[clayniac]

This hand was held in the other direction at the club today. At our table against intermediate players, the bidding went one spade- (tank) six spades. We played it the 4th play, and one pair bid the grand, others all bid 6. A pair of experienced little old ladies who are not bad players and who are nice people bid the grand. Please post expert bidding to the grand-can use Jacoby 2nt, exclusion blackwood, spllitners, any tools you wish. Just *asterisk and explain the tools for the general readership.

opener: ♠ AXXXXX ♥ VOID ♦ XX ♣ AKXXX

responder: ♠ KQJXX ♥ AXX ♦ AXXXX ♣ VOID

How can each find out about the other's void and second suit? What is the best bidding to reach the easy grand?

Thanks all,
Patsy

[keylime]

1S - 2D
2S* (any min) - 4C* (splinter)
4H* (cuebid) - 5NT* (GSF)
6H* (yes to trump honor, heart control absolute) - 7S.

[clayniac]

That will work for us; what about for a simpler system for other players? Thanks, Dwayne. By the way, the two ladies who bid the grand were Betty Quaster and Laverne Nimmo.

[mikeh]

This is not as easy as it seems like it should be, and it doesn't surprise me to see that most missed grand.

Using a basic 2/1 style:

1♠   2♦
2♠   3♠: 2♠ minimum hand, 3♠ slam try
4♣   4♦
4♥   5♥
5N   7♣
7♠


Note that many pairs use 7♣ as the ultimate step in response to gsf, but many would just bid 7♠ here.

4♣ is a cue, as is 4♦. I generally do not cue voids early, if I can avoid them, since I like the first cue to inform partner that his King or KQ or AQ holdings are upgradable opposite my Ace or King initial cue, but I have no qualms about cuing the ♥ void after 4♦. My cue-bidding style is that once responder showed mild (or better) slam interest via 3♠, both partners will cue below game unless they have truly horrible hands in context, and both have pretty good hands, so the cue-bidding through 4♥ seems clear.

I think 5♥ should be understood as the Ace.. not as the King.... it is most unlikely that responder has the values to go beyond 4♠ while being unable to keycard or to show a second round minor control.

Once opener hears that responder has strong slam interest, via 5♥, and knows that his side has zero red suit losers, then grand requires good trump and the ability to bring the ♣ suit home: even KQx Axx Axxxxx x offers some hope, and KQxx Ax Axxxx xx makes it very, very good.

I can't help feeling that this is just not realistic.... how can opener know that responder has enough trump (surely KQx is good trump for responder) or that he doesn't hold xxx or Jxx in ♣s?

Let me repeat where I began: I think this one is deceptively difficult in real life.

Dwayne's bidding, as an example, seems implausible in his GSF responses: most expert pairs use the 6 level to show varying degrees of trump strength: I have never even heard of the use of 6♥ as he uses it...to confirm absolute ♥ control. And, far more troubling is his apparent lack of concern about the ♦ suit: just how differently would opener bid with Axxxxx void Qx AQxxx, as an example?

Now, let me introduce you to a relay method, such as the one I used to play, and this is an extremely easy hand South asks and finds, in order: 5-5 or better in the blacks, then precisely 6=0=2=5, then 5 controls, then Axxxx void ?? AK?xx where the ♦ holding is no better than QJ and the ♣holding is no better than AKJxx. He can go on to refine this picture, but he won't since he can count 13 winners in 7♠. So 4 asking bids and we are there.

[Apollo81]

1♠-2NT (Jacoby)
3♥-3♠
4♣-4NT
5♥-6♦ (K/Q ask)
7♠-pass

I think this is as simple as you're going to get. Responder should bid 6♦ rather than 5NT because he doesn't want to be in grand opposite Axxxx x Kxx AKxx. Opener should bid 7♠ because he has extras and can reasonably assume no losers.

Responder can also bid Exclusion over 3♥ if you're playing that.

I don't think with starting with any bid other than 2NT is going to be more helpful.

