[straube]

My hand is void AQJ8 AQ AK97653

We play a strong club, so the auction goes...

P 1C (4S) dbl P

Apparently some kibitzers were critical of my 6C call. I don't think they understood that we were playing Pass Double Inversion (partner had forgotten this recent change and presumably didn't alert his double). Partner's double shows takeout/balanced shape and could be a zero count. The idea is to get to the right strain (whether we take the bid or double them off) vs the right level. Our agreements are that...

1) We pull on slam bidding because responder may have that zero count.
2) If partner has a balanced hand and a bust he will pass and hope that opener chooses to double (opener is require to double or introduce a single-suited hand).

I thought my hand looked better after the double. I had the expectation for a club fit. I can hope that partner has a useful card.

Does my 6C bid look better now or do folks think I should pull with 5C?

[akhare]

I think that pard's actions were quite justified given that I misremembered our agreements over high level interference.

In this case, P over 1♣ - (4♠) would have shown either a penalty X or two places to play (Pass / double inversion).

Since X by me showed a takeout shape (ostensibly in a weak hand), 6♣ seems to be a fair (if optimistic) shot.

On this layout, opener would have likely pulled to pass of 4♠ to 5♣, for a push.

[gszes]

I have tried reading your agreements and both pass and x seem to cover the
same types of hands (maybe i just cant understand sigh)


Anyway if I understand your system sort of correctly having a club fit
alone is insufficient for slam bidding--anytime p is busted you need at
least 3 entries to try the heart finesses and the dia finesse and hope
at least 1 of them works and you can get a ruff in also--which means
you probably cant afford to pull even 1 round of trumps and will risk a
ruff by the 4s bidder. Too optimistic. Espeically in light of the fact that
you will be expressing slam values by merely bidding 5c and letting p
move with values.

[nathan2008]

6c is ok for me. Question: is 5s better than 6c? pd might have 4 or 5h with HK, in this case, 7h might be possible.

[straube]

gszes, on 2012-June-25, 10:11, said:

I have tried reading your agreements and both pass and x seem to cover the
same types of hands (maybe i just cant understand sigh)


Anyway if I understand your system sort of correctly having a club fit
alone is insufficient for slam bidding--anytime p is busted you need at
least 3 entries to try the heart finesses and the dia finesse and hope
at least 1 of them works and you can get a ruff in also--which means
you probably cant afford to pull even 1 round of trumps and will risk a
ruff by the 4s bidder. Too optimistic. Espeically in light of the fact that
you will be expressing slam values by merely bidding 5c and letting p
move with values.

I'll try to explain.

P shows a penalty double or a 2-suited hand or a balanced hand that prefers to sit for a double rather than encourage partner to bid.

Dbl shows a balanced hand that encourages partner to bid (probably doubleton spade) or a takeout shape with support for all the suits.

After partner's double, 5C would not express slam values. It only would show a minimum hand with likely 5+ clubs.

I basically have to guess if partner has enough stuff for 6C to make. I guessed wrong. Had partner held my RHO's hand, we'd have made 7C.

I think 6C was optimistic, but 5C was pessimistic. I have better than a 3-loser hand.

[straube]

nathan2008, on 2012-June-25, 10:18, said:

6c is ok for me. Question: is 5s better than 6c? pd might have 4 or 5h with HK, in this case, 7h might be possible.

Interesting question. I think you might be right.

[gnasher]

6♣ looks reasonable to me, given your agremeents. If partner is 2443, he's more likely to have a red king than not.

I can't say I like the agreements much, though.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2012-June-25, 11:53, said:

6♣ looks reasonable to me, given your agremeents. If partner is 2443, he's more likely to have a red king than not.

I can't say I like the agreements much, though.

I'm unsure of them, too. awm doesn't like this agreement here, either. Wondering if they would make more sense for 5-level interference. Over 4M, we have 4N to show 2-suited hands (and this is the main benefit of PDI here). Over 5C (for example), there's no convenient way for responder to show a 2-suited hand without pass and pull.