[smerriman]

6-5 come alive, or stay low with a misfit?

---

[mw64ahw]

North should have roughly 7 playing tricks vulnerable so South with 3 quick tricks needs to come alive

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2022-June-16, 02:11, said:

North should have roughly 7 playing tricks vulnerable so South with 3 quick tricks needs to come alive

I know very few people that wouldn't open x, x, KQJTxxx, Jxxx where 3♦ might be too many, but he could also have x, QJx, AJ109xxx, xx where 4♥ is great and you might conceivably make 6 although you wouldn't want to be in it.

Tough hand.

Also tough decision if you do bid which major to choose, 3♠ is likely to bury the heart suit, 3♥ would allow partner to bid 3♠ with no heart fit and Kx/Qxx in spades.

[AL78]

The question is, what would partner do over a 3♠ bid?

It appear to me it is a guess as to whether partner has a fit in one of the majors or is stacked in clubs and diamonds. I'm tempted to bid 3♠ and if partner goes back to diamonds, bid 4♥. It will either work beautifully or be a train wreck. Is it IMPS or MP?

The argument for treating it as a misfit is that if partner did have three of a major, the opponents likely have ten clubs and half the HCP between them and couldn't find a bid, which makes it slightly more likely partner has three or four clubs.

[smerriman]

AL78, on 2022-June-16, 03:39, said:

Is it IMPS or MP?

Originally IMPs, but it's probably an equally awkward (but interesting) question at MP too.

[LBengtsson]

We are red/white and partner opens 3♦ in first seat. You are vulnerable, so if game is there to be bid you should try for it. I would bid 3♠ (though I would preference a stronger suit ♠AJ10xxx) and then 4♥. I think there are hand shapes where even 5♦ might be the best contract. As for 3NT it is a misfit so that is off the radar.

In the end, I think all comes down to what style of pre-empt your partner plays. I think there is also a cool bid option by "Passing" smoothly. The ops. will need to think carefully about balancing, and they might find in a bad place if they bid. Though I always think 6/5 hands should enter the auction on some level, and with 3 quick honor tricks I am not going to be "cool" and I will bid.

[helene_t]

I would certainly bid 3♠.

[mikeh]

I think it’s a completely different problem at mps than at imps. At mps I want a plus score or, if one is not available, the smallest minus possible. At imps I am happy to risk ending up in a worse position than 3D if there is a reasonable (even if less than 50%) chance of winning a game bonus.

At mps I expect to make 3D much of the time. I expect 3 tricks in my hand plus the presence of a stiff club means they probably have to play trump for us…imagine a high club lead…now they either allow a club ruff or opening leader has to play trump which will usually be good for us.

At mps I’m willing to look silly (missing a cold game) if I feel that passing is the most likely route to a plus score or the smallest minus.

That’s not to say that I’m a passer…just that my thinking is very different than at imps.

At imps I consider it extremely bad to pass 3D. It’s not impossible that the opps might balance but I suspect one would be waiting for a very long time before it happens. As for their not bidding clubs….some pairs play non leaping Michael’s so won’t be bidding 4C without a side 5 card major, which is improbable. And natural club bidders require a pretty good hand to overcall at the 4 level. So passing because they may bid is, imo, an attempt to justify a poor pass.

As for what to bid, 3H is aiming for a tiny target….that either partner has 3 card support or has Hxx in spades and will bid 3S.

Meanwhile if he raises, you may be in a 5-2 fit when a 6-2 spade fit was available in spades, and since a club lead is probable, we’re likely in the wrong suit

I’m bidding 3S. This won’t bury hearts unless partner raises, and then I’m happy the opps don’t know my shape. If partner doesn’t raise spades, 4H comes next.

I confess I’d do the same at both mps and imps, but I consider it automatic at imps and borderline at mps.

[smerriman]

As you can probably guess partner held - 92 AQJT874 Q752 and the only making contract was 3♦.

I did go the 3♠ - 4♥ route, though actually partner bid 4♣ over 3♠ which perhaps is a sign that you should give up and sign off in 4♦.

Bidding is most likely right - I haven't run any numbers though I do wonder what the odds say in terms of the likelihood on finding a fit (and a fit may still not make game).

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-June-16, 14:23, said:

As you can probably guess partner held - 92 AQJT874 Q752 and the only making contract was 3♦.

I did go the 3♠ - 4♥ route, though actually partner bid 4♣ over 3♠ which perhaps is a sign that you should give up and sign off in 4♦.

Bidding is most likely right - I haven't run any numbers though I do wonder what the odds say in terms of the likelihood on finding a fit (and a fit may still not make game).

You have my sympathy, even at MP.

[AL78]

smerriman, on 2022-June-16, 14:23, said:

As you can probably guess partner held - 92 AQJT874 Q752 and the only making contract was 3♦.

I did go the 3♠ - 4♥ route, though actually partner bid 4♣ over 3♠ which perhaps is a sign that you should give up and sign off in 4♦.

Bidding is most likely right - I haven't run any numbers though I do wonder what the odds say in terms of the likelihood on finding a fit (and a fit may still not make game).

To be honest, my gut feeling was partner held something like that, but I would have bid 3♠ and prepared to bid 4♥ next time, followed by apologies when it blew up in my face. It is basically an educated guess and if you get it right, you win, get it wrong, you are battered. I'm never a fan of hands like these although at my level, I'll accept that what looks like a guess in at least some cases probably isn't.

[akwoo]

Even red vs white, that's a 4♦ preempt in my book.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2022-June-16, 19:45, said:

Even red vs white, that's a 4♦ preempt in my book.

IMPs possibly, asking for PPP -2 against nothing at MPs

[P_Marlowe]

smerriman, on 2022-June-16, 14:23, said:

As you can probably guess partner held - 92 AQJT874 Q752 and the only making contract was 3♦.

I did go the 3♠ - 4♥ route, though actually partner bid 4♣ over 3♠ which perhaps is a sign that you should give up and sign off in 4♦.

Bidding is most likely right - I haven't run any numbers though I do wonder what the odds say in terms of the likelihood on finding a fit (and a fit may still not make game).

4C is not a bid, that makes any sense, what is wrong with repeating your 8 card suit?

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on 2022-June-17, 11:36, said:

4C is not a bid, that makes any sense, what is wrong with repeating your 8 card suit?

Perhaps because he only had 7?

[cherdano]

Wait, am I the only one who thinks 3♦ - 3♠ - 4♣ is a cuebid for spades?

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2022-June-17, 12:24, said:

Wait, am I the only one who thinks 3♦ - 3♠ - 4♣ is a cuebid for spades?

Actually, if I played it as natural I'd reserve it for 6-5 hands. Certainly not a 7-4 hand with Qxxx of clubs.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on 2022-June-17, 12:01, said:

Perhaps because he only had 7?

Right, ... I still think, that bidding Qxxx instead of rebidding AQJxxxx is misleading at best.
Nevertheless I have disqualified my self with miscounting the 7 carder.

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on 2022-June-17, 12:24, said:

Wait, am I the only one who thinks 3♦ - 3♠ - 4♣ is a cuebid for spades?

No, I would also think, that 4C as cue bid ( more precise shortage ) makes the most sense.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

switching the majors making it 6 hearts and 5 spades would make the hand even tougher.
I would bid my 6 carder, planning to play in 4H.

With kind regards
Marlowe