[Rossoneri]

---

Your go!

[whereagles]

6S.

I can't possibly figure out who's got the key cards, so I'll take my percentage shot.

A 2♣ bid also comes to mind lol. If pard raises that, we can keycard and ask for the club queen. Pard will have a hard time later, though.. lol.

[xcurt]

6S seems about right. The need to avoid both 3rd and 4th round club losers augers poorly for 7. Against that, there are lots of poor club holdings (Txx) that partner will never value but give me play for 6 even if we had space and time to force, set spades, and try in clubs. Plus the opponents will take a lot of time following to 7 rounds of spades so I might as well accelerate the auction.

[Zelandakh]

The first question is, if we start slowly with 2♠ can we get any useful information? Well, I suppose it is possible for partner to bid clubs now so maybe. I think it is unlikely the opps will find a 7 level sac at these colours even when it is right so I am going to start with a simple 2♠ response and see what it brings. I reckon I can always bid 6♠ later.

This would be an interesting problem with the colours reversed - how to play 6♠ without the opponents sacrificing in 7♦.

[whereagles]

That's easy: just bid 3NT

[Codo]

Obvious 4 ♥ exclusion followed by 5 ♦exclusion there. I always plays it this way with a 9004 hand.

And sorry my queen asking question is still not flawless.
Anyway for the problem: I try 6 ♠ too and bid 7 ♠ after they tried 7 diamond.

[Statto]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-06, 04:31, said:

The first question is, if we start slowly with 2♠ can we get any useful information?

Or, what would double mean? Would that be more likely to solicit a ♣ bid?

[bigbenvic]

Hard to bid 2♣ as they've already bid 2♦.

6♠ is a good punt but I want to get Pards help if I can. Does 3♦ set ♥? If it could be a general forcing bid, I want to bid that and then 5♠.

With a pick up partner I think 6♠ is a reasonable punt and it shouldn't be confusing. I reckon I'm 1 off (just a feeling) but JT of clubs is all it needs so I'll have a crack.

[Rossoneri]

---

I chose 6♠ at the table, figuring partner and I probably wouldn't have the methods to find 7 anyway if it's there. I made 12 tricks after the K♥ lead.

This was a Pairs event scored as Butler IMPs, and for those interested in seeing some results: Click on any name, then look for board 37

Interestingly, is there any play for 13 tricks playing single-dummy?

[Quartic]

Rossoneri, on 2012-February-07, 09:06, said:

I chose 6♠ at the table, figuring partner and I probably wouldn't have the methods to find 7 anyway if it's there. I made 12 tricks after the K♥ lead.

This was a Pairs event scored as Butler IMPs, and for those interested in seeing some results: Click on any name, then look for board 37

Interestingly, is there any play for 13 tricks playing single-dummy?

Dropping a doubleton QJ♣ should be enough.

Btw, it appears you misremembered the hand in your first post - you gave West the K♣.

I don't remember our auction, but we only got to 5♠. It was something like:

---

But I could easily have missed a bid or added one that wasn't there.

[Zelandakh]

(1♦) - 1♥ - (2♦) - 2♠
3♣ - 4NT (XRKCB)
5♥ - 6♠ seems reasonable, no? Although I notice the hands have changed since the OP...

[han]

To me 1D - 1H - 2D - 2S is not forcing. I wouldn't bid it.

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-February-06, 19:23, said:

Or, what would double mean? Would that be more likely to solicit a ♣ bid?

Wouldn't you be a bit worried that it would get passed out? Partner probably has a lot of diamonds.

[Statto]

gnasher, on 2012-February-07, 11:59, said:

Wouldn't you be a bit worried that [double] would get passed out? Partner probably has a lot of diamonds.

A little, but in the original hand, we had 17 HCP, opener presumably 11+, partner probably 9+, leaving a max of 3 for RHO. So their vul competitive raise is probably based on shape and ♦ length, and there isn't much room for partner to have many high cards in ♦, making it much less likely they would be able to pass for penalty. But if they do, and we had 2 inescapable ♣ losers in 6♠ (much more likely if partner can pass 2♦X), any plus score would show a profit.

I'd also be a little worried that 2♠ might get passed out (unless it's absolutely forcing). Perhaps a safer option is 3♦, though it's more likely to solicit 3NT than 4♣, which may not really help...

If we can't discover any more useful information, then 6♠ must be the odds-on bet. I'm less certain after the ♣K has metamorphosed into ♣6, though it probably still is - finding partner with ♥A and ♣Q onside would be enough

[Fluffy]

wow, so rare, I just got to BBO to play with some friends and they were in 7♠ with declarer having:

♠AKQJ109642
♥-
♦-
♣AQ108

http://www.bridgebas...6979-1327557729

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-7326979-1327557729"]http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-7326979-1327557729

[daveharty]

Fluffy, on 2012-February-07, 18:33, said:

wow, so rare, I just got to BBO to play with some friends and they were in 7♠ with declarer having:

♠AKQJ109642
♥-
♦-
♣AQ108

@$#$*% computer hands.

[lamford]

daveharty, on 2012-February-07, 19:19, said:

@$#$*% computer hands.

There was a manually dealt hand in Truscott's Grand Slams where as dealer at game all you have the following:
♠none ♥AQ10xxxxxxxx ♦none ♣KJ. This was an international team tournament in Brazil and featured the largest ever swing of 25 IMPs (7H= and 7NTx-7). The scale was changed a year later and the maximum is now 24!

[CSGibson]

one of my favorite hands of all time was 9-4

---

It was in this year's Vanderbilt, where we were being killed in a match against the Jacobs squad (Bocchi & Ferraro as our opponents). These were hand-dealt boards.

I just took a flier in 7♥ (did I mention we were down tons?), and partner's long running minor was clubs, so it was laydown after the opening lead. They actually have a good red vs white 7 level sac in 7♠.

[Fluffy]

CSGibson, on 2012-February-08, 14:13, said:

one of my favorite hands of all time was 9-4

---

It was in this year's Vanderbilt, where we were being killed in a match against the Jacobs squad (Bocchi & Ferraro as our opponents). These were hand-dealt boards.

I just took a flier in 7♥ (did I mention we were down tons?), and partner's long running minor was clubs, so it was laydown after the opening lead. They actually have a good red vs white 7 level sac in 7♠.

7♣ might be an improvement, you might even make 7♦ on a pointed suit lead, but 7♥ will be hopeless

[CSGibson]

Fluffy, on 2012-February-08, 14:57, said:

7♣ might be an improvement, you might even make 7♦ on a pointed suit lead, but 7♥ will be hopeless

Obviously I thought partner's minor was diamonds (wouldn't you?), but I thought that A) he might have the club ace anyway, B) they might make the wrong lead and let me make with the ace of spades and the AKQ of diamonds, or C) they might make the wrong lead and let me make with partner having 4 diamond tricks and a heart entry which would allow me to draw trump ending in dummy.

Plus, did I mention that we were down so far that we couldn't realistically catch up in the 4th quarter, and chose not to withdraw despite enticement from our opponents because we figured we needed the experience playing against world class opponents more than they needed an hour of extra rest?