[blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut

[John R. Mayne]

-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 25, 2007 7:52 AM
>To: blml <blml at rtflb.org>
>Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut
>
>
>----- 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?

Yes. If there was no alert to 4D, and partner bid 6D, I still need more information. (How strong is 4D? Are non-jumps asks, or cues?) But if I had nothing to say - which would be normal - I'd typically pass 6D. That's what I'd do otherwise to let partner do whatever it was he was going to do; with no agreement on 6D, passing would be the *safest* thing to do if there had been an alert and correct description. Why wouldn't it be now?


>>
>> 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?

I think Roger's point is that the Namyats 4D (good spade preempt) shows some defense.

A regular 4D preempt guarantees zero defense and the number of tricks depends on the usual preemptive factors. 

>
>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. 

Not (b), necessarily. Maybe the opponent wanted a diamond lead. Heck, maybe he's void and thinks this will end up in spades.


 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

How can he make that clear, if you have no agreement on 6D? You trust your opponents more than I do.



 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?

No, if you really have a diamond preempt you're doomed and would not redouble - the redouble cannot mean, "I have no idea what any of my prior bids mean."

  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>.
>

If you don't pass 6Dx, you probably deserve what you get. If you don't pass 7Dx, you definitely deserve whatever bad thing happens to you, assuming UI. (If there's no UI, then, hey, you're on your own.)

--JRM