[gwnn]

-
Axx
AQxx
AKQTxx

3♠ from RHO after partner passed in 1st seat.

Team match, the state of the match is quite probably equal: this is the 5th board in the first set, the first 4 boards were 3NT contracts, each of them making 9 tricks, with 26 HCP, with no possibility of overtricks. The teams are of exactly equal strength. You are a good player and so are all the other 7 players involved. 4♣ is natural. Unfavourable.

This is not a trolling topic, please refrain from posting if you want to discuss words that begin with "chea" or "UI".

I'm just curious about what everybody thinks about this hand. I don't intend to connect it in any way to any other thread, in fact some circumstances have been changed to make abstraction from history easier.

edited to make a little clearer.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2010-August-09, 12:21

[Phil]

Like a lot of people in the bridge world, I posed this question in a similar vein, but it was,

"guess the actual call within 10 tries"

I would double, but I might be delaying the tough decision by doing so

By the way, I would add 5N. And why is 3N listed as a choice? And 4♣ (some play Non-Leaping Michaels to partially invalidate this (sorry - edited)).

This post has been edited by Phil: 2010-August-09, 12:33

[awm]

Double. If partner bids 4♥ I'll go to 5♣ next, showing a strong flexible hand with clubs (a strong one-suiter would've jumped to 5♣). If partner bids 3NT I'll try 4♣, which should be a clear slam try. If partner bids 4m, I'll try 4♠ (slam try in partner's minor) and basically force slam with some tries for grand.

[aguahombre]

4C is out because I would be showing the rounded suits and 3-6 would not be the expected lengths.

X = ok, but a couple obvious bad things could happen very quickly.

4NT should probably have more equal Minors.

This leaves 4S, and raise the chosen minor to six. This would have put the ball in pard's court and saved untolled wear and tear on a lot of people's fingers.

disagree that Pard will choose clubs with ♦KXXX vs ♣XXXX, but if pard is 4-4-3-2, in that order, I won't like my decision.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-09, 12:34

[bluecalm]

Double will win because 4♠ is often not discussed.
I am not sure what 4♠ should mean for example and wouldn't venture such bid without specific discussion with given partner.

[jdonn]

I'll double and follow with 6♣ over 4♥ which I hope shows a hand like this, I think we have too much potential to just follow with 5♣.

So gwnn, you could have saved some wear and tear on your keyboard by just saying this was the first board of the match, no?

[inquiry]

Dbl, then

Pull 3NT to ♣'s
Pull 4♥ to ♣'s
Jump to 5NT over 4♦ if partner takes that as GSF
Hope I don't have to lead, but if I do, I have a good one....

[kenberg]

I also double and if partner bids 4H I also bid 6C. However, I think that there is something to be said for double and then, over 4H, a bid of 4S PROVIDING it has been discussed. Hands like this are fairly frequent over preempts and it would be good to have 4S to say something like "I have a great hand that maybe belongs in hearts but I am not sure and maybe belongs in slam but I am not sure". I have no idea if anyone plays such a meaning but I have had crazier ideas.

[Hanoi5]

inquiry, on Aug 9 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

Dbl, then

Pull 3NT to ♣'s
Pull 4♥ to ♣'s
Jump to 5NT over 4♦ if partner takes that as GSF
Hope I don't have to lead, but if I do, I have a good one....

A good one? Is it a small diamond?


I'd also double and bid clubs afterward. I don't know how to get to diamonds though.

[gwnn]

jdonn, on Aug 9 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

So gwnn, you could have saved some wear and tear on your keyboard by just saying this was the first board of the match, no?

No, because some pedantic posters would have noticed that we can't be V/NV at board 1.

It's true, however, that we could start with board 5 for no reason..

[crazy4hoop]

FWIW I'm in awm's camp on this one - reasoning seems perfectly sensible to me. Then again, maybe there is a reason I'm a club director and not a full time player...

[whereagles]

Dbl. Over 4♥... 6♣.

[mrdct]

I'm sure I've seen this hand before somewhere and vaguely recall that 6♦ worked out quite well as the ♣ suit was useful for discards.

