-1 AND the ace will be led and continued. Oh well.