[Stephen Tu]

Oops I meant 7-5
My opponent faced this problem:

---

IMPS, knockout

What's your call, and why?

[akwoo]

6♣, to help partner judge whether 6♥ is making or not, judge whether 6♠ is making or not, and find the right lead if they end up in a heart contract.

I don't think you're buying it for 5♠, and even then there's a chance you'd make 6♠.

[FelicityR]

Pass, if you play it as forcing in this type of auction at the five level - and that's not a given - even by agreement looks silly because this hand is offensive, not defensive. Partner has bid 4♠ direct over 2♥ and that feels more pre-emptive than constructive.

There's probably no right answer here because it all depends on whether partner turns up with ♦A and/or ♣K. A wimpy 5♠ or an optimistic 6♣ I personally feel are the only bids available. I don't think there's any point of bidding 6♠ without bidding 6♣ first.

So, I go with akwoo here, too, I'll bid 6♣ now. There's no point having distributional hands and not mentioning the distribution.

[DavidKok]

Partner bypassed the chance to bid 2♠, 2NT, 3♥, 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥, all of which to my understanding show particular forms of spade raises. If you have discussed what these bids mean you now have quite solid inferences about partner's hand - about 0-7 points with five spades, and certainly not both the ace of diamonds and a black king. So you will be taking 11 or 10 tricks in a spade contract, it seems.

Perhaps at this point it is worth mentioning that while the title says you have 6-6 the hand shown has a 7=0=1=5 distribution. Opposite partner's five card spade suit that means at least one of the opponents, and possibly both, has a void. Therefore on defence the spade suit will produce 0 tricks. Now that we have established that we are not making a slam my primary concern is that the opponents can make 7♥. Their 6♥ seems like an odds-on contract (although East also avoided a chance to come on stronger with 4NT, 5♣ or 5♦, so perhaps East does not have a great deal of shape).

I think at the table I would decide that I have enough subtle inferences to call that nobody has a club void. Therefore 7♥ is not making, and I don't need to inform partner of my club suit to help them consider bidding 7♠ over 7♥. And I am always taking out 6♥ to 6♠, it's simply the lesser risk. Ideally I would bid 6♣ for the lead, but in my partnership this would allow partner to take out their 7♥ which I don't want. So I'm just going to bid 6♠, perhaps the opponents will think I robbed them of a grand.

[FelicityR]

DavidKok, on 2020-July-26, 04:55, said:

I think at the table I would decide that I have enough subtle inferences to call that nobody has a club void. Therefore 7♥ is not making, and I don't need to inform partner of my club suit to help them consider bidding 7♠ over 7♥. And I am always taking out 6♥ to 6♠, it's simply the lesser risk. Ideally I would bid 6♣ for the lead, but in my partnership this would allow partner to take out their 7♥ which I don't want. So I'm just going to bid 6♠, perhaps the opponents will think I robbed them of a grand.

I enjoy reading your comments on this forum, David, but if the opponents do bid 7♥ - unlikely vulnerable, but this is an extremely distributional hand so anything presumably can happen - partner will not have any direction what to lead if you end up as defenders. And a Lightner Double could well be interpreted the wrong way, too, partner leading ♦s (for a non-existent ruff) instead of ♣s. At least mentioning the ♣s en route to 6♠ takes the confusion away, I feel.

[DavidKok]

FelicityR, on 2020-July-26, 06:38, said:

I enjoy reading your comments on this forum, David, but if the opponents do bid 7♥ - unlikely vulnerable, but this is an extremely distributional hand so anything presumably can happen - partner will not have any direction what to lead if you end up as defenders. And a Lightner Double could well be interpreted the wrong way, too, partner leading ♦s (for a non-existent ruff) instead of ♣s. At least mentioning the ♣s en route to 6♠ takes the confusion away, I feel.

I hope the club ace comes in even if it is not lead. Without a club void on their side for some ruffs they need a distribution even more extreme than yours to make 13 tricks with only red suits. Don't forget that partner failed to make a fitbid with 4♦, and if both opponents have similar diamond length there won't be much opportunity for club discards. Also, for all we know clubs could be 3-3-2 around the table.
I think an agreement that 6♣ here is more lead-directing than for takeout might be very good, unfortunately it is not what I have agreed on with my partner. The possible swing of missing a cheap double-fit sacrifice is nothing to scoff at either.

That being said, I think you might be right. My dream continuation would be to bid 6♣ this round and 6♠ next round (the opponents can make some noise with 6♥ if they want), my main concern was that they might get to 7♥ before the bidding gets back to me. But the only sequence where there is serious ambiguity is 6♣-(7♥)-?, where partner has to bid 7♠ with some club holding (lesser risk). After something like 6♣-(6♦/♥)-P/6♠-(7♥)-? there is more room. I think double should still show a diamond void, and pass does allow partner to take this out to 7♠, but since partner got to show some shape and strength on the previous round they might pass and lead a club instead, reasoning that there is little left to mention.

All in all I think the risk of partner enthusiastically bidding 7♠ is very real. It is simply not clear to me whether a lead-directing 6♣ bid is worth the risk, as I said the ace is likely to come in anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a hand where 6♠ could conceivably be on opposite a yarborough, and without a club lead 6♥ might also make. I think 6♣ is clear.

[mythdoc]

We only need the ♣K from partner and ♠xxxxx to make 6, David. I’m bidding it, not as a save, but with high hopes of making it. Well worth the risk to me at IMPs. Let the opponents worry about bidding 7 of their suit. I don’t think they have the stomach for it.

[Cyberyeti]

mythdoc, on 2020-July-26, 07:15, said:

We only need the ♣K from partner and ♠xxxxx to make 6, David. I’m bidding it, not as a save, but with high hopes of making it. Well worth the risk to me at IMPs. Let the opponents worry about bidding 7 of their suit. I don’t think they have the stomach for it.

