[RunemPard]

MPs

♠AT9862
♥7
♦AKQJ53
♣---


In our methods the bidding went 1♠-3♠
Partner has not yet learned Exclusion, but has some knowledge of control bidding.


Some thoughts of mine and partner's hand...

Spoiler

After this board I am debating having us start playing 2NT as limit+. Partner holds the worst hand possible for us.

♠754
♥KQ84
♦97
♣AQ54

Our auction was entertaining...ending up in 5♣-5. I knew that my partner may have issues understanding 5♣, but having told her many times to never ask aces with a void and learning control bidding I thought she would continue.

1♠-3♠
4♣-4♥
5♣-AP

My logic was that slam was worth a shot with partner holding the ♥A and any 3 spades.
Slam is also alright with Kxx in ♠.
GS may be on with as little as Kxx in ♠ and the ♥A on a good night.

[Antrax]

Don't you have a meta-agreement not to look for alternate trump suits once you've established a major-suit fit? Did you ask your partner later when she thought your bids meant?

[RunemPard]

Antrax, on 2012-September-06, 01:34, said:

Don't you have a meta-agreement not to look for alternate trump suits once you've established a major-suit fit? Did you ask your partner later when she thought your bids meant?

Yes..The first thing I told her was..."I don't care if you were confused, we had already decided ♠ are trump." Followed by "Your pass was lazy and thoughtless."

And the other common fights that occur when a couple plays bridge.

She said that she liked her ♣s better than her ♠s. In her defense, she is still learning.

[EricK]

Having looked at the hand I don't like the 3♠ bid at all. While "support with support" is a good general principle, I don't think 3 small qualifies as 3 level support when there are a number of other possible places to play which might well be better. Obviously your partner was wrong with the final pass as well, but if I were playing with a weak partner and suspected the bidding might come off the rails in a cue-bidding sequence then I would have just blasted 6♠ on the second round. Note that your bidding sequence didn't actually tell you what you needed to know anyway. If partner had bid 5♠ instead of pass, you wouldn't have known whether to go on or not!

[RunemPard]

EricK, on 2012-September-06, 01:47, said:

Having looked at the hand I don't like the 3♠ bid at all. While "support with support" is a good general principle, I don't think 3 small qualifies as 3 level support when there are a number of other possible places to play which might well be better. Obviously your partner was wrong with the final pass as well, but if I were playing with a weak partner and suspected the bidding might come off the rails in a cue-bidding sequence then I would have just blasted 6♠ on the second round. Note that your bidding sequence didn't actually tell you what you needed to know anyway. If partner had bid 5♠ instead of pass, you wouldn't have known whether to go on or not!

If I was trusting her bidding, 5♠ would have to show poor spades and no first round control in ♥. She already said that she has no ♦ control by passing it up. But I agree that I could have just blasted 6♠ down 1 or 2 with her. I know that she doesn't know 5N from her would be GSF so I suppose my 5♣ was fishing for a confused pass.

[gordontd]

RunemPard, on 2012-September-06, 01:53, said:

I suppose my 5♣ was fishing for a confused pass.

Which information you wouldn't have been able to use.

[Zelandakh]

Robson advocates the first bid after 1M - 3M being a natural slam try, arguing that Opener can easily be 2-suited here and this allows the partnership to better judge the likelihood for slam. If you are going to blast 6 with this hand then why not 6♦ to give a choice?

[Codo]

In Germany they tried to divide limit raises into 4 and 3 card raises for beginners (Accrding to SEF). Most teachers disagreed, so they switched it back. And I am fine with that, there are bigger problems to solve then this one. For example: Do not pass 5 clubs when you are confused....

I think I had blast 6 Spade after 4 Heart, actually I guess that this is the best bid after 3 ♠ too. As you told us, there had been no way to find out, whether or not she holds the critical cards in the majors.

[EricK]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-06, 02:10, said:

Robson advocates the first bid after 1M - 3M being a natural slam try, arguing that Opener can easily be 2-suited here and this allows the partnership to better judge the likelihood for slam. If you are going to blast 6 with this hand then why not 6♦ to give a choice?

I agree that 4♦ might be a better initial slam try than 4♣, but blasting 6♦ is worse (IMO) than blasting 6♠. The main downside is that it increases the chances that the defense get off to the best lead. You know that partner's ♠ are overwhelmingly likely to be better than his ♦ (stronger and longer), so you will nearly always get a preference back to ♠ anyway.

[han]

RunemPard, on 2012-September-06, 01:37, said:

Yes..The first thing I told her was..."I don't care if you were confused, we had already decided ♠ are trump." Followed by "Your pass was lazy and thoughtless."

And the other common fights that occur when a couple plays bridge.

I only hear these comments when idiots play bridge. I strongly believe that it is possible to play bridge with your spouse and for both to have a good time.

Perhaps I'm biased because my girlfriend has already learned exclusion.

[RunemPard]

han, on 2012-September-06, 03:49, said:

I only hear these comments when idiots play bridge. I strongly believe that it is possible to play bridge with your spouse and for both to have a good time.

Perhaps I'm biased because my girlfriend has already learned exclusion.

We always have a good time...we just tend to bicker too much. She does learn fast, just not as much willingness and interest.

[Antrax]

han, on 2012-September-06, 03:49, said:

Perhaps I'm biased because my girlfriend has already learned exclusion.

You have a girlfriend? I was sure you're like 500 years old.

[han]

Ouch, I'm perceived as another the Hog? Is it my archaic bidding, my general grumpiness or my poor typing skills?

For what it is worth, I'm roughly half as old as the average bridge player. Sadly that's getting closer and closer to 500.

[Antrax]

It's just your gruff, tough-love manner, like a Bridge-playing Clint Eastwood.

[gszes]

sometims the best result possible is diffcult to acheive when there
is a language barrier (ie bidding) btn partners. Instead try thinking
of a way to get the best result possible under the circumstances.

There is no reasonable/safe way to search for 7 so why not just bid
5s asking p to bid 6 with decent spades. Sure it will miss some slams
when p has the heart A and 4 small spades but at least your going to
be in the ball park instead of confusing your p in a bidding sequence you
know they will not understand.

[han]

Antrax, on 2012-September-06, 21:11, said:

It's just your gruff, tough-love manner, like a Bridge-playing Clint Eastwood.

Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot!

[phil_20686]

han, on 2012-September-06, 10:29, said:

Ouch, I'm perceived as another the Hog? Is it my archaic bidding, my general grumpiness or my poor typing skills?

For what it is worth, I'm roughly half as old as the average bridge player. Sadly that's getting closer and closer to 500.

For me it was just the assumption that you already had a bridge widow.

[phil_20686]

han, on 2012-September-07, 06:11, said:

Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot!

Especially those evil empty chairs.