[wank]

---

very aggressive opps. imps

following further discussion about the hand i posted, this one came up as a hypothetical.

what would you do instead if this were your hand?

[mike777]

again 4nt as rkc

I hope pard has not opened yet another "bag of crap" .

expect something close to:

AQxxx...Kxx...xx....KQx
or more

[gszes]

Since I do not use exclusion I have a 5h slam invite with heart control available that works here. W/o that bid I am much more tempted to x since I have so many controls asking for them will yield little useful information (thus I avoid 4n here). The 5 level may not be safe but doubling 4h at these colors rates to gain us little so risk vs reward again seems in favor of trying for slam.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2015-April-24, 08:00, said:

again 4nt as rkc

I hope pard has not opened yet another "bag of crap" .

expect something close to:

AQxxx...Kxx...xx....KQx
or more

Mike, why do you continue to make posts in which you assume that partner has a good 14 count for his opening bids? Nobody else on the forum thinks this way, and it is ridiculous to answer questions on that basis given that for the OP that notion makes no sense.

As for your 'solution', what is it about this obsession with keycard in situations in which the answer to keycard tells you nothing about the number of tricks available?

AQJxxx xx xx KQx is a normal 1♠ opening bid and slam is cold after the 1 keycard response. AQJxx Kx xxx Qxx has the same hcp and the same keycard response and is a hopeless slam contract.

AQJxx Ax xxx Jxx is the same hcp, an extra Ace and slam is hopeless. AJxxxx Axx xx Kx is again 12 hcp, no spade Q this time, and grand is good.

The fact is that the problem hand was suggested precisely because it is a problem hand, but good players learn pretty early in their bridge life that one rarely solves difficult questions by using a gadget, the use of which merely postpones the guess for one round, while removing any chance of making the guess intelligently.

Here, we have some slam interest, and not enough to drive to slam. Keycard is absurd since no answer tells us what we want to hear, which is information that allows us some insight into the final contract.

On the hand that generated this thread, double made a lot of sense because not only did we have a slam-no slam problem but we also knew that on many hands on which slam was unrealistic, defending was a reasonable alternative.

Here, defending is not a reasonable alternative because we have an extra spade and nothing in hearts. Even 'very aggressive' opps are allowed to hold AKQxxxxx or the equivalent.

We are on the cusp.....we cannot force to slam and we cannot afford to give up on slam. We don't have the right hand for a transferable values double, so it seems to me that we make the only descriptive call available. We bid 5♥.

There are no assurances that partner will guess correctly over this, especially since we have so many controls, but at his turn to bid he will know more about the general nature of our hand than we currently know about his. He will know that we have strong spade support, strong slam interest, the wrong hand to use keycard (so we don't have something like Kxxx x AKQxx Kxx), and that we are not (at least for now) strong enough to drive to slam....if we are, then we are bidding over a signoff.

Bridge is a partnership game, and bidding especially so. We are facing a situation in which we can either make the decision (4♠ or keycard(!)) or involve partner. Here, we involve partner, even tho we know that doing so won't always lead to the optimum outcome.

[steve2005]

Tough hand. you easily could be making 4, 5 or 6 ♠. 4N isn't going to tell you about partner's minor suit holdings. 5♥ is good try but I don't think shows such good minor suit controls. I would try 5♠ to say need partner with good trump and hopefully conveys not to go with a real minimum opening.

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2015-April-24, 09:42, said:

Mike, why do you continue to make posts in which you assume that partner has a good 14 count for his opening bids? Nobody else on the forum thinks this way, and it is ridiculous to answer questions on that basis given that for the OP that notion makes no sense.

As for your 'solution', what is it about this obsession with keycard in situations in which the answer to keycard tells you nothing about the number of tricks available?

AQJxxx xx xx KQx is a normal 1♠ opening bid and slam is cold after the 1 keycard response. AQJxx Kx xxx Qxx has the same hcp and the same keycard response and is a hopeless slam contract.

AQJxx Ax xxx Jxx is the same hcp, an extra Ace and slam is hopeless. AJxxxx Axx xx Kx is again 12 hcp, no spade Q this time, and grand is good.

