[pclayton]

All red, short match

♠QJTxx
♥Q9
♦Txxx
♣Kx

1♥ (2♣) - double - (5♣)
5♠ (6♣) - ??

[han]

Yeah I also double.

[mikeh]

Double. This seems so obvious that it must be wrong

Seriously, could I have a less valuable hand on offense? I have no working Aces or Kings. Yes, what honours I do have, other than the club K, are in the right place, but if partner can make slam opposite this hand, he would already have bid it.

And while I suppose one can construct a hand on which 6♣ is cold, I will pay to that.

[ArtK78]

This is far from obvious, IMO.

Partner bid 5♠ freely over 5♣, after I implied (but did not promise) a four card spade suit. Partner has a strong major suited hand.

The opps bid 6♣ over 5♠. It is not clear that this is a sacrifice. Quite frankly, it is not clear whose hand this is.

Offensively, while my ♣K is clearly worthless, my ♥Q is now a monster card. Partner could have:

AKxxx
KJxxxx
Ax
----


or even

AKxxx
KJxxxxx
A
----

If the opps are as distributional as we are, then they are making 10, 11 or 12 tricks in clubs.

If this were a long match, I think that 6♠ is absolutely clear. Even in a short match, 6♠ has a lot going for it.

I am going to bid 6♠. Worst case - both 6♣ and 6♠ fail by one trick. That could be a deadly result in a short match. But if either 6♣ or 6♠ (or both) make, then passing or doubling will be very deadly.

[han]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Partner bid 5♠ freely over 5♣, after I implied (but did not promise) a four card spade suit.

I know some enlightened bridge players like you and perhaps dburn frequently double without 4 spades on this auction but I don't.

I'm used to a different meaning of the word imply btw: To involve by logical necessity. Is my understanding of the word "imply" incorrect or did you mean "suggest"?

[helene_t]

I think your understanding of the word "imply" is correct, Han. However, the word is often used as synonym for "suggest" in bridge discussions.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Jan 30 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

I'm used to a different meaning of the word imply btw: To involve by logical necessity. Is my understanding of the word "imply" incorrect or did you mean "suggest"?

Your understanding is correct but incomplete, see http://www.fact-arch...ictionary/Imply. (In fact I would say the most frequent use of "to imply" is in the sense of "to implicitly suggest that...")

[Echognome]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

This is far from obvious, IMO.

Partner bid 5♠ freely over 5♣, after I implied (but did not promise) a four card spade suit.  Partner has a strong major suited hand.

The opps bid 6♣ over 5♠.  It is not clear that this is a sacrifice.  Quite frankly, it is not clear whose hand this is.

Offensively, while my ♣K is clearly worthless, my ♥Q is now a monster card.  Partner could have:

AKxxx
KJxxxx
Ax
----


or even

AKxxx
KJxxxxx
A
----

If the opps are as distributional as we are, then they are making 10, 11 or 12 tricks in clubs.

If this were a long match, I think that 6♠ is absolutely clear.  Even in a short match, 6♠ has a lot going for it.

I am going to bid 6♠.  Worst case - both 6♣ and 6♠ fail by one trick.  That could be a deadly result in a short match.  But if either 6♣ or 6♠ (or both) make, then passing or doubling will be very deadly.

I agree that on these auctions, we really don't know who can make what. But I differ from Art in 2 critical areas.

1. While there can be times when one distorts via a 3 card negative double, most experts either don't do it or recognize that it is the least of evils and do it in the expectation that partner will and should assume we have 4. So we do NOT, in later auctions, change horses and assume that partner may have been catering to a 3 card holding. That is especially so in this auction, in which, if we hold only 3 spades, we must have 5 and usually 6 or more diamonds.... and on most moderate hands with 3=2=6=2 or similar short(ish) majors we would have bid 2♦.

2. Why on earth do we place partner with the nuts? The AKxxx KJxxxxx A void example is, with all respect to Art whose posts I always read with interest, silly. If any partner of mine committed a 5♠ call with that hand, I'd be checking for a pulse... just what does he need to make slam playable, given that I made a 2-level negative double and probably, on the auction, have little wasted in clubs (my King is a surprise here)?? And while I admit that the other hand: AKxxx KJxxxx Ax void is a possibility, surely all of us would bid 5♠ on the given auction with Axxxx AKxxxx xx void? Or AKxxx KJxxxx x x? Are any of us selling to 5♣ or expecting partner with KQxxx xx Qxxx xx or Jxxxx Ax Qxxx xx to bid 5♠ after we open 1♥ and pass 5♣?

Barry Crane used to tell his partners to never play him for the perfect hand, because he wouldn't hold it. That advice is as true now as it was then.

[Echognome]

When given this problem, I passed with a shrug.

I agree that we don't want to play partner for the nuts, but do we want to prevent him from bidding on if he does?

[jdonn]

Seems to me like a double. I expect it to be wrong since the problem is being asked and it seems so obvious, but maybe Phil is trying the old triple cross.

I don't think I have made a negative double after a 1♥ opening and a two level overcall with fewer than four spades ever, certainly not this decade. So my partner's can trust both my implications and my suggestions.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Offensively, while my ♣K is clearly worthless, my ♥Q is now a monster card. Partner could have:

AKxxx
KJxxxx
Ax
----

Isn't 6♠ off one on a (not unlikely) diamond lead?

Quote

AKxxx
KJxxxxx
A
----

5♠ seems a bid timid with this hand.

[cherdano]

I still think double is clear.

[ArtK78]

TimG, on Jan 30 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Offensively, while my ♣K is clearly worthless, my ♥Q is now a monster card.  Partner could have:

AKxxx
KJxxxx
Ax
----

Isn't 6♠ off one on a (not unlikely) diamond lead?

