[Fluffy]

the problem with SA (or SAYC) is that it is not standard .

who were you richard?

[Fluffy]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Given the original auction, yes.

I'm not sure N would be the first person to bid NT if the bidding had gone by the book:

1D-2C;2D-4C;etc

If it goes by your book who knows, but I think after that start it should go


1♦-2♣
2♦-4♣
4♦-4♠
4NT

or alternatively

1♦-2♣
2♦-4♣
4NT

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jun 11 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

the problem with SA (or SAYC) is that it is not standard .

who were you richard?

I was sitting South, playing with a pickup partner. We agreed that we were playing 2/1 GF and a bit on carding/leads but nothing else.

Our auction started

1♦ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠
3N - 4♣
4♦ - 6N

I start a scientific auction by bidding 4♣ over 3N, but then had second thoughts. I wasn't sure about what partner was showing with 3N and didn't want to risk a misunderstanding. 6N looked practical...

For what its worth, I agree with the (basic) point, which is that 2♥ is an overbid playing SAYC (or even 2/1 GF)

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

I have no idea what "Its also quite bizarre to be introducing this expression in a SAYC discussion." means.  The basic terminology of 2/1 bidding is not system dependent.

The point is that expression "High Reverse" is not part of the basic terminology of SAYC or 2/1 bidding.

The expression "High Reverse" developed in England, within the context of Acol type methods.

The term "High Reverse" did indeed get invented in England.

However, it is still commonly used in teaching novices by many and is indeed "part of the basic terminology of SA or 2/1".

[Codo]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

50% at best is not my definition of "a damn fine contract". YMMV.

Silly comment.

With AKQJ of spade you are able to get 4 Spade tricks against any distribution
You have one diamond trick for sure.
With AKQJxxx opps x in clubs you make 7 tricks as long as the suit is not 5-0.
So this counts up 4-+1+7 tricks without a finesse and on anylead- as long as the opener plays NT.
Ah and opener did indeed declare NT, so 6 NT will make about 90 % of all times.

I don´t know, how you call this. For me this is "a damn fine contract".

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jun 11 2007, 08:38 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Given the original auction, yes.

I'm not sure N would be the first person to bid NT if the bidding had gone by the book:

1D-2C;2D-4C;etc

If it goes by your book who knows, but I think after that start it should go

1♦-2♣;2♦-4♣;4♦-4♠;4N

or alternatively

1♦-2♣;2♦-4♣;4N

It's not "my book". It's SA as defined by texts like _Common Sense Bidding_ by Bill Root. _The Bidding Dictionary_ by Alan Truscott. Etc etc.

I can see something like
1D-2C;2D-4C;
4H (after all Responder could have a GF 64)
4S ("actually, it's the other 4cM partner");
4N ("Well, I can't support C's and I have nothing extra. I'm done.")
...but if so, will Responder push for slam w/ a D void (strongly implying wasted values on this auction) opposite what should be a =3451 minimum?

In fact, I can see S bidding
5C ("I like Our chances in C's far better than in NT, thanks.")
...if this happens, will Opener push for slam? Seems unclear to me.

Of course, if S bids 6C, N can plausibly correct to 6N.

But IMHO, the situation 'tis a bit murky

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

If the auction begins according to these guidelines the wheels won't come off as easily as they did and you should end up in 5♣ where you belong.

Shouldn't that read 6N by North? (its where we played)

I won't claim that we had that great an auction. (I was playing with a pickup partner and pretty much dumped him in 6N). However, looking at both hands it seems clear that 6N is a damn good contract.

Yup.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

If the auction begins according to these guidelines the wheels won't come off as easily as they did and you should end up in 5♣ where you belong.

Shouldn't that read 6N by North? (its where we played)

I won't claim that we had that great an auction. (I was playing with a pickup partner and pretty much dumped him in 6N). However, looking at both hands it seems clear that 6N is a damn good contract.

♠KQx♥Kxxx♦AQxxx♣x
+
♠AJxx♥xx♦♣AKQJxxx

6 anything is at best a 50% contract.
(If the ♥A is off side, you are down. If the ♥A is onside and ♠'s or ♣'s break badly enough, you are down.)

50% at best is not my definition of "a damn fine contract". YMMV.

Judging from the quoted comment, I take it the ♥A was favorably placed in this case.

This is total BS.

The odds of clubs breaking 5-0 is 3.91%.

This makes the odds of 6NT by North at 96%. 7 clubs, 4 spades, and a trick in either red suit. (Either the Ace of diamonds or the heart K as it is protected from an opening lead thru it.)

If you are waiting for better odds than this, you are right about one thing, your mileage will certainly vary.

But you are going to be losing a helluva lot of imps over the long run.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

It's not "my book". It's SA as defined by texts like _Common Sense Bidding_ by Bill Root. _The Bidding Dictionary_ by Alan Truscott. Etc etc.

I can see something like
1D-2C;2D-4C;
4H (after all Responder could have a GF 64)
4S ("actually, it's the other 4cM partner");
4N ("Well, I can't support C's and I have nothing extra. I'm done.")
...but if so, will Responder push for slam w/ a D void (strongly implying wasted values on this auction) opposite what should be a =3451 minimum?

You're missing the forest for the trees.

At the table, my partner opened 1♦. The first that went through my head was emphatically not "I wonder what the best auction is to describe a 4=0=2=7 shape with solid Clubs?" What I started thinking about was "I need to make sure that partner declares a slam".

