[mike777]

Email quiz from buddy:

This is your quiz:

AK5 J72 AKQ4 AQ2

2C* 2D**
2NT*** 4NT
??


* strong
** At least 1 king or ace
*** 22-23 balanced

[Chamaco]

Is this not a quantitative invite ?

At the table I would have taken so, and therefore accepted the iinvite bidding 6NT (23, prime values, despite 4333).

[pclayton]

I think I'll try 5N. I really think 5♦ should be a 5 bagger, although AKQx sure looks like 5. Over 6♣ I'll try 6♦, which show show a 3-3-4-3. Pard can pass or bid 6N.

If I was 100% confident that 6♣ showed a 5 bagger I'd pass, although its hard to see how 6♣ plays better than 6N.

[Beto]

Jlall, on Sep 21 2005, 03:02 PM, said:

Interesting I have always played 5D=4 and 6D=5. Is there any standard here?

On the upside if you can bid 5D to show 4, partners 6C would guarantee 5.

I also learned that way and i guess it is pretty natural.

[P_Marlowe]

5S.

For me 4NT would not be invitational,
for me it would be Blackwood, opener
is limited to 22-23.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Pass. 4333 shape and this is the sort of auction where pards like to overbid.

[Al_U_Card]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 21 2005, 12:07 PM, said:

For me 4NT would not be invitational,
for me it would be Blackwood, opener
is limited to 22-23.

I take it as quantitative. We have a trick that if I accept, I answer keycards for spades. I also play that I can bid 5NT to pick a slam in the minors. Otherwise I will pass and with the H holding, I will do so.

[Walddk]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates. It's a pass to me. Give me a 4432 pattern or a few 10's and 9's (preferably together), and I will consider.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

Arend

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 08:19 PM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

Arend

Agree, you have 6½ tricks. I don't think my quantitative partner with his 8-9 count can produce 5½.

Roland

[inquiry]

4333? I might not even open, and certainly am not accepting the slam try. (well, ok, I would open).

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 08:19 PM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 21 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

Arend

Agree, you have 6½ tricks. I don't think my quantitative partner with his 8-9 count can produce 5½.

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

Arend

[luke warm]

if 4nt is quantitative, i'll bid 6nt with my 8 controls

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

Arend

If hand evaluation is what you want to discuss, then perhaps you will care to tell me which hand you would rather want. Your 23 count above or my 20 count below:

♠ Ax
♥ Axx
♦ Ax
♣ AKJ10xx

I sincerely hope that no one treats this as 20 high card points.

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

4333? I might not even open, and certainly am not accepting the slam try. (well, ok, I would open).

A deck of cards $2
A session of bridge $15
This quote.....priceless

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 21 2005, 09:02 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

I think I'll try 5N. I really think 5♦ should be a 5 bagger, although AKQx sure looks like 5. Over 6♣ I'll try 6♦, which show show a 3-3-4-3. Pard can pass or bid 6N.

If I was 100% confident that 6♣ showed a 5 bagger I'd pass, although its hard to see how 6♣ plays better than 6N.

Interesting I have always played 5D=4 and 6D=5. Is there any standard here?

On the upside if you can bid 5D to show 4, partners 6C would guarantee 5.

btw for those who don't consider this close to a pass, I really disagree. Give pard hands like:

Qxx Axx xxxx KJx. This is 10 points, and slam has extremely small hopes.

Qxx AKx Jxx xxxx. Another 10 count, and slam is not a favorite.

etc. There are alot of hands where slam will not make, mainly when pard is 4333. If pard has 4432 with 4 DIAMONDS in hands such as:

xx AQx xxxx Kxxx 6 DIAMONDS is very good, and 6N is significantly worse.

Qxx Ax xxxx Kxxx, same deal.

Qx Kxx Jxxx Kxxx, again you'd want to be in 6D.

It's hard to construct hands where you want to be in 6N that dont include 5 clubs.

I guess it depends on the nature of 4N. If 4♦/ 4♥ are Tejas, 4♠ should be some sort of Kantar - Kleinman slam try or high level MSS. If such a 4♠ call is available, then it greatly should influence what a 5♣/5♦ call over 4N should mean.

For the sake of theory, lets assume that 4♠ over 2N shows a quant raise to 4N but with interest in a 4-4 minor suit fit. I think pard would still shy away from a 4-4 diamond fit with his expected ♦xxxx.

I think playing KK, 5♦ over 4N should be a 5 bagger. 5N over 4N should be pass-the-buck. Maybe 6 of a minor is a great 5 bagger or even 6.

Over 4♠, Goldsmith states that 5 of a minor should be at least a good 4 card suit - KQTx I think is his minimum. 6 of a minor should be 5. 5N tries for 6m with a weaker 4 card minor.

[han]

I don't think that this is such a bad 23 count either. Move a diamond to a heart and it is worse. And the aces are good.

I know that Ben's personal religion requires him to divide his points by 2 since he is 4333, which gives him a sound opener (11.5 count). He then substracts 2 points for being balanced and is left with little more than 9 points, a light but clear opener. There is no point arguing about this, as is the case with most religions.

I would also bid 5D here, 6D would show 5 diamonds. I think that this is far better than showing the number of aces with a hand that accepts the invitation. (You might think that nobody who responds here likes that, but you would be wrong)

Like Arend I would not expect partner to invite with most 8-counts.