[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

---

This is in a similar vein to Roland's post, but happened last night at the club.

1♥ - 1NT (1)
2♣ (2) - 5♥
?

(1) Forcing
(2) Better minor

You open this rag tag bunch and face your first difficult decision when partner bids a forcing NT. Apparently your 2♣ bid now excites partner to the 5 level. What now?

[P_Marlowe]

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

[cherdano]

Ok, my bet is partner has s.th. like - xxx xxx AKxxxxx and is gambling on a slam on the right lead in case I don't have a diamond control. I pass.
(AK-7th of clubs is the weakest club holding I could make up that suddenly becomes solid opposite the assumed 3 small in my hand.)

Arend

[Free]

6♥, he asks for suit quality, I have it...

[Double !]

Free, on Jul 9 2005, 03:12 PM, said:

6♥, he asks for suit quality, I have it...

Responder could have asked for suit quality simply via RKC. (assuming reasonable understanding that, when in doubt or absence of agreed-upon trump suit, the last naturally bid suit is designated as the trump suit for the purpose of answering RKC.)
YES? / NO?

This bidding sequence seem impossible to me unless responded means 5H as excl. BW. IF that is the case, P initial response of 1NT seems rather strange at first, but could be understandable with some freakish hand that just needs to know about controls outside of hearts and will then place the contract. Just don't bid this way with me, please...........I have too sick an imagination.

DHL

[Double !]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

What would you initially respond to 1 heart with ♠ KQJTxxx, ♥ void, ♦ AK, ♣ KQJx?

This is the only type of hand that I could conceive of that might create such a bizarre bidding sequence.

Told you I has a sick imagination.

[Double !]

cherdano, on Jul 9 2005, 11:33 AM, said:

Ok, my bet is partner has s.th. like - xxx xxx AKxxxxx and is gambling on a slam on the right lead in case I don't have a diamond control. I pass.
(AK-7th of clubs is the weakest club holding I could make up that suddenly becomes solid opposite the assumed 3 small in my hand.)

Arend

If responder has this hand, playing 2/1 as currently in use, would this hand not qualify for an impossible 2 spade bid? (says to partner, You hit gold with your 2 club rebid.)

[bearmum]

Double !, on Jul 10 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

Responder could have asked for suit quality simply via RKC.  (assuming reasonable understanding that, when in doubt or absence of agreed-upon trump suit, the last naturally bid suit is designated as the trump suit for the purpose of answering RKC.)
YES?  /    NO?

I agree

As to what partner means with 5♥ I have no idea -- but as I am minimum for my previous bids I am passing (and will apologise for not understanding pard's bid )

[Rebound]

The way I have been performing in the bidding quizzes, I hesitate to respond, but here's my opinion fwiw:
Firstly, it makes no sense to me to use EKC in partner's first bid suit. Shortness in partner's suit would tend to militate against any slam aspirations, particularly after a 1NT response. I think partner probably has something like Axx Jxx void AKxxxxx and needs to know about your suit quality. I bid 6♥.

[Double !]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

I think this is probably the best solution to the whole problem (unless partner is a BBO forum member). This might result in a genuine "post mortem" discussion, but it should have the effect of stopping partner from making similar bids in the future (unless ghosting a bridge column for someone else).



By the way, the daily bulletins and pictures from Tenerife were very interesting. Got a picture or two of Roland in there, as well as one of Fluffy and of his dad. And the level of play must have been extremely high, judging from the match point percentage scores reported for pairs events.

[the hog]

Rebound, on Jul 10 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

The way I have been performing in the bidding quizzes, I hesitate to respond, but here's my opinion fwiw:
Firstly, it makes no sense to me to use EKC in partner's first bid suit. Shortness in partner's suit would tend to militate against any slam aspirations, particularly after a 1NT response. I think partner probably has something like Axx Jxx void AKxxxxx and needs to know about your suit quality. I bid 6♥.

Eh! Why did he bid 1NT if he held that? Doesn't everyman and his dog bid 2C with that hand?

[Rebound]

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2005, 02:34 AM, said:

Rebound, on Jul 10 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

The way I have been performing in the bidding quizzes, I hesitate to respond, but here's my opinion fwiw:
Firstly, it makes no sense to me to use EKC in partner's first bid suit. Shortness in partner's suit would tend to militate against any slam aspirations, particularly after a 1NT response. I think partner probably has something like Axx Jxx void AKxxxxx and needs to know about your suit quality. I bid 6♥.

Eh! Why did he bid 1NT if he held that? Doesn't everyman and his dog bid 2C with that hand?

Good question. It seems I should have hesitated a little more lol.