For all I know, jumping to 4♣ might be the masterful "book" bid after the auction

1♦ - 2♣
2♦

Even so, I like a 2♠ rebid, because it will (very likely) lead to partner rebidding 2NT. And thats a hell of a lot more important to me than a masterful exploratory sequence that will leave me declaring 6♣ or 6N and telegraph a Heart lead.

[foo]

Folks, one more time. The entire issue is ?if? 6N will be bid by the N side; and ?if? it will be bid at all if the auction starts as it should.

No one is arguing against 6N by N being a good contract.

[Fluffy]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I can see something like
1D-2C;2D-4C;
4H (after all Responder could have a GF 64)

I'm shocked, you say that after 4♣ rebid opener should instead of cuebid his ace bid a new suit at the 4 level to look for a fit on a suit responder has already denied?.

Sorry, that's not my book.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

Folks, one more time. The entire issue is ?if? 6N will be bid by the N side; and ?if? it will be bid at all if the auction starts as it should.

No one is arguing against 6N by N being a good contract.

Tell me, when is South ever bidding NT? Is he actually going to RKC with his diamond void? Is he going to bid it naturally? Of course not. So, if NT gets bid, it has to be by North.

Given the leap past 3N to 4C (which should imply slam interest, imo), North certainly can envision 6N played from his side to protect his red suit holdings.

1D-2C-2D-4C- (4D/4H depending on agreements, has to be cue)-4S-4N (RKC ♣)-appropriate answer 0314/1430-6N.

Is it really that difficult?

[foo]

Fluffy, on Jun 11 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I can see something like
1D-2C;2D-4C;
4H (after all Responder could have a GF 64)

I'm shocked, you say that after 4♣ rebid opener should instead of cuebid his ace bid a new suit at the 4 level to look for a fit on a suit responder has already denied?.

Sorry, that's not my book.

You've just put your finger on one of the major reasons for the development of 2/1 GF from SA.

Because Responder must jump to 4C with any GF hand with 6+C, 4C does not necessarily set trumps. After all, what if Opener has 1-C? 6 opposite 1 or 0 does not usually a trump suit make.

Getting rid of such space consuming jumps under these circumstances is one of the big wins of 2/1 GF over SA.

[foo]

foo, on Jun 11 2007, 07:28 AM, said:

dcvetkov, on Jun 11 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Ok, this is with a pickup partner and bidding is as follows. Assume SAYC.

1♦-2♣;
2♥-2♠;
3N-4♣ *;
4♦** -4♠**;
4N-5♠ ***;
6♠**-??

*- Showing slam interest and presumably 6+-4, setting trumps
** - Cue Bid ( agreeing clubs?)     
4NT - unknown, assuming RKCB for clubs
*** -  2 Key Cards with the Queen♣
6♠- presumably 2nd spade control

? Your choices seems to be 7♣, 6NT, 7NT, What is your bid?

Does 6♠ cue bid promises first round heart control?
Should North place the final contract after 5♠? ( he known about lack of first round control in South). As you see top contract is 6NT from North side.

Do you assign any blame in bidding and where?

♠KQx♥Kxxx♦AQxxx♣x
+
♠AJxx♥xx♦♣AKQJxxx

Upon reflection, I had a "Oops, I missed Something Obvious".

The best way to bid this playing absolutely "vanilla" SA, starts with a Strong Jump Shift:
1D-3C; The SJS demands that opener _must_ cuebid
3D-3S;
Now opener knows about the Asymmetric Guard in ♥'s and can rush to bid NT to protect it.
3N- is a nice Value bid given opener's minimum.
-4C; etc

...should end up in 6N Declared by N very nicely; and with bidding that properly reflects each hand's strength and shape.

*goes off muttering to themselves about forgetting SJS as a way to bid S's hand because they've been playing all these systems w/o them for so long...*

[dcvetkov]

Wow, i did not expected so much excitements, Thanks for responces

I bid 7NT. Of course is this 6NT is not cold, I dont know what is and its a lot better then 6♣

Although with no agreement, here are my interpretations

- 4♣ should be showing at least 6-4 and slam interest ( although jump to 4♣ may be preferable to show self sufficient suit and invite cue bidding.
- 4♦ should be cue in support of clubs, With weaker hand and no slam interest, opener can bid 4NT, to play
- 4NT should be RKCB
- 5♠ 2KC + Q. You can decide whether you will show void of not. in view of partner probable 5 diamonds, this ♦ void rates to be useless
- 6♠- My question was whether this bid promises Heart Ace. I think it should, since there is no other reasonable explanation why would partner force so high unless he has a grand in mind. He already knows we are missing an ace. No grand aspirations, he should just bid 6 level clubs or NT. End of Story
7NT is not ridicuols and its around heart ace. There are 13 tricks to be counted if he has it. ( And is is dead minimal for 2H bid, there is no reason why he should not have good hand, with ace of hearts, he makes the same bid)

MHO

[P_Marlowe]

dcvetkov, on Jun 12 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

<snip>
- 4NT should be RKCB <added - for clubs>
- 5♠ 2KC + Q. You can decide whether you will show void of not. in view of partner probable 5 diamonds, this ♦ void rates to be useless
<snip>

You are still defending the 5S bid by South (=2KC + Q)?
How many Keycards are Ace of spades, Ace and King of Clubs?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I think that whatever 6♠ is intended to do, it should show the ♥A.