[kenrexford]

Funny two problems, from a psychological/marketing standpoint.

Hand #1. I open 1NT and partner bids 2D, transfer to 2H, which I bid. Partner now bids 2S, undiscussed. I assumed 5-4 invitational, as no specific agreement trumped this. However, holding Axxxx-AK-Qxx-Kxx, I paused for thought. Perhaps 2S was some undiscussed weird relay? Perhaps I should bid 3D which, undiscussed, might be taken as a "flag" call, showing spade support and a maximum. However, the minor controls seemed ugly, and 3D was also undiscussed. So, I decided upon 4S, passed out for down 3. Partner, the expert, claimed that I should clearly bid 3D as a flag bid if 2S might have been misunderstood, to land us at 3D.

Hand #2. Partner opened 1NT (15-17), and I held AKxx-Qx-KJ10x-Axx. I "knew" that the field would push to the slam, but I disliked my hand. So, undiscussed, I opted 3C (Puppet) and followed 3D (has one) with 5NT (Choice-of-Slams). I hoped that partner would focus the minor is he held one. He held four diamonds but instead bid 6H. We landed in 6NT with the field, down two. 6D was cold. Thinking that this auction (3C, then 5NT) screamed for a minor call more than any other option, I elected this over 2C...5NT or a direct 5NT. This was seen by the expert as insanity. Instead, my option should have been 4NT quantitative, apparently.

Is this marketing or legitimate???

[jdonn]

1) Partner has lost his marbles. I don't make bids with the sole purpose of catering to partner losing his marbles. Enough said. What did he even have?

2) I think you should follow through with 3♥ over 3♦. If partner has spades you search for slam in that suit, if he instead bids 3NT now you can bid your 5NT which clearly focuses on the minors at this point. That should make your intentions more clear than you actually did, if nothing else.

[Gerben42]

Quote

claimed that I should clearly bid 3D as a flag bid if 2S might have been misunderstood, to land us at 3D.

Huh? Partner bids ♠ without having them and then blames you for not bidding ♦ without having them. Funny game you are playing!

Quote

I hoped that partner would focus the minor is he held one

And rightfully so, I would have gone for 3♥ though (I have ♠ but not ♥).

Another hint is when in doubt listen to Josh instead of your "expert" partner.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 15 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

1) Partner has lost his marbles. I don't make bids with the sole purpose of catering to partner losing his marbles. Enough said. What did he even have?

2) I think you should follow through with 3♥ over 3♦. If partner has spades you search for slam in that suit, if he instead bids 3NT now you can bid your 5NT which clearly focuses on the minors at this point. That should make your intentions more clear than you actually did, if nothing else.

Very well said. Especially Point 1.

[jdonn]

People have constantly been referring back to my posts lately. I should charge a fee, for their comedy value if nothing else

[pclayton]

Ken:

0. Only one partner can mastermind at a time.

1. 3♦ as a 'flag call' is laughable. He forgets the system (thinking he's playing Walsh Relay), and gives you the charge. I suppose with this joker you are supposed to bid a slooowww 2N......

2. I'm not sure I understand your system. Generally when one plays 3♣ puppet over 1N, 2♣ Stayman is reserved for signoffs, invites and slam tries. But anyway, it seems you should continue with 3♥ (tell your pard about your major), and continue with 5N over 3N over something else if he likes spades.

All bids either 'ask' or 'show'..........Lets 'show' with 3♥. The jump to 5N can wait. Why keep pard in the dark? (although I can see doing so with this one).

[Free]

Agree with what's said here:
1. ridiculous reaction of your partner
2. better show your ♠ first, then 5NT is what you want to bid. But still, bidding 5NT immediatly should deny a 4 card M and ask for minors as well, just hiding the ♠ suit (why?).

[kenrexford]

Perhaps this is IMP thinking gone wrong, but I thought I'd explain the reasoning behind "hiding" the major.

I held, again, AKxx-Qx-KJ10x-Axx. Give partner both four diamonds and four spades, where strain makes a difference. Give him equal holding in each of Qxxx. Give him, then, AKx in hearts and KQ tight in clubs. This is just for an example. On this layout, I do not need trumps to split 3-2 if diamonds are trumps, but I do if spades are trumps. Hence, because of the slow diamond values and fast spade values, diamonds seems to be the superior contract.

Sure, you might object that holding three of the top five diamonds and only two of the top five spades suggests that partner may well be more likely to have reciprocal spade preference. But, that slight shift of the odds is outweighed by the slight chance of 4252 pattern, where a diamond slam seems superior, especially with an anticipated club pitch.

I understand that 5NT suggests lacking a four-card major, but will partner randomly bypass 6H or 6S on that inference if he has four of the major?

As a final thought, I would venture that the frequency of matching-pattern hands is relatively small, such that landing at 6D is rarely beaten by a 6S contract that is also making.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on May 16 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Perhaps this is IMP thinking gone wrong, but I thought I'd explain the reasoning behind "hiding" the major.

I held, again, AKxx-Qx-KJ10x-Axx. Give partner both four diamonds and four spades, where strain makes a difference. Give him equal holding in each of Qxxx. Give him, then, AKx in hearts and KQ tight in clubs. This is just for an example. On this layout, I do not need trumps to split 3-2 if diamonds are trumps, but I do if spades are trumps. Hence, because of the slow diamond values and fast spade values, diamonds seems to be the superior contract.

Sure, you might object that holding three of the top five diamonds and only two of the top five spades suggests that partner may well be more likely to have reciprocal spade preference. But, that slight shift of the odds is outweighed by the slight chance of 4252 pattern, where a diamond slam seems superior, especially with an anticipated club pitch.

I understand that 5NT suggests lacking a four-card major, but will partner randomly bypass 6H or 6S on that inference if he has four of the major?

As a final thought, I would venture that the frequency of matching-pattern hands is relatively small, such that landing at 6D is rarely beaten by a 6S contract that is also making.

What you are referring to is the Vondracek principle. I've never seen it discussed in BBF, but there were a few articles in the BW a number of years back that discussed the benefits of playing in a weaker trump suit.

I don't think your example hand of Qxxx, AKx, Qxxx, KQ really applies, since 6N is a lot superior to either 6♦ or 6♠. Furthermore, the same 4-1 spade split scuttles 6♦ since they (perhaps) can manoever a ♠ ruff.

But its a sensible idea, and its not too tough to come up with a lot of different hands where 6♦ is better than 6♠ (or 6N); xxxx, AKx, AQxx, Kx. Still I would show my hand with 3♥ first however.