[pclayton]

Brian and I bid about 50 sets yesterday in preparation for Chicago. There were two that we had a disagreement on. I'd like to hear your opinions:

---

1♥ - 1♠
4♦ - 4♠

Unfortunately we don't play Last Train here. Any suggestions on getting to this great slam?

---

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
3N - Pass

We don't play structured reverses (not a bad thing in my eyes). 2♠ is neutral; 3N promises extras.

[whereagles]

1. I take it you bid 4♣, not 4♦. A bit of a stretch in any case, but I understand you definitely want to be in game on that opener hand. Now, if you go by Mike Lawrence's "Fought the Law" lore, responder will count an SST of 2, which means 11 tricks on 19-21 working points. Since he can reasonably expect opener to have something like 15 working points, he can count 25 working points, which puts partnership in GRAND slam region, especially if opener has a club void. 4NT thus, followed by some grand slam try if you feel lucky.

If you don't like FTL lore.. well, you need some inspiration. 4NT isn't totally bad, though.

2. Unless you open 2♣ (which even I wouldn't do!), I don't think there's any way to bid this one. Bidding was prefectly reasonable.

[mike777]

1) Just asking but do you guys play exclusion BW or would pard figure out 5c as exclusion even without discussion.

2) If you like structured reverses and I play them, then why not adopt it? Not perfect but they do handle alot of hand types.

1c=1s
2h=3c=game force 9+ very often. (tad too good to rebid 2s in Structured reverses, since that could be: Axxxx..xxx...xxx...xx).
3d=3s
4d rkc?

[mikeh]

I don't understand 4♦ on the first hand... was it 4♣ instead?

Whichever it was, I can't think of a route to the slam that makes sense to me: no methods ever invented (as far as I know) allow you to bid reliably to every good contract, so I would take my overtricks and move on to the next board.

Having said that, this hand illustrates why splintering on a void is not (usually) a positive move.. whether you actually did splinter with 4♣ or whether one is constructing an auction that involves a splinter. QJx goes into the toilet opposite a singleton... and the west hand holds both red aces so the odds are good that responder will not be able to cue over 4♣ (especially when not playing LTTC), while opener is not strong enough to show the void over a 4♠ signoff.

Having said all of that, I still can't think of a good 'standard' sequence. There are undoubtedly 'gadgets' that would work on this hand, but I don't think that is what you are looking for when practicing for an upcoming tournament

On the second hand, I am not quite as complacent about the overtricks in 3N.

The auction makes sense until the final pass. Responder should, I think, upgrade the hand due to the AK of ♠ (compare to KQJxxx) and the Qxx of ♣. He should pull 3N to 4♣... a bid that will get west very excited, and rightly so.

There are several routes forward from that point onwards, but they all lead to 6♣ (not 6N)

[awm]

I agree with mikeh on the second hand.

On the first hand, responder has AKQxx of trumps. This is a huge holding. Keep in mind that partner forced to game opposite a lousy six count with four spades; surely the game force with four small trumps is going to have to deliver an amazing hand. Just as surely, partner will be loathe to bid on over 4♠ with three possible trump losers. Some example hands:

Jxxx
AKQxx
AKJx
x

Jxxx
AKxxx
AKQx
x

Jxxx
AKQxxx
AQ
x

If opener actually has a singleton club and four spades to the jack (at best), he's got to have extremely solid holdings in the red suits. With a club void the hand can be a little weaker (see the actual hand) but not much so. I think responder has to bid on over the 4♣ splinter. Surely the clubs are wasted but AKQxx of spades alone is probably enough to move and the ♥J is a potentially winning card.

[Winstonm]

First: Next board.

Second: How can you possibly conceal AK of spades and Qxx of reverser's long suit? This smacks of someone who has been playing too many club matchpoint games.

Clear cut 4C bid.

[pclayton]

Thanks gang.

I was the 4540 on the first. 4D is a typo of course. I thought Brian should have made a positive move with AKQ 5th of spades. Last train would have helped a lot too I think. Anyone for concealed splinters after 1H - 1S???

I was the 1426 on the 2nd. This is a little tougher, as the KS isn't a great card, but its always tough for the weaker hand to get excited about an auction. Anyone for 4C instead of 3N?

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Jul 5 2006, 01:29 AM, said:

Anyone for 4C instead of 3N?

Not me, at least. Maybe 4♣ after 3NT, as others suggested. But that's more of a bid for when you feel lucky or need points.

[han]

I agree with Adam on the first, AKQxx is a very strong holding, I think that responder is worth a try for slam. Not playing last train this could only be 5S (nothing to cue, so great trumps).

[Codo]

My first thought was, that phil should have made more in hand one. After all, he has naything besides good trumps. HE really needs KQxx and nothing more to make slam good enough.
So I think, he must bid 4 NT after 4 Spade. IF pd has xxxx in Spade, then you will fail in 5 Spade, but this risk is worth taking.

But reading Adams and Hans statement, I am convinced, that 4 Spade was worse. Pd should have bid more with AKQxx in spade.