The fact is that the problem hand was suggested precisely because it is a problem hand, but good players learn pretty early in their bridge life that one rarely solves difficult questions by using a gadget, the use of which merely postpones the guess for one round, while removing any chance of making the guess intelligently.

Here, we have some slam interest, and not enough to drive to slam. Keycard is absurd since no answer tells us what we want to hear, which is information that allows us some insight into the final contract.

On the hand that generated this thread, double made a lot of sense because not only did we have a slam-no slam problem but we also knew that on many hands on which slam was unrealistic, defending was a reasonable alternative.

Here, defending is not a reasonable alternative because we have an extra spade and nothing in hearts. Even 'very aggressive' opps are allowed to hold AKQxxxxx or the equivalent.

We are on the cusp.....we cannot force to slam and we cannot afford to give up on slam. We don't have the right hand for a transferable values double, so it seems to me that we make the only descriptive call available. We bid 5♥.

There are no assurances that partner will guess correctly over this, especially since we have so many controls, but at his turn to bid he will know more about the general nature of our hand than we currently know about his. He will know that we have strong spade support, strong slam interest, the wrong hand to use keycard (so we don't have something like Kxxx x AKQxx Kxx), and that we are not (at least for now) strong enough to drive to slam....if we are, then we are bidding over a signoff.

Bridge is a partnership game, and bidding especially so. We are facing a situation in which we can either make the decision (4♠ or keycard(!)) or involve partner. Here, we involve partner, even tho we know that doing so won't always lead to the optimum outcome.

ok

If allowed I would open your first example but pass your bal 12 counts.

I agree with your main point 5h is a better solution when we open these bal hands.

As I said I listed my assumptions, my rather old fashion bidding assumptions, when providing an answer.

[PhilKing]

mike777, on 2015-April-24, 10:38, said:

ok

If allowed I would open your first example but pass your bal 12 counts.

I agree with your main point 5h is a better solution when we open these bal hands.

As I said I listed my assumptions, my rather old fashion bidding assumptions, when providing an answer.

I'm a little confused, because in this thread http://www.bridgebas...not-10-hcp-6-4/, you signed off with an obvious invitation because you apparently assumed, for no reason whatsoever, that partner had opened on "crap".

[PhantomSac]

PhilKing, on 2015-April-24, 11:01, said:

I'm a little confused, because in this thread http://www.bridgebas...not-10-hcp-6-4/, you signed off with an obvious invitation because you apparently assumed, for no reason whatsoever, that partner had opened on "crap".

He has posted on here for like 12 years and has always gone back and forth between roth/stone style and opening on "junk."

Anyways 5H looks pretty normal here.

[WesleyC]

steve2005, on 2015-April-24, 09:42, said:

Tough hand. you easily could be making 4, 5 or 6 ♠. 4N isn't going to tell you about partner's minor suit holdings. 5♥ is good try but I don't think shows such good minor suit controls. I would try 5♠ to say need partner with good trump and hopefully conveys not to go with a minimum opening.

I'm not sure if this is a standard agreement, but I would use 5S in this to spot to ask for a heart control, consistent with a hand like: [Kxxxx xx AKx AKx].

For me 5C/5D would be natural, which leaves 5H as the only way to make a quantitative slam try in Spades. I don't think there's any implication about minor controls.

[nige1]

wank, on 2015-April-24, 07:15, said:

Very aggressive opps.
Imps.
Following further discussion about the hand i posted, this one came up as a hypothetical.
What would you do instead if this were your hand?

---

IMO, 4♠ = 10, 5♥ = 9. Close decision.

[PhantomSac]

PhilKing, on 2015-April-24, 11:01, said:

I'm a little confused, because in this thread http://www.bridgebas...not-10-hcp-6-4/, you signed off with an obvious invitation because you apparently assumed, for no reason whatsoever, that partner had opened on "crap".

