[Myrmidon73]

D: N
Vul: NS

I was sitting as north today, and I was wondering if there is a good way to get to 6H with SAYC. My partner was a standby guy, and we decided to play SAYC straight-up. We ended up in 5H, making 6 pretty easily. Thanks for the help:


N:

S: A K
H: K Q T 9 6 5 4
D: J 6 5 3
C:


S:

S: Q J 6 3
H: A J 3
D: 5
C: K T 8 4 2

Thanks.

[kenrexford]

I have no idea what happens in "SAYC" after some bids. One plausible is simply a splinter in support, Opener going. Ugly, but SAYC is ugly.

Spoiler

My auction, my approach:
[THE ORIGINAL AUCTION AND ANALYSIS WAS COMPLETED BOTCHED, AND THEREFORE REMOVED. A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION IS ON THE THIRD PAGE.

[Robert]

Hi kenrexford

A splinter shows 4(+) card support unless the suit has been shown to be 6 cards is the normal understanding in most systems.

If classic bidding methods are in use, bidding 'around the clock' would show shortness in diamonds 'after you bid clubs, spades and supported hearts.' Classic mthods 'jump' holding four card suppport(if room is available) and simply support with three card support.

SAYC used properly is not that ugly. Any method used badly is ugly.

Playing 2/1 GF methods, this hand could be a real problem. Playing SAYC a 2C bid is warrented and could very well lead to an auction where it showed clubs, spades and 3 card heart support with slam interest. The opener should 'come alive' after he hears about slam interest with 3 card support and short diamonds.

I often smile when modern bidders think that splinters are something new under the sun.

The good bidders of many decades ago could sometimes bid very well using classic bidding methods.

Regards,
Robert

[jdonn]

I don't know enough about sayc to say, for example, what opener should rebid after 1♥ - 2♣. But playing 2/1 it could certainly start 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 4♦ and now north would bid to slam. Maybe it can go the same way in sayc for all I know. I don't think the 4♦ bid is automatic since the hand has lousy controls and suits, but it's certainly possible.

[P_Marlowe]

Myrmidon73, on Jul 17 2007, 07:16 PM, said:

D: N
Vul:  NS

I was sitting as north today, and I was wondering if there is a good way to get to 6H with SAYC.  My partner was a standby guy, and we decided to play SAYC straight-up.  We ended up in 5H, making 6 pretty easily.  Thanks for the help:


N:

S:  A K
H:  K Q T 9 6 5 4
D:  J 6 5 3
C:


S:

S: Q J 6 3
H: A J 3
D: 5
C: K T 8 4 2

Thanks.

Hi,

Most likely I would play 4H (or 5H) as well.
Best I can do:

1H (1) - 4D (2)
6H (3)

(1) Normal
(2) Splinter
First cross road, just invite or force to game.
I would force to game with the hand.
If you decide that you just invite, i.e. you bid 3H,
most likely you wont reach the slam, you still may,
but this will most likely require that South makes
a move over.
Second Cross Road, if you decide to force to game,
you either can bid 2C (which wont make opener happy
and South will feel, that he has to hit the brake, because
he is min for his force) or you can bid 4D as a splinter,
but most people will require 4 card trump support.
(3) The practical bid, which means another crossroad ,
if partner does not hold the Ace of Hearts or Diamonds you
are down, but it is a reasonable bet that he holds the Ace
of hearts (because of the splinter).

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SoTired]

One way to bid this is:
1H 2C
2H 4D
6H

4D is a second round splinter with 3-card support and opener has no trouble bidding slam.

if opener bids 3H instead of 2H, responder has to recognize that an opening bid opposite a jump opener = slam.

[kenrexford]

Robert, on Jul 18 2007, 01:24 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF methods, this hand could be a real problem.

Huh? 2/1 makes this hand easy in comparison.

[ArcLight]

Playing 2/1, I do not consider this hand good enough to GF.
Maybe if you move the spade honors to Clubs.

If you GF on this, I think you may end up in many bad games as well.

[cherdano]

Robert, on Jul 18 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF methods, this hand could be a real problem. Playing SAYC a 2C bid is warrented and could very well lead to an auction where it showed clubs, spades and 3 card heart support with slam interest. The opener should 'come alive' after he hears about slam interest with 3 card support and short diamonds.

Wait. Playing 2/1 you would not GF, but playing SAYC you would show slam interest?