But seriously, I agree world + dog would likely bid 2♣ with that hand. But then who would respond 1NT then jump to 5♥? Ok, second guess: partner has 5-5 in the round suits maybe? I would expect partner to have 1st round control in at least clubs and one other suit, either ♦ or ♠. In which case you may do ok if they misguess the lead so I still bid 6♥ :-)

[P_Marlowe]

Double !, on Jul 9 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

What would you initially respond to 1 heart with ♠ KQJTxxx, ♥ void, ♦ AK, ♣ KQJx?

This is the only type of hand that I could conceive of that might create such a bizarre bidding sequence.

Told you I has a sick imagination.

Hi,

no problem for me, since I play strong jumb shifts, i.e. 2S,
intending to sell my hand as a strong single suited hand with
spades.
But even if playing weak jumb shifts, I see no real problem
with 1S later jumping to 3S, which should be carrying the
same message.
And if 3S would not have this meaning I will go via 4th suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

Double !, on Jul 10 2005, 03:09 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

What would you initially respond to 1 heart with ♠ KQJTxxx, ♥ void, ♦ AK, ♣ KQJx?

This is the only type of hand that I could conceive of that might create such a bizarre bidding sequence.

Told you I has a sick imagination.

Never heard of the bid "1♠"??? And if you play strong jump shifts, you have an even easier job by bidding 2♠...

[cherdano]

Double !, on Jul 10 2005, 03:05 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 9 2005, 03:12 PM, said:

6♥, he asks for suit quality, I have it...

Responder could have asked for suit quality simply via RKC. (assuming reasonable understanding that, when in doubt or absence of agreed-upon trump suit, the last naturally bid suit is designated as the trump suit for the purpose of answering RKC.)
YES? / NO?

NO. Not when he has a void (and you don't have EKCB, or he would get too high with it).

Arend

[cherdano]

cherdano, on Jul 9 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

Ok, my bet is partner has s.th. like - xxx xxx AKxxxxx and is gambling on a slam on the right lead in case I don't have a diamond control. I pass.

On reflection: While we may take 9, 10 or 12 tricks opposite that hand, we pretty much never take 11! Hence it may be best to bid 6♥ even though it requires
- no diamond lead
- hearts 3-2
- clubs 2-2

Arend

[bearmum]

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2005, 07:34 PM, said:

Rebound, on Jul 10 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

The way I have been performing in the bidding quizzes, I hesitate to respond, but here's my opinion fwiw:
Firstly, it makes no sense to me to use EKC in partner's first bid suit. Shortness in partner's suit would tend to militate against any slam aspirations, particularly after a 1NT response. I think partner probably has something like Axx Jxx void AKxxxxx and needs to know about your suit quality. I bid 6♥.

Eh! Why did he bid 1NT if he held that? Doesn't everyman and his dog bid 2C with that hand?

Not sure about the dog BUT I sure would bid 2♣ with that hand

[whereagles]

I don't have a clue what pard is talking about, so I'm going to give him a taste of his own medicine: 5NT

[Echognome]

Partner held:

♠ J
♥ 542
♦ AKJ5
♣ AKQ43

And yes we were playing 2/1. I don't know why he didn't bid 2♣, 4NT, or 5♥ directly but I certainly didn't get how 1NT would do anything but confuse his partner.

I passed for reasons of the small box principle. I have opened the bidding and am minimum. I have responded to 1NT with 2♣ as my better minor and it's a horrible better minor. Yet these two bids have excited partner to some sort of slam invitation. Yes I have good trumps, but I have no extra length and the rest of my hand is cheese.

[Double !]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 10 2005, 04:08 AM, said:

Double !, on Jul 9 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

Shoot partner, he cannot hold a hand
that justifies 5H.

Marlowe

What would you initially respond to 1 heart with ♠ KQJTxxx, ♥ void, ♦ AK, ♣ KQJx?

This is the only type of hand that I could conceive of that might create such a bizarre bidding sequence.

Told you I has a sick imagination.

Hi,

no problem for me, since I play strong jumb shifts, i.e. 2S,
intending to sell my hand as a strong single suited hand with
spades.
But even if playing weak jumb shifts, I see no real problem
with 1S later jumping to 3S, which should be carrying the
same message.
And if 3S would not have this meaning I will go via 4th suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

thank you for your response to this question. :-)
I, too, play strong jump-shifts (actually I play 2-way J-S with some P's), but the strong J-S still doesn't solve the problem of how to create an Excl. RKC bid in opener's suit unless using a system of asking bids.

I commend all of the other sample hands that people suggested P might have to bid this way. However, in each case it has been shown that P had a much easier way to bid the hand, so IMO, I don;t think one's interpretation of the bid should be based on illogic (that P could have bid this hand differently but didn't). I still don't know what kind of hand would justify creating such a bidding sequence.