[Fluffy]

♠108xx
♥7xx
♦A109xx
♣J


first hand, nobody vul, partner opens 1♠ second position passed to you

[Dirk Kuijt]

I'm bidding only 2♠ because:

1. I think I (barely) have the values for it.
2. I'm not that worried about the opponents since:
a. we have the spades
b. they have each passed once
3. I want to give partner room to make a game try

[jdonn]

I bid 2♠. If I was vul I would probably make a preemptive raise.

[Fluffy]

for the 2♠ bidders one more question:

Spoiler

4NT-5♣-5♦... do you have ♠Q

[Dirk Kuijt]

I'm regretting my 2♠ bid now, but I don't have any reason to fudge the answer to "do I have the ♠Q?"

No.

[jjbrr]

same

[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on Feb 9 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

for the 2♠ bidders one more question:

Spoiler

4NT-5♣-5♦... do you have ♠Q

I'd show the queen, partner is extremely likely to have 6+ spades when the auction goes that way since he is driving to slam opposite such a weak bid and couldn't open 2C, and if he has a 2 suiter like 5-5, he would probably make some effort to get to the other 5 card suit (and he would also need a REALLY big hand), and even if he somehow has non solid spades with 5-5 and bid this way, worse things have happened than needing to drop the SQ in 6S.

[quiddity]

I thought it was standard practice to pretend to have the queen when you have reason to suspect a 9+ card fit and partner doesn't know about it. Is there something specific about this hand that makes it wrong to do so?

[PhantomSac]

quiddity, on Feb 9 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

I thought it was standard practice to pretend to have the queen when you have reason to suspect a 9+ card fit and partner doesn't know about it. Is there something specific about this hand that makes it wrong to do so?

Well the theory is if you have 10 trumps you obv want to be in slam. If you know you have 9 then you don't want to be in slam (even with the jack you're only slightly >50, and there is usually some handling/possible ruffs etc that brings you below that, and sometimes you don't have the jack), so you shouldn't show it if you're sure you have 9.

I don't know if there's any prevailing theory on situations where you have 9 or 10, but keep in mind in some auctions partner might be bidding SEVEN in which case it's a disaster if you actually don't have the queen (unless you haave 10). My guess is you should just judge how likely you are to have 9 vs 10, and how likely it is partner is trying for 7 vs 6, and make your best decision. In an auction like this I think that it's so likely that partner has 6 spades, and so unlikely partner is going to bid 7, that it is definitely right to show it.

[hanp]

Definitely 2S and I don't feel bad about it. Showing the queen is less clear. I like the argument by Justin but I think at the table I wouldn't have shown it.

[jdonn]

I like showing the queen. Even if I'm light for my initial raise I'm not at all ashamed of my hand for slam. And it's true partner very likely has 6+ spades because if he was 5-5 then he would look for another fit before keycard and if he has less shape than that he can't be good enough for keycard.

[MFA]

Does anybody play 5♥ as "I don't know" in this specific sequence?
Maybe it's worth it to try to cater to this annoying and frequent trump problem - also for exploring grand slams (probably not relevant here though).

Agree with showing the queen.

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

I like showing the queen. Even if I'm light for my initial raise I'm not at all ashamed of my hand for slam.

Agree with 2♠ initially and showing the queen now.

But is this really light for a constructive raise? Maybe I should do a simulation but I think that this hand opposite a 1♠ opener has a slightly higher trick expectation than a random 8-10 4432 with 3 card support. I gave some though to bidding 4♠ instead of 2♠.

[mcphee]

I like 4S . Although 3S is weak these are the sort of hands where you can find partner passing 3S when a little good fortune allows 4 to make.

[Fluffy]

the correct thing to do was to show ♠Q, however the bridge god was laughing, and ♠Qxx was offside


♠AKJxxx
♥x
♦x
♣AKxxx

I said no to ♠Q thinking that my slight overbid before might lead to a finese slam, and even if we have 10 trumps a finese and the possible spade 3-0 will make it a bad slam. But actually the fast bidding suggests there is no finese oouside trumps, althou you have to also take into accout hands such as ♠AJ9xx and ♠KJ9xxx but I think my 5♠ was a bad bid.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Feb 10 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

the correct thing to do was to show ♠Q, however the bridge god was laughing, and ♠Qxx was offside


♠AKJxxx
♥x
♦x
♣AKxxx

I said no to ♠Q thinking that my slight overbid before might lead to a finese slam, and even if we have 10 trumps a finese and the possible spade 3-0 will make it a bad slam. But actually the fast bidding suggests there is no finese oouside trumps, althou you have to also take into accout hands such as ♠AJ9xx and ♠KJ9xxx but I think my 5♠ was a bad bid.

Fluffy how can partner have AJ9xx of spades and just bid blackwood like that? It's impossible. As for KJ9xxx it's not likely but even if you think it's possible he will pick up trumps when the queen of spades is onside or singleton ace is onside, which is about 63%.

[Siegmund]

I like 2♠ initially (under protest that my agreement is 8-10, which mine never is.)

I wouldn't show the queen - only when we have two extra trumps, and I'm not convinced partner always has six - those of you who feel partner is overwhelmingly likely to have six, I can see why you did it.

Of course, 4NT by opener was the wrong rebid IMO (and I would say that just about regardless of what opener's hand was.)