Just for fun: http://www.bridgebas...app=forums&st=0

Seems like he started experimenting with light openings in 2005 or so. He went back and forth on that vs his old roth/stone style. Seems like Roth is his hero: http://www.bridgebas...app=forums&st=0

Must be a tough spot and causes situations like this to occur

[wank]

i said i'd bid 4s on this. not because it's any worse than the other hand (it's better if anything), but it's a hand type what allows far more scope for a catastrophic fit than the other one.

give partner heart wastage (obv no reason to place rho with 150 honours on this auction) and even 4s [originally mistyped 5] could be in danger without even thinking about unusual splits, for example:

---

we've got no source of tricks (at least the other one had a 5 card suit to potentially develop) and the heart holding is a bit of a mirage - let's say partner has 3 hearts so 2 to be ruffed in our hand, then there's potential for overruffs/trump promotions considering our lack of spade pips.

[mikeh]

wank, on 2015-April-24, 12:21, said:

i said i'd bid 4s on this. not because it's any worse than the other hand (it's better if anything), but it's a hand type what allows far more scope for a catastrophic fit than the other one.

give partner heart wastage (obv no reason to place rho with 150 honours on this auction) and even 5s could be in danger without even thinking about unusual splits, for example:

---

we've got no source of tricks (at least the other one had a 5 card suit to potentially develop) and the heart holding is a bit of a mirage - let's say partner has 3 hearts so 2 to be ruffed in our hand, then there's potential for overruffs/trump promotions considering our lack of spade pips.

I think that you fell into a trap that ensnares me more often than I like: you looked for reasons to swing low, and had no trouble finding them.

However, one could just as easily find reasons to swing high.

AQxxx xx Qxx Kxx is a terrible hand but one on which slam is not bad at all.....tho we will be playing 5♠, not slam.

AJxxxx Ax xx KQx is a basically cold grand, but why should partner move over 4♠? What would you bid over 4♥ with KQxxx xx KQx Jxx?

Btw, I don't think a simulation helps here, if anyone is wondering. Not only does one have to decide on constraints for the 4♥ call, but one also has to assess what opener will do over any of the options open to us, and that requires judgment....if we gave 20 borderline hands to, say, PhilKing, Frances, Andy, Justin (to name only 4 of the better posters), I would be astounded if all of them agreed on every hand.

It is as much losing bridge to find arguments to swing low as it is to find arguments to be hyper-aggressive...altho for a number of reasons, aggression usually pays off more than a similar degree of conservatism.

[aguahombre]

I agree with Mike on his assessment that this hand needs to make a slam try; I agree that 4NT isn't going to be useful; I agree that 5H is a slam try. But, as much as I like giving partner opportunities to be involved and make the last mistake, I can't see how it can help this time.

I am tempted to make a Woolsey slam try (bid it and try to make). It seems it will make on most hands where partner would accept anyway, and a lot of hands where he wouldn't. This is written by a guy who really hates blasting and anti-partnership stuff.

[hrothgar]

What's the difference between 5♥ and 5♠

Invite with control and invite without control would be one obvious treatment.
I wonder whether it is the most useful...

Back in the weird old days, I would have treated 5♠ as a trump quality ask and 5♥ as a range ask.
Not sure how folks would read this these days.

[PhantomSac]

I think knowing about whether you have a heart control or not is a priority over anything like trump quality

[PhilG007]

wank, on 2015-April-24, 07:15, said:

---

very aggressive opps. imps

following further discussion about the hand i posted, this one came up as a hypothetical.

what would you do instead if this were your hand?

Only 1 sensible response comes to mind on this hand.. 5NT The Grand Slam Force asking partner to bid
the Small Slam holding one of the top three spade honors or bid the Grand Slam if holding two.....

[PhantomSac]

PhilG007, on 2015-April-24, 23:37, said:

Only 1 sensible response comes to mind on this hand.. 5NT The Grand Slam Force asking partner to bid
the Small Slam holding one of the top three spade honors or bid the Grand Slam if holding two.....

So with zero he passes obv right??

And yeah we are cold for 7 opp the AQ of spades imo

[PhilG007]

PhantomSac, on 2015-April-25, 01:04, said:

So with zero he passes obv right??

And yeah we are cold for 7 opp the AQ of spades imo

Partner CANNOT pass. That's why it's called the Grand Slam FORCE
And it's inane to think that a 1♠ opening wouldn't contain
at least the A or Q♠

[eagles123]

AQxxx
Kx
Qxx
KXx

Seems like a great grand to be in , Phil