[mikeh]

I understand the Jacoby auction, but I think it is at least as flawed as my suggestion. The problems arise because all sequences so far proposed (other than my relay reference, which is meaningless in a 'normal' bidding discussion) require one of the bidders to take charge while guessing about a key element of the hand.

Thus how can either partner use keycard meaningfully? Say responder discovers the ♥ void.... why on earth should that tell responder that there are no ♦ losers??

Appollo's auction doesn't begin to address the ♦ issue until the 6 level, and it is far from clear that 6♦ says what he seems to want it to say.

On his auction, up to 4N, how would opener have bid Axxxx x Jxx AKxx? This is not a hand on which you want to reach even the 6 level, yet Appollo is hauling out a grand slam try.

Sorry, Appollo, I do not mean to pick on you: I think your sequence makes at least as much sense as my suggestion... maybe this hand is too difficult for standard bidding, without one player applying a generous amount of optimism.

[kenrexford]

1♠
2NT (fit-showing, 4+)
3♣ (unbalanced, non-minimum)
3♦ (where's the stiff?)
3♥ (in the other major, hearts)
3♠ (cue, two top spade honors)
3NT (serious)
4♣ (club control -- known by Opener to be a stiff/void)

Opener should probably take over now.

4NT (1430)
6♣ (three plus a void in clubs)

This looks like 12 easy tricks, but Opener needs something more.

6♥ (a 6-level bid in the short suit? Must be LTTC)
7♠.

[clayniac]

I am getting 4 clubs splinter, 2 nt jacoby and 2 diamonds 2/1 as responder's first bid-all from good players. Then even after those the sequences vary. This is a fascinating hand to say the least. Keep the posts coming. Thanks all, Patsy

[awm]

How about something like:

1♠(1) - 4♣ (2)
4♥(3) - 5♣ (4)
5♥(5) - 6♥ (6)
7♠(7)

(1) Natural
(2) Singleton or void club and 4+♠
(3) Cuebid; 1st or 2nd round heart control, denies 1st or 2nd round diam control
(4) Void clubs, promises at least 2nd round diam control (else 4♠)
(5) Cuebid; 1st+2nd round heart control, which from responder's hand must be void
(6) Cuebid; ♥A; implies good trumps (else 5NT) and ♦A (else 6♠, cannot be grand)
(7) Opener knows ♥A, ♦A, ♣void, ♠KQxx or Kxxxx at worst

Note that the 4♥ cue promises a suitable hand for slam, responder's 5♣ call is fairly automatic in this sequence. The auction might be even easier playing turbo, where 5♣ would guarantee an odd number of keycards in addition to the club void, but opener can work out all the important cards by the time he bids the grand in any case.

Also note that when responder makes the grand slam try via 6♥, he knows that opener has no hearts and no ace or king of diamonds, yet still judges his hand suitable for slam. If opener lacks the spade ace, then virtually all his points must be in clubs (and his hand must be minimum) and he wouldn't have even cued 4♥. So responder can almost bid the grand here, but is afraid of something like Axxxxx - Qxx AKxx opposite. The 6♥ cuebid (denying ♦AK and showing the ♥A) helps opener evaluate that the actual hand is worth a grand bid whereas the example hand given is not quite enough.

[keylime]

Patsy,

Playing at the club as we both know all too well, you're bound to get a reasonable score for being in small slam.

Playing limited conventions I can easily see a J2NT start (keep in mind that many at the club in question are not versed in splinters).

1S - 2NT


Now you must decide if you're bidding 4C as 2nd suit or 3H to show the void. Talk about confusing (I for one bid 4C but at Pat's.....3H probably hits the table to avoid the confusion on whether 4C is side suit or void showing with most players).

1S - 2NT
3H* (shortage) - 4D

Now you owe pard a repeat heart bid to show the void and better than average values.

1S - 2NT
3H* - 4D
4H - 5C
6C - 6D
7S

Maybe this auction might happen with some of the club regulars.

