[sathyab]

Scoring: IMP

(2s)-p-(4s)-X-(p)-5d-(p)-?

---

Partner doesn't need much for a slam. ♦KJxxx[x] may be all that he needs, as the heart finesse may be on as well. Do you to think this is worth one more bid and if so is there anything better than 6♦ ?

[Codo]

6 ♦ is enough for me.
Pd did not pass, nor did he bid 4 NT, so he should have real diamonds and xx,xxx,Kxxxx,xxx is enough for a real good slam.

[Fluffy]

Partner could be broke with spade shortness, but such is life, 6♦might get a phantom sacrifice then.

[fachiru]

The title "stay fixed?" (to me) means "pass 5♦?"
But the OP goes on to actually suggesting that bidding the small slam may not suffice...lol
Bidding 6♦ here seems pretty clear to me now and nothing else "fairly sane" comes to mind.

[Apollo81]

I would stay fixed. In my experience partner doesn't always pass the double on the hands where you'd expect him to, so I'd just take the plus and hope for a push.

[neilkaz]

Codo, on Feb 16 2009, 03:00 AM, said:

6 ♦ is enough for me.
Pd did not pass, nor did he bid 4 NT, so he should have real diamonds and xx,xxx,Kxxxx,xxx is enough for a real good slam.

I agree. I'll take my shot with 6♦

[MFA]

6♦ for me.

Although Codo's xx, xxx, Kxxxx, xxx hardly is enough for a good slam. Try a spade, spade defense...

[rogerclee]

Definitely 6♦

[sathyab]

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

[jdonn]

Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed!

No explanation = obvious to the answerer. That in itself is good information.

6♦ for me too. Bid because I think it will make a fair amount more often than it will go down. (I guess the prior sentence is what you are looking for, but I don't see what it really teaches anyone?)

[orlam]

sathyab, on Feb 19 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

LOL

[rogerclee]

sathyab, on Feb 19 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum.

[Hanoi5]

6♦.

[sathyab]

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

sathyab, on Feb 19 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Definitely 6♦

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum.

If you don't consider the problem interesting enough for a non-cryptic response, please feel free to post nothing at all. I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Feb 19 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Lol. Vindictive logic is definitely the funniest type of logic there is, though not quite the most logical.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

sathyab, on Feb 19 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

Lol. Vindictive logic is definitely the funniest type of logic there is, though not quite the most logical.

Quite possibly. But "is's obvious that we should be bidding 6♦ because it'll make more often than not" is about as compelling as "it's obvious that we should pass, because 6♦ will go down more often not". I have found stronger logical arguments in grand ma's recipe books.

After I posted this hand, I had an opportunity to talk to a player who's National and World champion, at the Burlingame regional. This is how he responded.

First of all, he didn't start out by dismissing the problem as "obviously 6♦ rates to make, so bid it". He did say that we should be bidding more, as partner doesn't need much. Not much disagreement there, as I noted myself in the original post. I pointed out that I have only 3 ♦s and if he partner has only a five-bagger, we may have a trump loser in 6♦, while 6♣ could easily be better. He suggested that you should try 5nt as you're happy with any choice partner makes. If he bids 6♣ you're happier. If all he could do was bid 6♦ you are no worse than bidding 6♦ directly and you know that there was probably no other better strain.

[Fluffy]

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

[sathyab]

Fluffy, on Feb 19 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

your diamond loser will still be a diamond loser if you play in clubs, but your heart losers might no longer be losers in diamonds. But maybe they still are losers in clubs. Sorry for not pointing this before, maybe I though it was obvious.

Really ?! What if partner has x Kxx Kxxxx Jxxx. If clubs break 3-1, and Diamonds break 4-1, you can pull trumps, establish Diamonds with one ruff. Partner bids 6♣ only when he has a second suit. If he has a single suiter in Diamonds he bids 6♦.

[sathyab]

Fluffy, on Feb 19 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

Partner didn't bid 4nt over the double of 4♠ because of the disparity in his minor suits which you already know about, as you're looking at a 100-honor club suit.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Feb 19 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

IMO bidding 5NT/6♣ will get us to the wrong contract more often than to the good one. Partner might become entryless playing in clubs, our diamond losers won't magically go away if we play in clubs either. Only when partner has ♠xxx♥x♦Kxxxx♣Jxxx it will be better to play in clubs. And partner didn't bid 4NT the round before remember.

Disagree with diamond loser will exist in clubs. Agree with there is no point in asking since if partner is 5-4 he bids 4NT not 5♦.