Help
We got to the good spot of 6♠, but 6♦ is safer. How could our auction have been improved?
No one else reached slam, so 6♦ +1 would have also been a top.
Page 1 of 1
Void opposite Void
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 285
- Joined: 2010-December-19
- Gender:Male
- Location:England
- Interests:Walking, Climbing, Mathematics, Programming, Linux, Reading, Bridge.
Posted 2012-July-03, 04:34
Playing last night at my local club this hand came up:
We got to the good spot of 6♠, but 6♦ is safer. How could our auction have been improved?
No one else reached slam, so 6♦ +1 would have also been a top.
We got to the good spot of 6♠, but 6♦ is safer. How could our auction have been improved?
No one else reached slam, so 6♦ +1 would have also been a top.
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 2010-December-02
Posted 2012-July-03, 06:52
Since 2♠ shows 5+♠4+♦, W can place the contract in the known 10 card fit instead of the 8card fit
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,091
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2012-July-03, 06:58
West could have not got greedy and just bid 6♦ as his last bid. There are plenty of other options, but I don't have any problems with any of your bids.
One alternative would be to redouble 4♥ to show a first round control. Whether you have the agreement that having done this with a suit agreed, if partner is looking at the ace of that suit he doesn't show it to a subsequent blackwood ask as you're clearly void is up to you.
Another would have been to bid 4♥ instead of 3♠, I'd be interested what other people think it means.
One alternative would be to redouble 4♥ to show a first round control. Whether you have the agreement that having done this with a suit agreed, if partner is looking at the ace of that suit he doesn't show it to a subsequent blackwood ask as you're clearly void is up to you.
Another would have been to bid 4♥ instead of 3♠, I'd be interested what other people think it means.
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 285
- Joined: 2010-December-19
- Gender:Male
- Location:England
- Interests:Walking, Climbing, Mathematics, Programming, Linux, Reading, Bridge.
Posted 2012-July-03, 07:06
Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-03, 06:58, said:
West could have not got greedy and just bid 6♦ as his last bid. There are plenty of other options, but I don't have any problems with any of your bids.
One alternative would be to redouble 4♥ to show a first round control. Whether you have the agreement that having done this with a suit agreed, if partner is looking at the ace of that suit he doesn't show it to a subsequent blackwood ask as you're clearly void is up to you.
Another would have been to bid 4♥ instead of 3♠, I'd be interested what other people think it means.
One alternative would be to redouble 4♥ to show a first round control. Whether you have the agreement that having done this with a suit agreed, if partner is looking at the ace of that suit he doesn't show it to a subsequent blackwood ask as you're clearly void is up to you.
Another would have been to bid 4♥ instead of 3♠, I'd be interested what other people think it means.
We did have the agreement that redouble shows first round control. I'm not sure why my partner didn't choose to use it.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2012-July-03, 11:30
Based on your agreements, the bidding looks fine to me.
It seems like West just made the matchpoint judgement to bid the higher scoring slam.
At IMPS, it would be 100% right to bid 6 ♦ instead which rates to be the safer slam.
It seems like West just made the matchpoint judgement to bid the higher scoring slam.
At IMPS, it would be 100% right to bid 6 ♦ instead which rates to be the safer slam.
Page 1 of 1