Mike, for clarification, for GSF I do play something rather non-standard.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jan 31 2007, 01:21 AM, said:

1♠
2NT (fit-showing, 4+)
3♣ (unbalanced, non-minimum)
3♦ (where's the stiff?)
3♥ (in the other major, hearts)
3♠ (cue, two top spade honors)
3NT (serious)
4♣ (club control -- known by Opener to be a stiff/void)

Opener should probably take over now.

4NT (1430)
6♣ (three plus a void in clubs)

This looks like 12 easy tricks, but Opener needs something more.

6♥ (a 6-level bid in the short suit? Must be LTTC)
7♠.

This auction isn't bad, however opener does take a somewhat rosy and luck view by using RKCB. He has shown a non-minimum PLUS a serious slam try, so I don't see why responder can't have ♠KQJ and ♥AK ♦Q as his only high cards up to 4♣.

Even assuming a diamond control, opener would be somewhat badly placed after hearing a reply of 2 keycards plus queen - is it ♠KQ ♥A ♦K or ♠KQ ♥Q ♦AK?

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 31 2007, 12:11 AM, said:

This is not as easy as it seems like it should be, and it doesn't surprise me to see that most missed grand.

Using a basic 2/1 style:

1♠   2♦
2♠   3♠:

Hmm, I think I wouldn't sell this hand as a minimum - having AAK plus 6520 with tolerance for partner's suit looks like extras to me. Does a direct 3♣ promise more in high-card strength for you?

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Jan 30 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 31 2007, 12:11 AM, said:

This is not as easy as it seems like it should be, and it doesn't surprise me to see that most missed grand.

Using a basic 2/1 style:

1♠   2♦
2♠   3♠:

Hmm, I think I wouldn't sell this hand as a minimum - having AAK plus 6520 with tolerance for partner's suit looks like extras to me. Does a direct 3♣ promise more in high-card strength for you?

Yes. I think that those who bid 3♣ here are at a serious disadvantage. The problem is that responder is so wide-range... and he may need to make a go-no go decision about whether to force beyond 3N on hands that belong in slam opposite a 'real' high-level reverse, as 3♣ is traditionally described but which have no right to go higher if opener is this weak.

So he ends up having to bid 3N on many hands on which he should, opposite a 16 count, be going higher... and it does no good to say, well, opener can move over 3N then... because responder may have stretched the 2♦ response and have bid 3N on a minimum that has no fit and no safety at the 4 level. It is one of the major draawbacks of 2/1: how do 15-16 point hands bid opposite 15-16 point hands: all too often we see decent slams missed... or, when a pair tries to overcome this, we see silly 5-level contracts.

Preserving the integrity of the high-level reverse minimizes these issues, at the cost of creating or magnifying others. I know which I prefer

BTW, 2♠ does not show a minimum... it could be a huge hand... but if responder bids a forcing 2N, as he often will, now my 3♣ says that I lack the significant extras needed to have bid 3♣ over 2♦ (or that I am 6=4 in the blacks, stength undefined).... look at the 'new system' thread in the non-natural forum and you will see that others also recognize that 2/1 forces all kinds of contortions on one.

[mike777]

Hmm this feels a bit double dummy but here goes:

1s=2nt
3h=3s
4d=4h
5c=5d
5nt?=7s

2nt=Bergen version of Jacoby(stronger often 14+)
3h=void somewhere
3s=where?
4d=H
4h=cue
5c=cue
5d=cue
5nt?=grand try

Can understand if we only get to 6spades.

[keylime]

I agree with Mike on the fact this is not an easy problem; I do not want this hand playing scientific methods. I can imagine Viking Clubbers bidding 15 rounds of bids to get to six myself.

[awm]

I'm somewhat confused by people's approach to this hand. It seems to me that:

(1) If partner has a diamond singleton or void it's probably good news. If partner has a diamond holding like Qxx this is not particularly good. Bidding 2♦ initially will cause partner to up-evaluate the Qxx holding and down-evaluate shortage. It will also make it hard to convince partner we have so many trumps, since "2♦ then raise spades" is the normal procedure with a strong diamond suit and three spades.

