On May 7, 1:45=A0pm, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:27 am, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2:10 am, "Jeffrey" <slesse...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > You hold =A0JTxxx =A0--- =A0 Axxxxx =A0Kx
>
> > > Auction went
>
> > > N =A0 =A0 =A0 E =A0 =A0 =A0S =A0 =A0 W
> > > p =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0p =A0 =A0 =A01C =A0 =A0 1H
>
> > > 1S =A0 =A0 =A03H =A0 4S =A0 =A0 p
>
> > > ?
>
> > > If you bid 5D =A0pard will bid 5H =A0 =A0then?
>
> > Then you convert to 5S. your hand is not worth more than 1 slam try.
>
> > Andrew
>
> A few more thoughts:
>
> When it comes to 5-level slam tries, the general philosophy should be
> invite conservatively and accept aggressively. A cardinal sin of
> constructive bidding is going down in a voluntarily bid 5-level major
> suit contract--the way to avoid that is to be darn sure the 5-level is
> safe before venturing out.
>
> This hand has excellent playing strength, but it is light on high
> cards and slam will likely depend on partner not having much wastage
> in hearts. Further, the opponent's 3H call deprived partner of a game
> invitational raise. Therefore, he may have stretched to bid 4S on a
> hand that would only have invited over a 2H raise. Consequently, even
> bidding 5D is aggressive and responder certainly can not bid higher on
> his own.
>
> Lastly, I prefer a 5H slam try to 5D. 5D sounds like you are missing a
> club control., E.g., Jxxxxxx, --, AKxx, xx.
>
> Andrew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will echo Andy's statement re: invite conservatively at the 5-level
(and note that for many it applies also to inviting games at the 3-
level, the so called invite heavy, accept light school to which I
subscribe).
I do want to add that it is not 100% clear to me that the various slam
tries focus on issues as obviously as some seem to think.
Consider the 5h and 5s bids. It would be as reasonable to assume that
5h showed a heart control and indicated a concern about spades and
that 5s showed a concern about hearts. (At least, I think that is one
common treatment.)
Do they also imply at least second round control in both minors? (I
would say yes). In that case, a 5m slam try should, as Andy suspects,
deny control in the other minor. But in that case, if responder holds
something like
JTxxxx
x
Ax
KQxx
then how does the partner****p find the superior grand slam in clubs
when opener is
AKQx
Axx
xx
AJxx
For my part, I agree with Manfield's view that precise slam bidding in
contested auctions is a mirage. You aren't going to find 7c on these
hands even though responder can suspect that it is there.
So I think it would be wise for partner****ps to agree that slam tries
in contested auctions focus on their suit (hearts in this case) and
our trumps (spades) unless responder is unbalanced in the other two
suits (i.e., has control of one and not the other) in which case he
qbids the offsuit he has controlled, and thus denying control in the
other.
Henrysun909
|
