[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

(1♦) 5♦ (Pass) ?

[1♦ shows 4+♦ in a weak 1NT, 4-card majors system]

---

You are playing in the final of the district pivot teams. You were 54 IMPs down going into the last 14 boards and may have picked up about 20 IMPs in the first 10 hands.

You have a semi-regular expert partner and are playing basically your own system, so you know that the notes have nothing about this sequence (nor (1♦)-4♦).

What do you think the 5♦ bid means?

Paul
(who thinks he is imaginative rather than a complete lunatic)

[gwnn]

pass. what can be natural is natural. tell the yelling partner off after.

[whereagles]

Probably something like

x
--
KQJxxxx
KJTxx

Anyway, pass now.

[helene_t]

As far as I recall the only p with whom I have discussed this thinks it's natural.

Oh Csaba plays it as natural as well, that makes two.

[P_Marlowe]

Artificial, no way is this natural.

5NT, pick a slam, I will convert 6C to 6H,
if he bids 6D, he can play it, it may teach
him something.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I wont yell at partner, and if partner yells
at me, he is dead.
And I dont like partners, who bid like this in
a competition we want to do well.

[ArtK78]

I think it shows at least 8 good diamonds and a desire to play in 5♦. This is despite my diamond holding.

Quite frankly, I would be astonished if anyone came up with an alternative explanation (I see that Marlowe came up with one - sorry, I cannot believe that this is artificial).

[helene_t]

Hmmm.... just saw that opps are playing 4-card majors. Makes it impossible that p has 8 diamonds and even 7 is a priori quite unlikely. P probably has some 7600 shape.

[P_Marlowe]

ArtK78, on Apr 21 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

I think it shows at least 8 good diamonds and a desire to play in 5♦. This is despite my diamond holding.

Quite frankly, I would be astonished if anyone came up with an alternative explanation (I see that Phil came up with one - sorry, Phil, I cannot believe that this is artificial).

Given that we hold 2 diamonds, and that they opened
a 4 card suit, and given that there are at most 13
diamonds in the deck, I am pretty sure there needs
to be a different explanation.

And please dont claim they have psyched in first seat
and leading 30IMPs.

One possible alternative explanation is a 2-suiter or a
3-suiter with a diamonds shortage, most likely a void,
which needs almost nothing to play in a small slam.
The Ace is wasted, but I have support for hearts and
spades, and maybe partner has a diamond single.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

Never seen this one before, but I think it should be natural. With other hand types partner can bid another way... So I'd pass.

I hope it's not exclusion blacky

[Gerben42]

If it weren't natural, partner would bid differently. So I pass.

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

Hmmm.... just saw that opps are playing 4-card majors. Makes it impossible that p has 8 diamonds and even 7 is a priori quite unlikely. P probably has some 7600 shape.

I cannot believe that partner could not find some other way of bidding that hand.

Quote

Given that we hold 2 diamonds, and that they opened
a 4 card suit, and given that there are at most 13
diamonds in the deck, I am pretty sure there needs
to be a different explanation.

And please dont claim they have psyched in first seat
and leading 30IMPs.

One possible alternative explanation is a 2-suiter or a
3-suiter with a diamonds shortage, most likely a void,
which needs almost nothing to play in a small slam.
The Ace is wasted, but I have support for hearts and
spades, and maybe partner has a diamond single.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So you base your decision on your own holding? What if you were 6-6-0-1? Now would the 5♦ bid mean diamonds?

The meaning of the bid doesn't change due to the cards in your hand. I don't know why partner is bidding a natural 5♦, but there is NO DOUBT that it is a natural 5♦.

If partner is being creative, so be it.

[P_Marlowe]

ArtK78, on Apr 21 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 21 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

Hmmm.... just saw that opps are playing 4-card majors. Makes it impossible that p has 8 diamonds and even 7 is a priori quite unlikely. P probably has some 7600 shape.

I cannot believe that partner could not find some other way of bidding that hand.

Quote

Given that we hold 2 diamonds, and that they opened
a 4 card suit, and given that there are at most 13
diamonds in the deck, I am pretty sure there needs
to be a different explanation.

And please dont claim they have psyched in first seat
and leading 30IMPs.

One possible alternative explanation is a 2-suiter or a
3-suiter with a diamonds shortage, most likely a void,
which needs almost nothing to play in a small slam.
The Ace is wasted, but I have support for hearts and
spades, and maybe partner has a diamond single.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So you base your decision on your own holding? What if you were 6-6-0-1? Now would the 5♦ bid mean diamonds?

The meaning of the bid doesn't change due to the cards in your hand. I don't know why partner is bidding a natural 5♦, but there is NO DOUBT that it is a natural 5♦.

If partner is being creative, so be it.

No, I dont, the bid is artificial, we dont play in their suit.

For that matter, partner could also bid differently, if he
really holds diamonds, he could have simply passed first,
with the plan to introduce diamonds later.