Or a singleton 5341/5251 yarborough is sufficient

[DavidKok]

This is an interesting situation where the distinction between bidding 6♠ to make or bidding 6♠ as a sacrifice is quite immaterial. I'm glad to see nobody wants to let the opponents play in 6♥. The difficult question is how to prepare for the eventuality that they press on to 7♥ - how do you get a club lead (do you need one?) without encouraging partner to bid 7♠?

A few moments ago I talked myself into believing that over 6♥ or a direct 6♠ partner may well lead clubs unprompted against 7♥, provided they do not hold the ♣K. They are staring at some diamond length and we have failed to give a Lightner double. Furthermore both spades and hearts are passive and unlikely to be 'killing'. However, I fear this might be quite a pipe dream.

As an aside, what would a 5NT bid in the given position show? I presume some kind of grand slam try, in which case 6♣ by negative inference would be more lead-oriented.

[mythdoc]

An interesting way to look at this hand is what would your partnership expect? In mine, my bidding 6♠ directly would be typical of me and acceptable to him, but if my partner bid 6♣ with the same hand it would be reasonable and typical. When dealing with freak hands I’m not sure that it is worthwhile having an agreement in place. So much can go right or wrong. While I can imagine a set of hands the opponents may have that would make 7, especially without a club lead, I still don’t believe they will bid it. Where that leaves me, is I don’t want to give them the information that would entice THEM to take a save in 7♥, if one of them has a singleton or doubleton club, for example.

[mikeh]

While grand is unlikely, since partner will not hold all of the spade king, diamond ace and club king, there is no reason that he cannot hold, say, xxxxx xx Axxxx x, and grand is laydown. And why would he not bid 4S with Kxxx xx Axxxxx x?


Bid 6C, which happens likely (but not certainly...see below) to be good in the unlikely event the opps bid 7H, and partner would bid 6D with the magic holding, and then our 6H call should entice him into bidding 7.

The main downside to this plan is that a slow, ‘scientific’, auction to 6S may lead to a 7H save, especially if 6C gives a LHO, looking at a hand similar to ours (but in the reds...say x AKxxxx AQJxx x) an easy 6D, allowing his partner, with say void QJxx Kxxxx xxxxx an easy 7H. On a bad day, LHO indeed has a red version of our hand, with 1=7=5=0, and their grand makes😀 but that hand may bid 7H no matter how we get to 6S.

I’ll worry about what to do over 7H if it happens and in the meantime will find out if we can make 7S.

[nige1]

Stephen Tu "My opponent faced this problem: IMPS, knockout. What's your call, and why?"
++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 6♠ = NAT Leaving little room for opponents to decide whether to sacrifice,
2. 5♠ = NAT When opponents bid 6♥, we can "sacrifice".
3. 6♣ = NAT Even if partner cue-bids a red ace, can we risk a grand? Akwoo is right, however, that we might need a ♣ lead to defeat 7♥.

---

[Stephen Tu]

No matter what you do, West passes, partner corrects to spades if necessary, and East bids 7H (unless you bid only 5S in which case East bids 6H).

Assume East bids 7H. Now what? (pass/dbl?)

Now come to partner's problem:
Partner has Kxxx Txx x Kxxxx. 7H or 7Hx comes back to him. What to lead? If the auction included 6c, which black suit trick is cashing if any, so maybe one should take insurance in 7S?

If 6C was not bid, what to lead if partner doubled? What if partner doesn't double, which lead or do you push to 7S?

[mikeh]

While taking out insurance is not as cheap as one would wish (-200 when we could be +200 is a 9 imp loss), it has to be the correct action for north, who can see the double fit (assuming S bid 6C). In addition, from north’s perspective, depending on how the auction went, and being aware that South arguably seemed to be trying for grand, would it not be possible that south held AQJxxx void Ax AQJxx? In which case 7S isn’t a save at all.

And of course 7H might be making if south lacks a diamond winner

[nige1]

Stephen Tu "No matter what you do, West passes, partner corrects to spades if necessary, and East bids 7H (unless you bid only 5S in which case East bids 6H).
Assume East bids 7H. Now what?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO you should pass showing likely ♥ control . Then an inspired partner should bid 7♠ (taking out insurance)
If you bid 6♣ earlier and partner now passes, he should probably lead a ♣
In the other room, 7♥ probably lost 2 black tricks
Edited to make correction pointed out by Stephen Tu

---

[Stephen Tu]

nige1, on 2020-July-27, 14:21, said:

Stephen Tu "No matter what you do, West passes, partner corrects to spades if necessary, and East bids 7H (unless you bid only 5S in which case East bids 6H).
Assume East bids 7H. Now what?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO you should pass showing likely ♥ control . Then an inspired partner should bid 7♠ (taking out insurance)
If you bid 6♣ earlier and partner now passes, he should probably lead a ♣
In the other room, 7♥ probably lost 2 black tricks

---

Fixed your diagram

[akwoo]

It should be pointed out that, from the point of view of the original problem, you got a freak occurance. Partner is much more likely to have 5 diamonds and 1 club than the other way around.

I'm not all convinced that 6♣ (should be agreed to) show a 2 suited hand.

[Stephen Tu]

Well it looks like most of you fared better than our opponents did.

Epilogue:
My opponent chose to just jump to 6S, and doubled 7H. His partner with nothing to go on tried for a diamond ruff. East is 0571 so +2470 for us. Then at the other table, the client inexplicably sold out to 6S! So my record net score of +3900 and 23 imps!!

[DavidKok]

The double sounds like a clear mistake, and I'm still not sure about 6♠ vs 6♣. With that East hand I would try 5♦ instead.