(2) This hand is essentially a bunch of trumps, some controls, and a void. It will probably be easier to describe our hand to partner than to try to listen to partner's description. Starting with Jacoby here seems like kind of a distortion -- if partner has no shortage and xxx(x) clubs we could easily be on for slam whereas if partner has no shortage and KQx clubs we probably have nothing, and this will be hard to find out (or to convince partner of the void) after Jacoby 2NT.

(3) Assuming 4♣ is a splinter, what's the incentive not to use it? We have plenty of trumps and very short clubs, and no particularly strong suit. Note that most hands with a void in clubs will include a five-card side suit (okay except 5-4-4-0 exactly and some hands with 6 spades). Do people not splinter with voids ever? What's the theory behind that?

And no one's shot down my auction yet.

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on Jan 30 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

I understand the Jacoby auction, but I think it is at least as flawed as my suggestion. The problems arise because all sequences so far proposed (other than my relay reference, which is meaningless in a 'normal' bidding discussion) require one of the bidders to take charge while guessing about a key element of the hand.

Thus how can either partner use keycard meaningfully? Say responder discovers the ♥ void.... why on earth should that tell responder that there are no ♦ losers??

Appollo's auction doesn't begin to address the ♦ issue until the 6 level, and it is far from clear that 6♦ says what he seems to want it to say.

On his auction, up to 4N, how would opener have bid Axxxx x Jxx AKxx? This is not a hand on which you want to reach even the 6 level, yet Appollo is hauling out a grand slam try.

Sorry, Appollo, I do not mean to pick on you: I think your sequence makes at least as much sense as my suggestion... maybe this hand is too difficult for standard bidding, without one player applying a generous amount of optimism.

On the way home from work I was actually thinking 1♠-6♠-7♠ was the simplest auction.

If my pard raised me to 6♠ I guarantee I'd bid 7 with opener's hand.

[Apollo81]

eh, I dont like cuebidding. It feels natural to find out if pard has red shortness.

I think bidding 4♣ then (assume pard signs off) 5♣ then let pard out if he signs off is OK too.

[Apollo81]

I think there should be different splinters for voids and singletons. Hands with voids become way easier to bid.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Jan 30 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

How about something like:

1♠(1) - 4♣ (2)
4♥(3) - 5♣ (4)
5♥(5) - 6♥ (6)
7♠(7)

(1) Natural
(2) Singleton or void club and 4+♠
(3) Cuebid; 1st or 2nd round heart control, denies 1st or 2nd round diam control
(4) Void clubs, promises at least 2nd round diam control (else 4♠)
(5) Cuebid; 1st+2nd round heart control, which from responder's hand must be void
(6) Cuebid; ♥A; implies good trumps (else 5NT) and ♦A (else 6♠, cannot be grand)
(7) Opener knows ♥A, ♦A, ♣void, ♠KQxx or Kxxxx at worst

Note that the 4♥ cue promises a suitable hand for slam, responder's 5♣ call is fairly automatic in this sequence. The auction might be even easier playing turbo, where 5♣ would guarantee an odd number of keycards in addition to the club void, but opener can work out all the important cards by the time he bids the grand in any case.

Also note that when responder makes the grand slam try via 6♥, he knows that opener has no hearts and no ace or king of diamonds, yet still judges his hand suitable for slam. If opener lacks the spade ace, then virtually all his points must be in clubs (and his hand must be minimum) and he wouldn't have even cued 4♥. So responder can almost bid the grand here, but is afraid of something like Axxxxx - Qxx AKxx opposite. The 6♥ cuebid (denying ♦AK and showing the ♥A) helps opener evaluate that the actual hand is worth a grand bid whereas the example hand given is not quite enough.

I suspect most people would signoff in 6♠ after opener fails to show any diamond controls.

Why does responder think there isnt a loser there?

Doesnt mean signoff is right of course...just that people would do it.