[Fluffy]

♠A9x
♥Qxx
♦Ax
♣K10xxx


nobody vul, IMPs, RHO deals and opens 1♠

(1♠)-pass-(3♠)-double
(pass)-??

[pooltuna]

pass or Hamman eggs in one basket. I have a slight preference for pass

[AlexJonson]

If you gave me just one shot at a final contract, it would be 6C.

So I'd make whatever forward move my methods allow.

[mikeh]

if we pass, we are leading trump. So long as partner is not void, we rate to beat them about 300, with some chance for 500. If partner is void (not all opps are foolish enough to bid to the 4 level on semi-balanced 10 card fits), they might actually make it, and are unlikely to go 500.

So as long as we think we are strong favourites to make game, and I do, we can't afford to pass. while we would sometimes get a top, I think the most common outcomes would be average minus to a bottom.

3N is awful, imo.

So long as we think we can make at least 11 tricks in clubs, we need to make 10 tricks in notrump in order to justify the crap shoot, since it seems clear that we are more likely to be failing in 3N than in 5♣, by a wide margin. Even assuming we have no club losers (and why should we make that assumption?), we still need 4 red suit winners without losing the lead...if we make a nervous 9 tricks, let's play 5♣ for a stress-free push. And if we can make 10 tricks in notrump, I suspect we'd rather be in 6♣.

So I think we can forget both pass and 3N....we need to be thinking clubs.

I would love to be able to force then to show clubs, but I can't....the only unequivocal force we have is 4♠ and we can't handle that and retain slam chances while preserving 5♣.

My experience has been that in these auctions one is usually, tho not always, best off to pull in a little....we want partners to be aggressive over 3♠, so even tho we have a monster, I don't think we can blast 6♣. And I see no slam-invitational way of showing clubs....we bid game or slam.

So by process of elimination, I choose 5♣.


I'd rate the options as 5♣ 100, 6♣ 80 pass 50 and 3N 40.

Edit: thought for some reason that it was mps...maybe because pooltuna suggested 3N, and my mind would have boggled at that had I seen imps.

Anyway, at imps, everything I said still stands, but is made stronger. 3N is absurd....I would lower it to 20 on my scale (sorry pooltuna) while pass becomes worse as well. The upside of pass seems to be win 2 or 3 imps, while the probable result is lose 3, and the worst case results much worse.

Since I don't see a way to find that slam is good, I'd estimate it as maybe a little less than 50% (I am not assuming rho has psyched) and that makes it not awful but not best.

So 5♣ 100, 6♣ 80, pass 50 and 3N 20.

[bluecalm]

Hmm, I need to think about it but first thoughts are:
-pass is terrible
-3NT is automatic
-5C is interesting

Now let me think

Quote

So as long as we think we are strong favourites to make game, and I do, we can't afford to pass. while we would sometimes get a top, I think the most common outcomes would be average minus to a bottom.

We are playign imps Mikeh.

[Phil]

6♣ is depending on a perfect hand. If you conclude partner is allowed to double with a 0454 11 count, then 6♣ just can't be right.

3N depends on 9 runners.

Pass is a one way trip to the partnership desk.

That leaves 5♣.

[FrancesHinden]

I also think 3NT is awful, I'd prefer to pass.
If partner has a spade void, he might have less in the way of high cards then we're hoping for. Wouldn't you double on void KJxx KQxxx QJxx ? LHO has only bid 3S with his 5-card support because he's balanced with no high cards, which seems convincing.

The problem with 4S is that partner won't think I've got a single-suiter. Perhaps it shouldn't mean that, but partner will come up with some theory along the lines of if I had a one-suiter I'd have overcalled last round.
So I think it's just a guess between 5C and 6C, and 6C feels like an awful lot of clubs, although it definitely could be right.

[Fluffy]

Anyone who even thinks 3NT is an option has a very bad idea of the power of Axx opposite singleton. Just to emphasize how many times better playing a trump contract is IMO compared to 3NT I would rate 4♥ over 3NT. Exagarating a bit, but not much.

[MrAce]

I think pass and/or 3NT is out of question. What was 3♠ Gonzalo ? Preempt or invitation ?


I agree we dont have a way to investigate, so i may as well bid 6♣ if 3♠ was preempt. I think vs pd's 13-16 hcp perfect take out shape the hands we make slam are underestimated.

Plus declarer has way too much information about the missing cards if needed.

I actually tried to construct hands that doesnt have a play in 6♣, tbh the ones i came up with was when pd has Jxx(♥ or the hands where we lose a side A and another certain trump trick or ace, such as

x
JTxx
KQJx
AQJx

x
KJxx
KQJxx
Axx

x
AKJx
KQJxx
xxx

x
AKJx
Qxxx
QJxx this requires ♦ lead though

x
KJxx
KQJx
QJxx

Probably more hands.