In the second hand, 3 NT was the slam killer. If it shows 5 + clubs, 4 Hearts, good diamond stopper and about 20 HCPS outside spades, okay, then it is fine and pd should ahve bid 4 Club after this.
But if not, I had liked a slower approach. I play, that 2 Spade is forcing for one round, so I had the possibiliity to bid 3 Club instead of 2 NT, after which we may had reached 6 Club.

[cherdano]

Why is everyone talking about last train in hand 1? A 4♥ cuebid looks best to me. Yes, I generally don't cuebid shortness in partner's suit, but I would cuebid with Qx, so a singleton J with extra trump length doesn't looks so bad.
Of course, it could have bad consequences when partner holds ♥AQxxx and overestimates his trick-taking ability. But as far as the target is only a small slam, we probably won't do worse than biddint to a slam on a finesse.

Otherwise, I would agree with Adam and Han, 5♠ is a sensible alternative.

Arend

[joshs]

pclayton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

Brian and I bid about 50 sets yesterday in preparation for Chicago. There were two that we had a disagreement on. I'd like to hear your opinions:

---

1♥ - 1♠
4♦ - 4♠

Unfortunately we don't play Last Train here. Any suggestions on getting to this great slam?

---

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
3N - Pass

We don't play structured reverses (not a bad thing in my eyes). 2♠ is neutral; 3N promises extras.

Hand 1:
4C was an overbid, and 4S was an underbid of galactic proportions. Over 4C, responder has a slam force. I would just bid key card to symplyfy the auction, since the only other choice is 5S and thats non-forcing.


Hand 2: You said you don't play structured reverses, but somehow 2S was forcing? I guess I don't understand your structure. (Structured reverses means, more or less, that a reverse promises a 3'rd bid unless responder bids game). Rersponder just has to do at least 1 of the following 2 things:
a. show his strength (3S jump)
or
b. show his club support
or preferably both. I think 2S then 4C is a good sequence...

[pclayton]

Maybe we play a portion of structured reverses.

After 1x - 1y - reverse:

2y - 5+ in suit - neutral but forcing

2N - natural and non forcing

3x - natural and non forcing

Raise of reversers suit - natural and non forcing

4th suit - ambiguous game force.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a similar structure to what Fred and Brad play.

[mike777]

http://home.mn.rr.co...ed_reverses.htm

For this discussion, a reverse is defined as when opener's second bid is a non-jump 2-level bid of a higher-ranking suit after responder has made a 1-level bid. A reverse by opener shows 17+ points and insufficient values to bid two clubs. Structured reverses are used to help opener decide what level to set the contract. A reverse is absolutely forcing for one round, and in some cases more, but is not absolutely forcing to game.

Responder's obligation is to show the strength of his hand on the next bid. With a "weak" hand, in this case, defined as less than 9 points, he has only two options: if he holds a 5-card or longer major suit that he can bid at the two-level, he bids it; lacking a 5-card major, or if he would be forced to bid his major at the three-level, he can show weakness by bidding two no-trump. Any other bid shows 9+ points. Responder's second bid is also forcing. After showing a weakness signal, responder may later show support for one of opener's suits.

Sequences that are non-forcing when responder has shown weakness:

Opener bids 2NT
1C 1S
2H 2S
2NT (allowed to pass, but may bid 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, or 3NT--in each case the meaning is obvious)
Opener re-bids his first suit
1C 1S
2D 2NT
3C (allowed to pass, but may bid 3C, 3D, 3H, or 3NT, spades is out as responder has already denied holding 5+ spades)
Opener raises responder's suit, but not to game
1C 1S
2H 2S
3S (allowed to pass, or may bid 4C, 4H, or 4S)
Opener bids 3NT
1C 1S
2H 2S
3NT (allowed to pass, opener wants to play in game regardless)
Despite responder's weakness signals above, there will be times when he will still either invite or raise to game. Responder can have a hand that wants to play in game opposite opener's hand, but want to first discourage opener from considering slam.

Forcing sequences where responder has shown weakness

Opener bids the fourth suit
1C 1S
2H 2S
3D (responder cannot pass, if the fourth suit is a minor, it should be a legit 5-4-4 hand, if a major, the fourth suit is suspect)
Opener re-bids his SECOND suit
1C 1S
2H 2S
3H (opener is showing 6 clubs and 5 hearts or better, responder cannot pass)
Opener jumps in his first bid suit
1C 1S
2D 2NT
4C (opener shows a 6+ card club suit and responder cannot pass)
Opener supports responder's non-five-card suit (I question this a bit)
1C 1S
2H 2NT
3S (responder cannot pass, and opener is showing 3-card support)
Strong Auctions

Responder supports either of opener's suits, there is no need to jump, game-force and slam is possible
1C 1S
2H 3C
or
1C 1S
2H 3H
Responder bids 3NT, suggests to play here, but is neither forcing nor drop-dead. Responder holds about 10-12 HCP's.
1C 1S
2H 3NT
Responder jumps in his own suit, this shows a good 6+ card suit and is forcing to game
1C 1H
2D 3H
Auctions where responder bids 1NT. To show weakness, responder's only options are to bid 2NT or support opener's first bid suit.

