[Fluffy]

♠6
♥K953
♦K8652
♣Q65


2♣-2♦
2NT-3♣ 22-23 bal/puppet
3NT-4♦ no majors/natural
4NT-?? 4NT = negative

[jmcw]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-04, 18:16, said:

♠6
♥K953
♦K8652
♣Q65


2♣-2♦
2NT-3♣ 22-23 bal/puppet
3NT-4♦ no majors/natural
4NT-?? 4NT = negative

pass and hope you can make!

[Hanoi5]

Partner doesn't have Majors and doesn't like diamonds? Does it mean he has clubs? Could he have a 3334? 6♣ looks kind of gambling but it's either that or pass.

[whereagles]

Since 4NT is misfit, this sure looks like an easy pass.

[mikeh]

I'm with everyone else (so far). My guess is that either they ran the spade suit on us in 4N or partner held 5 or 6 clubs and slam was cold.

pass seems so obvious that there has to be a reason for posting it, and that reason has to be that passing worked out badly.

[mikeh]

As an add-on to my last post, and off-topic, it seems to me that many of the threads on this forum, while frequently interesting, may create a distorted view of correct bidding judgment.

Whether it be this kind of post or an ATB thread, we never see examples of normal bidding leading to normal results.

We see either bad bidding leading to bad results....and ATB threads arising therefrom....or normal bidding leading to bad results.....again with ATB threads or threads like this one (assuming I am correct in the inference I have drawn).

The former are informative: the latter are misleading. They are misleading because in almost all ATB threads and many of these 'what do you bid' threads, there will be posts putting forward profoundly flawed answers that happen to work well on the real life hand underlying the post. This is especially true in ATB, where a number of posters seem to always be able to reach the best contract no matter how unrealistic it may be in real life, but it also happens on these what would you bid threads, and more so after the companion hand/real life result is made known.

This rant is not intended to reduce these threads....for one thing, what seems obvious to me won't seem obvious to others, nor will any single poster's view of 'normal' or 'obvious' be always correct....the purpose of the rant was mainly to sound a perhaps unnecessary cautionary note to those non-experts who look to these sorts of threads as a guide to improving their bidding judgment....some of the threads are (imo) very useful for that, but others are not so good and it can be difficult for a non-expert to tell them apart, when some of the people who post frequently seem to always find working answers. I would suggest that if you identify a poster who almost always comes up with a 'successful' auction, then that poster is probably not worth much attention.

[jmcw]

mikeh, on 2011-October-05, 12:00, said:

..............This rant is not intended to reduce these threads....for one thing, what seems obvious to me won't seem obvious to others, nor will any single poster's view of 'normal' or 'obvious' be always correct....the purpose of the rant was mainly to sound a perhaps unnecessary cautionary note to those non-experts who look to these sorts of threads as a guide to improving their bidding judgment....some of the threads are (imo) very useful for that, but others are not so good and it can be difficult for a non-expert to tell them apart, when some of the people who post frequently seem to always find working answers. I would suggest that if you identify a poster who almost always comes up with a 'successful' auction, then that poster is probably not worth much attention.

I think you could say similar for most subject matter that is debated openly by the well informed and the less so.
As you suggest I participate with a view to improvement and better understanding on topics of particular interest me.
I'm no expert, but I think there are enough expert opinions expressed in this forum that it remains a helpful tool in my development as a player.


Only thing I don't like is the cheap shots and rude comments that show up from time to time.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-October-05, 11:37, said:

I'm with everyone else (so far). My guess is that either they ran the spade suit on us in 4N or partner held 5 or 6 clubs and slam was cold.

pass seems so obvious that there has to be a reason for posting it, and that reason has to be that passing worked out badly.

While we're all letting our hair down, it seems to me that we have rather too many posts of this sort, where people make disparaging guesses about the reason for posting a problem. Fluffy may have had any of a number of reasons for posting this hand: maybe he thought it was interesting or close; maybe he did bid and that turned out to be wrong; maybe somebody else thought it was right to bid and he wants more opinons; maybe he's unsure about what partner's 4NT bid actually says about his hand.

[paulg]

mikeh, on 2011-October-05, 11:37, said:

I'm with everyone else (so far). My guess is that either they ran the spade suit on us in 4N or partner held 5 or 6 clubs and slam was cold.

pass seems so obvious that there has to be a reason for posting it, and that reason has to be that passing worked out badly.

Or perhaps there was a long hesitation before the 4NT call and Fluffy is polling for LAs.

[gnasher]

Going back to the original problem, it's easy to construct deals where slam is excellent: KJx AQx Ax AKJxx, for example. One problem is that we may be off two aces, eg KQJ AQx Qx AKJxx. Also, can partner also have a 3334 that he decided wasn't worth a cue-bid?

It would be nice if we could try 5♣, but I think that's forcing.

[Fluffy]

partner had KQ AQx Ax AKxxxx, at the other table the elected to make this 24-25 and won 6NT.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-October-06, 03:33, said:

Going back to the original problem, it's easy to construct deals where slam is excellent: KJx AQx Ax AKJxx, for example. One problem is that we may be off two aces, eg KQJ AQx Qx AKJxx. Also, can partner also have a 3334 that he decided wasn't worth a cue-bid?

It would be nice if we could try 5♣, but I think that's forcing.

I agree 5♣ is forcing, but I think partner can retreat to 5N, non-forcing?
I think 5♣ is a good bid. There is a good chance that partner has 6 clubs, and he will be able to judge well.

[the hog]

I am passing and actually I would have probably passed 3NT and not bid 4D.