I think if you don't consider South a GF to begin with you will never ever get to slam (the SAYC bid is 3H limit raise in this case). If you consider it a GF, I think the 1H 2C 2H 4D auction is sensible, but I am not sure I would bid it this way.

[Fluffy]

Myrmidon73, on Jul 18 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

I was wondering if there is a good way to get to 6H with SAYC.

good way to get to slam with SAYC?, there is no good way if you play that system sorry, maybe 6NT with 34 HCP, but I bet you will miss many laydown 7 of a minor.

[skjaeran]

Myrmidon73, on Jul 18 2007, 02:16 AM, said:

D: N
Vul: NS

I was sitting as north today, and I was wondering if there is a good way to get to 6H with SAYC. My partner was a standby guy, and we decided to play SAYC straight-up. We ended up in 5H, making 6 pretty easily. Thanks for the help:


N:

S: A K
H: K Q T 9 6 5 4
D: J 6 5 3
C:


S:

S: Q J 6 3
H: A J 3
D: 5
C: K T 8 4 2

Thanks.

1♥ - 2♥
4♣ - 4♦
blabla
6♥

[awm]

I don't see any particular reason that this hand is easier to bid in 2/1 versus SAYC. In fact, if south chooses to make a limit raise you still might have a shot in SAYC after:

1♥ - 3♥(1)
3♠(2)

(1) Limit raise; SAYC limit raise requires only three trumps.
(2) Cuebid.

Whereas in 2/1:

1♥ - 1NT/1♠ (1)
3♥(2) - 4♥(3)

(1) Forcing notrump or 1♠ is the normal start with 3-card LR.
(2) Only four losers and a seven-bagger has to be worth this.
(3) Would you cuebid here?

If south chooses to game force, he starts with 2♣ in either system, opener rebids 2♥ in either system (forcing in SAYC since 2/1 promises a rebid; forcing in 2/1 since you're forced to game), and south can rebid 4♦ (splinter) or 3♥ (forcing; in sayc because 2♥ didn't promise a sixth trump and a 3-card LR would've raised directly and not temporized with 2♣) or 2♠ to be followed by hearts (forcing; responder's second new suit bid establishes a GF in a 2/1 auction even in SAYC).

[jdonn]

awm, on Jul 18 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

I don't see any particular reason that this hand is easier to bid in 2/1 versus SAYC. In fact, if south chooses to make a limit raise you still might have a shot in SAYC after:

1♥ - 3♥(1)
3♠(2)

(1) Limit raise; SAYC limit raise requires only three trumps.
(2) Cuebid.

I don't think you have thought this through completely. What is the rest of the auction that reaches slam here but not if south has, like, xxx AJx Axxx Kxx? In my opinion it is essentially impossible to have an intelligent auction to slam unless north knows south is short in diamonds. Are you saying south would splinter with 5♦ over the 3♠ cuebid?

Quote

Whereas in 2/1:

1♥ - 1NT/1♠ (1)
3♥(2) - 4♥(3)

(1) Forcing notrump or 1♠ is the normal start with 3-card LR.
(2) Only four losers and a seven-bagger has to be worth this.
(3) Would you cuebid here?

If for some reason I didn't game force immediately? YES!!!!

[Echognome]

How would those getting to slam bid differently holding the following hands? It's not just the non-wastage in diamonds, but also the fitting spade values that make this slam really good.

JTxx AJx x KQTxx
Jxx AJx x KQTxxx
QJxx Jxx x AKxxx (this one is for those fantastic auctions of 1♥ - 4♦ - 6♥, or do you only splinter holding the A of trumps?)

[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Jul 18 2007, 07:36 PM, said:

How would those getting to slam bid differently holding the following hands? It's not just the non-wastage in diamonds, but also the fitting spade values that make this slam really good.