If he really holds 7 diamonds + outside values, and 1D gets
passed out (not likely but remotely possible) we will collect
200-300 not much vs. 400 (or 600 at a different vulnerability),
but a whole lot safer than making a ... bid, which partner may
or may not get right.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[neilkaz]

I find it most unlikely that noting the opps play 4 card majors and 1♦ guarantees 4, that PD can want to play 5♦. Given our Ax, opener has to have 4 small D's but then lacking a 4 card major or better ♣'s he must have enough to rebid 1NT (15-17).

It just seems so unlikely that PD can have something that wants to play 5♦ and wouldn't be probing around to play a slam (noting we are down 34 imps with 4 hands to go). A hand like whereagles showed is possible, off course but SO unlikely and even then PD could start with a ♣ overcall, although he may have just wanted to shut out major suit competition..however, one doubts the opps sac 5 over 5 when you bid game in their 4 card opened suit and they lead by 34 imps.

The bid sure looks like exclusion to me. But I have to ask the OP two things.

1) I trust you play and have discussed exclusion blackwood ?

2) I don't know if you use skip bid cards in Scotland in this event, but even so, I'd be looking right at RHO after I see PD's 5♦ bid. It would take quite a staid individual to pass in tempo and without some type of reaction. Perhaps you could get a read on whether he was thinking of doubling..ie maybe has a few D's and a possible trick or two. Then again, this isn't MBC where you get an auto double after 5♦ even from "experts".

Anyhow...I really think this is exclusion and if not, and PD want to play 5♦ perhaps my ace means that we can make 6 ( I doubt that with this bidding he can use a possible ♣ ruff).

Anyhow, I rate the chances of PD wanting to play 5♦ given the opp's opening system as about 10%.

[whereagles]

neilkaz, on Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

A hand like whereagles showed is possible, off course but SO unlikely (...)

Well..

(1♦) 5♦

isn't exactly common either

[jtfanclub]

6♦

Either the bid is natural, in which case I've got a nice trick for him, or it isn't, in which case I don't really care which suit he picks.

I'm sure that, in theory, 5NT is better than 6♦, but since we're guaranteed to be going to slam either way, why not make a 6♦ call? Maybe it'll keep him from sacrificing when the opps bid 7♦.

[neilkaz]

whereagles, on Apr 21 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

neilkaz, on Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

A hand like whereagles showed is possible, off course but SO unlikely (...)

Well..

(1♦) 5♦

isn't exactly common either

That is true, but the odds of PD wanting to play 5♦..and forcing the opener to have a very flat 4 small D's (ACOL weak NT 4 card majors) seems too far fetched to me.

I suspect PD has something like AK, AKQxxxxx, void, KQx and decided to get right to the point since all he care's about is the ace of ♣. True, he could slow play it, but then perhaps the opps have 11 or 12 D's and are at 5♦ when the bidding comes back to him.

I'd honestly play this as natural if the opps were playing sayc where 1♦ could be three or could be a weak NT type of hand with one or two 4 card majors, but here, I really think it very unlikely that PD can want to play 5♦.

[jdonn]

This is the most natural bid that has ever existed. If partner thinks otherwise I immediately download for him Learn to Play Bridge.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

This is the most natural bid that has ever existed. If partner thinks otherwise I immediately download for him Learn to Play Bridge.

Once again, I totally agree.

With the exception of Marlowe, who has an agreement with his partner(s) that they NEVER want to play in the opponent's suit, so the bid cannot be natural, I would say that the rest of the world would play this as natural.

And even then, I cannot imagine why one would want to make this bid. If nothing else, it is a maximum confusion bid.

[paulg]

neilkaz, on Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

The bid sure looks like exclusion to me. But I have to ask the OP two things.

1) I trust you play and have discussed exclusion blackwood ?

2) I don't know if you use skip bid cards in Scotland in this event, but even so, I'd be looking right at RHO after I see PD's 5♦ bid. It would take quite a staid individual to pass in tempo and without some type of reaction. Perhaps you could get a read on whether he was thinking of doubling..ie maybe has a few D's and a possible trick or two. Then again, this isn't MBC where you get an auto double after 5♦ even from "experts".

Exclusion is not in the notes.

Stop cards are compulsory, and are used properly, in Scotland. RHO is an experienced international player, you are not getting much out of him.

p

[neilkaz]

cardsharp, on Apr 21 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

The bid sure looks like exclusion to me. But I have to ask the OP two things.

1) I trust you play and have discussed exclusion blackwood ?

2) I don't know if you use skip bid cards in Scotland in this event, but even so, I'd be looking right at RHO after I see PD's 5♦ bid. It would take quite a staid individual to pass in tempo and without some type of reaction. Perhaps you could get a read on whether he was thinking of doubling..ie maybe has a few D's and a possible trick or two. Then again, this isn't MBC where you get an auto double after 5♦ even from "experts".

Exclusion is not in the notes.

Stop cards are compulsory, and are used properly, in Scotland. RHO is an experienced international player, you are not getting much out of him.

p

OK, Paul...if exclusion is not in the notes in any manner..ie and assuming that you don't play it with this PD regardless of the sequence then I agree with the others that PD has the very rare hand that is bidding 5♦ to make.

Without discussion I suspect that he is expecting my hand to provide something and doesn't have 11 cashing tricks with my ace providing #12.