I've never jumped to slam before on a 4-card suit, but I can empathise with the arguments in favour of it on this sort of hand where you don't want to give the non-vul opps the room to diagnose a profitable save in 6♠, partner seems likely to have something in ♦ and this unusual move will pay-off big time if 6♦ is cold and 6♣ fails with a safety net that quite a lot of the hands where 6♣ makes 6♦ will also make. On the other hand, I'm going to look like a goose when 6♣ is cold and 6♦ fails and I also run the risk of raising suspicion that I'm wired if 6♦ works.

I probably wouldn't try 6♦ if I was in a serious event with a serious chance of doing well, but if I was the underdog likely to lose the match anyway I might try this sort of thing. If it comes off, it would be a nice one to tell the grandkids about.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious 6D bid.

[kenrexford]

I'm thinking 6♥, with a pickup partner.

I mean, with me having this many minor cards, partner likely has long hearts. I expect a fair likelihood that he has something like Kxxxx in hearts. If so, I need to right-side the contract NOW, by bidding 6♥. I mean, give partner something like:

♠xxx ♥Kxxxx ♦xxxx ♣x

That's fairly normal. If I bid 6♥, the opponents cannot hurt me. Suppose I get a spade lead. I ruff that and play two top hearts, hearts splitting 3-2. I then run three clubs, ditching the two remaining spades in dummy.

If the club Jack falls, I start ditching the diamonds until they ruff in. I then win the diamond Ace and ditch the remaining diamonds. Worst case, if the club Jack does not fall, I can rely on the diamond hook, hopefully.

Fairly obvious call, with a pickup partner.

Playing with a real partner, where we have discussed this sort of thing, I would clearly bid 5♠, which is a demand bid, demanding that partner transfer to the slam he thinks we will make. If he transfers to hearts like I think he will, no problem. But, if this is a freak hand, and he really doesn't have hearts, he could bid 6♣ to transfer to diamonds, which might have play also (not sure). If he has clubs, which would be really weird, he bids 5NT, in which case I correct to 6♦ because he obviously forgot our system.

[aguahombre]

forget it, Csaba. The comedians can't resist.

[mrdct]

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

I'm thinking 6♥, with a pickup partner.

I mean, with me having this many minor cards, partner likely has long hearts.  I expect a fair likelihood that he has something like Kxxxx in hearts.  If so, I need to right-side the contract NOW, by bidding 6♥.  I mean, give partner something like:

♠xxx ♥Kxxxx ♦xxxx ♣x

Excellent point about right-siding the ♥ contract, but wouldn't 5♥ do the trick? With the hand you have visioned for partner he would certainly raise to 6♥ and if this is one of those unluckly days when partner isn't holding the marked ♥ suit, there is still scope to settle in a superior minor slam.

5♥ and 6♥ need to be added to the poll. In fact, while we are all dreaming up miracle hands for partner, perhaps 4♦ should get a mention.

[mrdct]

gwnn, on Aug 10 2010, 04:12 AM, said:

This is not a trolling topic, please refrain from posting if you want to discuss words that begin with "chea" or "UI".

I'm just curious about what everybody thinks about this hand. I don't intend to connect it in any way to any other thread, in fact some circumstances have been changed to make abstraction from history easier.

Unfortunately we can never turn back the clock and tinkering with the state-of-the-match circumstances isn't really going to do the job in terms of disentangling the poll from one of the most highly publicised hands in history.

We will never know how it might have panned-out, but it would've been interesting if Justin could've kept a lid on the hand and its circumstances for a couple of days and run a poll like this to see what sorts of things people really would've thought about faced with this bidding problem without being prejudiced from reading 40 pages of discussion about it.

[ggwhiz]

I like double and if you should be lucky enough to see 4♦ from pard next, 5nt graded gsf as inquiry mentioned and as the route to the grand.

[pirate22]

surely this is the hand from the Springold teams.
over 3 spades-overcaller called 6 d direct all passed out.when the Dust settled ,at the 13 trick-------------6d tick--the 3 pade bidder summoned the TD----lots of questions,all privvy-appeals etc etc--the 6 d bidder remained silent i think throughout.