[blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut


> Sorry,
>
> Indeed wrong list.
>
> Very interesting case though, which I shall share with you after I've
> received all my replies and finished the appeal. No need having two
> teams wait for blml consensus (which would be half an hour before hell
> freezes over at the earliest).
>
> Or shall I ?
>
> You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double.
> You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need
> your hand to tell me what you would do?
>
> Herman De Wael wrote:
> [snip]


I once had a hand with both majors and decided that I didn't want the 
opponents to sacrifice in diamonds, so I OC 1D.  It eventuated that I 
wouldn't believe my partner and partner wouldn't believe me.  Well, Dummy 
hit with DKQJT98 and out.

In America 4D is a preempt with 8.5 to 9 tricks plus significant defense. 
It would seem silly for it to be different in Europe but maybe it is?

Assuming it is?  then 6D must be some sort of splinter or fit jump either 
weak or strong [either a sacrifice or to make].  6S denies H control or 
interest in 7 [in D or S].  The first X suggests [a] that 6D is not a fit 
jump and [b] that partner believes that 4D was natural.  That makes 7D he 
has lost his marbles since [a] it is clear that there is no makable contract 
as opener has made it clear when he bid 6S that 6DX doesn't make and [b] the 
contract was 6DX so why would opener pull in order to bid a grand in 
diamonds when he could have XX if he really had a D preempt?  therefore, 
imo, 6S reveals that opener has spades rather than D to any thinking 
responder.

I may not need my hand, but I need to know who my partner is <sigh>.

regards
roger pewick