1D 1NT
2H 2NT (this shows weakness and opener can pass)
1D 1NT
2H 3D (this shows weakness and opener can pass)
1D 1NT
2H 3H (forcing to game, shows exactly 3 good hearts)
1D 1NT
2H 3C (shows a real club suit and is forcing to game)
1D 1NT
2H 3NT (opener can pass, un-bid suits will be stopped, 10-11 HCP's)
1D 1NT
2H 2S (since you denied spades with your first bid, shows a spade stopper with 3 spades and looking for 3NT)
1H 1NT
2S 3H (this topic is open for discussion. obviously forcing to game, but is this weaker or stronger than the auction in 8)
1H 1NT
2S 4H (using the principle of rapid arrival, this should likely be the weaker hand, but see question in sequence 7)

[mikeh]

I (much) prefer ingberman: wherein responder's 'weakness' bid (which may not actually be weakness but usually is) is the cheaper of 2N or 4th suit. In most situations, it will be 2N, but 1♣ 1♥ 2♦ is an example of a sequence in which there is a cheaper negative: 2♠. This has the obvious advantage of allowing the strong hand to play NT, when it holds the stopper(s) in the fourth suit, as will often be the case when responder is weak. 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ is the other sequence in which ingberman works well, and this is even better, since opener may pattern out with a 3=1=4=5 or 3=0=4=6 via 2♠ now, once responder bids 2♥... this buys an entire level of bidding.

Also, and a minor quibble, I see nothing at all wrong with opener bidding 3♠ on auctions such as 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2N 3♠: with AQx AQxx KQJxx x, I see no logical alternative.


There are a few other areas where my view is somewhat different than the comprehensive scheme set out by Mike, but these are the two that immediately sprang to mind.

[EricK]

I'm not a fan of Losing Trick Count, but it isn't ususally too far out.

On the first hand, responder has a 6 loser hand opposite what is likely to be a 5 loser hand. Which definitely shows you are in slam territory (maybe even grand slam territory).

There is no straight forward bid, but I suppose that 5♠ shows strong trumps but no outside controls to bid. After which opener will probably show the ♣ void and repsonder will show the singleton ♥ and opener will sign off in 6♠ because he might fear a late ♦ loser.

On the second hand, repsonder has 7 losers opposite a reverse (about 5 losers), so again they are in slam territory. I think he has a clear 4♣ bid over 3NT.

[han]

mikeh, on Jul 5 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

I (much) prefer ingberman: wherein responder's 'weakness' bid (which may not actually be weakness but usually is) is the cheaper of 2N or 4th suit.

I'm very glad to read this! A while ago I had the agreement to play Ingberman, and while I thought that 1C-1S-2D-2H was the weak bid, my partner thought it was 2NT. I googled Ingberman and all the links I found agreed with my partner. And as I could not remember where I had learned about Ingberman, I even started to doubt my own memory. Needless to say, we now play that 2NT is the weak bid (I "lost").


Mike, when North American experts talk about Ingberman, is this indeed what they mean or is there no consensus?

[awm]

My impression is that there are two treatments, and Ingberman is the one Mike described where the cheaper of the 4th suit and 2NT is the weak bid. The alternate treatment (where 2NT is always the weak bid) is usually called Lebensohl over Reverses.

[cherdano]

awm, on Jul 6 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

My impression is that there are two treatments, and Ingberman is the one Mike described where the cheaper of the 4th suit and 2NT is the weak bid. The alternate treatment (where 2NT is always the weak bid) is usually called Lebensohl over Reverses.

That was also my impression, but according to all sources I found, Ingberman and Lebensohl over reverses are synonyms.
I am not the partner Han mentions above (unless I forgot), but I once did notice we both thought we were playing Ingberman, but in fact played the cheaper of 4th suit and 2N as weak puppet...

Arend

P.S.: I suppose the one with 4th suit or 2N as weak bid could be referred to as 'BWS reverse structure' without ambiguity. I certainly won't agree "Ingberman" with anyone without clarifying.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

Brian and I bid about 50 sets yesterday in preparation for Chicago. There were two that we had a disagreement on. I'd like to hear your opinions:

---

1♥ - 1♠
4♦ - 4♠

Unfortunately we don't play Last Train here. Any suggestions on getting to this great slam?

---

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 2♠
3N - Pass

We don't play structured reverses (not a bad thing in my eyes). 2♠ is neutral; 3N promises extras.

I am assuming (and I think it came up elsewhere) that the bid on the first one was 4♣, not 4♦. Still, I don't like 4♣. For one thing, bidding with a void risk partner over-evaluating the ♣A. Also, as at least phil knows, I don't like to use to the splinter bid with a control in the fourth suit. It is a quirk of mine. So I think you should bid 3♦ then support spades. This gets the idea of short ♣ AND control in ♦'s across.

Second one was ok up to the pass of 3NT I guess. 4♣ as a slam try seems right by responder over 3NT. Question, was 3NT over 2♠ a specific range, and would 2NT or 3NT by opener be stronger in you mind (assumng 2NT is forcing of course).