Yes, but why would you expect a diamond lead?

Many are stating that I am giving partner hands which are too unbalanced or just happen to fit the argument for bidding on. I have several comments on that:

1) The hands are consistent with the auction.
2) The opponents bid 6♣ vulnerable - that strongly suggests (implies?) that they have a massive club fit. Since I have Kx of clubs, it does not seem unreasonable to place partner with a void.
3) Partner bid 5♠ over 5♣. Yes, my hand made a negative double. I should have 4 spades for my double. But that doesn't mean that my hand is suitable for a game contract, let alone a 5 level contract. Partner MUST be highly distributional.

Partner should have 10, if not 11, cards in the major suits for this auction.

As for the comment that partner, holding:

AKxxx
KJxxxxx
A
----

might bid slam himself over 5♣, yes, that is certainly possible. Perhaps that hand is too good, even though I might not have a perfectly suitable hand for him. For example, I might hold:

JTxx
xx
KQxxx
xx

Slam certainly has play, but it is by no means cold.

In any event, I gave several hands for partner which are consistent with the auction. Even if you don't agree that my hand should bid 6♠ over 6♣, perhaps passing might be a better choice than double. After all, are you certain that you want to defend 6♣? It is very unlikely that partner is going to pull your double, as you might have a hand totally unsuitable for his hand, and the opponents may have gone out on a limb. For example, you might hold:

Jxxx
xx
KQJx
KJx

Even opposite this hand, 6♠ has some play. But at least you are reasonably sure that 6♣ is going down.

There is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of a double doubled slam swing at IMPs (well, maybe there are things worse, but in the context of a bridge problem, it is pretty bad).

[cherdano]

Art, even if your example was a 5♠ bid, they would still be on the very top of a very wide range for the 5♠ bid. If we make a forcing pass, we invite partner to bid 6 to make with a much wider range of hands than that.
If the opponents have a void in every suit where partner has an ace, ok then we should bid on. But that is really unlikely.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 30 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Offensively, while my ♣K is clearly worthless, my ♥Q is now a monster card.  Partner could have:

AKxxx
KJxxxx
Ax
----

Isn't 6♠ off one on a (not unlikely) diamond lead?

Yes, but why would you expect a diamond lead?

As a defender, I would not be at all confident that my ♣A is cashing and would want to look elsewhere to establish a trick. It would seem that the most likely road to defeating 6♠ would be to establish a trick that we could cash when in with a potential major suit trick. That leaves diamonds.

[655321]

Double.

I actually think there are hands partner can hold which make us cold for 12 tricks, and that on a really bad day the opponents might have 12 tricks too. It is pretty safe to assume that partner is void in clubs, both because of his 5/5 and tho opponent's bidding.

But holding a high card in their suit is a strong factor against bidding on. Plus I remember the (rare) occasions I thought it was right to bid on these hands: instead of the dreaded double slam swing, all that happened was both sides are 2 down.

[jtfanclub]

655321, on Jan 30 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

Double.

I actually think there are hands partner can hold which make us cold for 12 tricks, and that on a really bad day the opponents might have 12 tricks too. It is pretty safe to assume that partner is void in clubs, both because of his 5/5 and tho opponent's bidding.

But holding a high card in their suit is a strong factor against bidding on. Plus I remember the (rare) occasions I thought it was right to bid on these hands: instead of the dreaded double slam swing, all that happened was both sides are 2 down.

So then why not pass?

It's a short match. In order for X to be right, your teammates have to also get to the same failing slam (if your teammates stop in game, an X won't matter much). For X to be wrong, your teammates have to get to a successful slam.

Given the CoC, why isn't pass more popular?

[mikeh]

Art:

1. As to a diamond lead... I would expect a diamond lead the majority of the time, and I think, on reflection, that you would find such a lead from any overcalling hand consistent with the auction. Who leads an unsupported A on this auction to 6♠? And surely no-one leads a major?

2. As to the merits of your other arguments, I defy you to construct 3 hands consistent with the auction when responder holds Jxxx xx KQJx KJx

No-one is going to convince many others by giving specific examples, altho I note that you have not attempted to respond to my examples similar to AKxxx Axxxxx xx void.

To my way of thinking, in pressure auctions such as this, we need to apply some basic principles. These will not always generate the double-dummy outcome, and some may differ in the choice, numbering or priority of the factors, but here goes my view:

1. We assume that partner will play us for 4+ spades and a modicum of offensive values. Yes, our hand may disappoint, but he HAS to bid, in these pressure situations, on a glass half-full rather than half-empty basis. I speak from bitter experience, since perhaps my greatest weakness in tough team matches is a tendency to fall into a glass half-empty frame of mind.

2. We assume that partner, when in doubt about bidding or passing 5♣, will choose to bid... because if he passes, we cannot know of the spade fit, and because his pass is not remotely forcing

3. We do not assume that he bid 5♠ with assurance that it will make. Equally, and for the same reason, we do not assume that 5♠ was remotely a slam try

4. 6♣ presents us with a FP situation. We bid with significantly greater offense than we assumed partner will expect, bearing in mind the first principle

5. We pass ahead of partner with more but not hugely more offense than we should be expecting partner to have gambled on for his 5♠ call. While examples are of limited help, I'd pass on QJxxx xx Axxx xx and bid on Kxxxx xx Axxx xx.

6. We double when our offensive values are no more than he was reasonably expected to assume and/or when we have unexpected defence... the two will often coincide. In this case, I think that he was entitled to assume offensive values equivalent to QJxxx Qx or better and he certainly won't expect us to have a very probable trump trick when we pass! See point 1.

All of this makes double clear, altho it may work out very badly. So what?