If 3♠ was invitational, which means LHO is inviting with less values than he is expected but still i dont think he would fool his pd way too much when we passed 1♠. Then pd decided to make a reasonable but light take out, and guess what ? we are happy that he did so 5♣ is enough.

[the hog]

Pass is out of the question. What is it with the passers on this forum recently, passing with no trump tricks, (well you have the Ace this time)?
I agree with other posters that 3NT shows poor hand evaluation. 5C looks like a good shot to me.

[Statto]

MrAce, on 2012-January-30, 22:19, said:

I agree we dont have a way to investigate, so i may as well bid 6♣ if 3♠ was preempt.

I think even in Acol-land against reasonable opps it would tend to be a preemptive raise these days

Quote

I actually tried to construct hands that doesnt have a play in 6♣, ... Then pd decided to make a reasonable but light take out, and guess what ? we are happy that he did so 5♣ is enough.

If I understand correctly, you concluded that 6♣ would be better if partner's return ticket is good, but if they're calling with a used tram ticket from 1974, then perhaps not. I think that says something, and thanks for dong the analysis

I would have, probably wrongly, bid 5♣ even if I knew partner was allowed to travel

[Codo]

Partner hears my 5 ♣ bid, after I passed first round. He will have quite a good idea about my hand, so from time to time when slam is on, he can even bid it.

[Cyberyeti]

The danger hand is something like

x, AKxx, KQJ10x, Qxx

Where you have an easy 3N or potential 500 or more out of 3♠, but 6♣ is poor. You might even go off in 5♣ if the clubs misbehave (is a 4441 yarborough plausible for the 3♠ raise ?).

Tough problem, not sure what I'd do at the table.

[Fluffy]

3♠ was alerted as preemptive

[whereagles]

Agree that this is a 5/6C bid. I don't see what 4S can acheive here (unless you have some clear and helpful agreement about it), so I'll just take my pick at 5 or 6 depending on non-technical circumstances.

[r_prah]

I agree with the thoughts of the posters above - while 6♣ looks tempting, we need to consider that partner may be stretching (or may have just three clubs). I bid 5♣ as well.

[Zelandakh]

I've been thnking about this a little. Let's assume that doubling and then bidding a new suit shows a slam try with the other 2 suits. That means that double would be able to cover all 2 and 3-suited slam tries, plus the game hands without a clear direction. Given that, it seems to me there are 7 hand types where we might want to bid above 4♥:-

1. natural invite to 6NT
2. to play 5♣
3. to play 5♦
4. "pick a minor"
5. slam try in clubs
6. slam try in diamonds
7. slam try in hearts

We can start by assigning 4NT, 5♣ and 5♦ to hand types 1, 2 and 3 respectively. That leaves just 4♠ to cover everything else though - can it be done?. What about if we use 4♠ to have doubler pick a minor but with the twist that 4NT is preference for diamonds. Then rebidding any other suit could be a natural slam try. So long as we are willing to goto slam when partner preferences our minor then we have everything covered.

On the original hand this would allow us to bid 4♠ and rebid either 5♣ over 4NT or 6♣ over 5♣. Does this sounds like a reasonable approach or are there some unforseen downsides that would make it unplayable?

[Fluffy]

Your pickup BBO partner was joking around, he had ♠x ♥AKJ9xx ♦109xxx ♣J. He corrected 6♣ with 6♥ but 10 tricks is the most that can be done in hearts.

[whereagles]

Pard is teh suxxorz

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-02, 03:33, said:

I've been thnking about this a little. Let's assume that doubling and then bidding a new suit shows a slam try with the other 2 suits. That means that double would be able to cover all 2 and 3-suited slam tries, plus the game hands without a clear direction. Given that, it seems to me there are 7 hand types where we might want to bid above 4♥:-

1. natural invite to 6NT
2. to play 5♣
3. to play 5♦
4. "pick a minor"
5. slam try in clubs
6. slam try in diamonds
7. slam try in hearts

We can start by assigning 4NT, 5♣ and 5♦ to hand types 1, 2 and 3 respectively. That leaves just 4♠ to cover everything else though - can it be done?. What about if we use 4♠ to have doubler pick a minor but with the twist that 4NT is preference for diamonds. Then rebidding any other suit could be a natural slam try. So long as we are willing to goto slam when partner preferences our minor then we have everything covered.

On the original hand this would allow us to bid 4♠ and rebid either 5♣ over 4NT or 6♣ over 5♣. Does this sounds like a reasonable approach or are there some unforseen downsides that would make it unplayable?

I'm confused.
How can we "double and bid a suit" to show a slam try?
Given we passed over 1S, how can we have a natural invite to 6NT?