JTxx AJx x KQTxx

1♥
2♣
2♦ (allowing room for a 2♥ call)
2♥ (setting trumps)
2♠ Cue -- a control, 1/2)
2NT (poor trumps)
3♥ (no club card, not two top diamonds, two top hearts)
4♣ (two top clubs, no spade control, non-serious)
4♥ (too much wasted in clubs when Responder is non-serious)
==========================================
Jxx AJx x KQTxxx

Same exact auction.
==========================================
QJxx Jxx x AKxxx

Same exact auction
==========================================
All that said, I just re-checked my proposed auction, and I analyzed and bid it out too quickly. Opener cannot cue 3♣ with the void because that cue shows a top honor. So, the actual auction, with the actual hand, could be as follows, in my approach:

QJxx AJx x Kxxxx

1♥
2♣
2♦ (allowing room for a 2♥ call)
2♥ (setting trumps)
2♠ (Cue -- a control, 1/2 round)
2NT (poor trumps)
3♥ (no club card, not two top diamonds, two top hearts)
4♥ (no spade control, non-serious, not two top clubs, no top diamond honor)

At this point, the most that Responder can have, from Opener's standpoint, as to honor cards is ♠QJ ♥AJ ♦J ♣AJ. That's a 14-count that sucks but that has play if the diamonds cooperate, meaning a stiff. If Responder has a death hand (e.g., ♠QJx ♥AJx ♦Jxx ♣AJxx), the five-level is not safe. Heck, ♠QJ ♥AJx ♦Jxx ♣KJxxx is even possible, where four might not even make. This sucks.

Opener could risk a mess by cuebidding at the four level, something like 4♠, but that might be too high, as I explained.

This hand is way more difficult than I was thinking initially.

Let's re-think this thing. Responder should be able to predict a likely auction like what actually occurred, above. If he gets the expected 2♦ rebid, he can support hearts with a 2♥ call. In all auctions that matter, Opener will bid 2♠, forcing a 2NT cue by Responder. If Opener cues 3♣ or 3♦, either one, Responder will be forced to cue 3♥, so far showing nothing other than support with one trump card; if Opener instead cues 3♥, Responder will have no cue available and must bid 4♥, accomplishing nothing other than to show support and lousy trumps. When Opener does cue 3♣ or 3♦, and Responder cues 3♥, any next cue by Opener will force, again, a 4♥ call from Responder. Nothing more than support with just above lousy ones.

Thus, it appears that starting with 2♣ as Responder will doom the auction to one where Responder can show little more about his hand, in the end, other than (a.) support with one top trump (sometimes not even the latter), (b.) no spade control, (c.) no top diamond, and (d.) not two top clubs. Very negative. Misses showing the diamond stiff.

So, Responder (I, that is) really should have thought this one out more. An immediate splinter is void-showing as I play), as does a Jacoby 2NT (same reason, plus no desire to captain this thing).

In the end, I think this is one of those hands where I must use one of my other tools, as a predicted cuebidding sequence will not work. I must get across the stiff. Had my clubs been headed by two top cards, I like 2♣, or had I held a spade control. But this hand sucks for regular cuebidding -- the predicted auction is terrible. It is even worse if Opener cannot rebid 2♦.

So, with no spade control, and not two top clubs, I now think the correct systemic bid (for me) is 3♣ (which can include a splinter). Opener, with his actual hand, would then have two options.

3♦ would ask what I have. I'd bid 3♠ (some 12-14 splinter hand not appropriate for cuebidding), partner would ask for my stiff (3NT), and I would not surprisingly show stiff diamond (4♦). Opener would now start to think.

I must have scattered values to elect against a simple cuebidding sequence. This sounds like I must have stiff diamond, spade Queen, some club card (probably one of the top three), and a heart card. He can now count 11 easy tricks (seven hearts, one heart ruff, three spades). The five-level should be safe.

So, Opener tries 4NT (1430), finding out that Responder does not have two Aces. Opener will expect, then, three spades, one diamond ruff, and seven hearts, for 11 tricks. If Responder has a fourth heart, that's 12. With only three hearts, an establishing four spade works, or remotely some kind of diamond concentration with the stiff heart, or something lucky in clubs.

Bottom line? This hand is WAY more difficult than I thought. It is not tough to blast thereand find out. It is very tough to know if the slam is right, and it is very tough to bid properly.

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

Robert, on Jul 18 2007, 01:24 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 GF methods, this hand could be a real problem.

Huh? 2/1 makes this hand easy in comparison.

IF you elect to bid 2C and GF the hand. Yes, yes before you tell me how many losers I have and my support points I also would GF this hand but I think many people would elect not to GF this hand which could also be the winning action.

I'll also GF the hand and think that we are at least 50/50 vs an average min. 1♥ opener.

.. neilkaz ..

[jdonn]

Ken, for all the merits your approach may have, and I tend to be much more open to the idea of them than some people here, I can't even convince myself to read your posts when you have opener rebidding 2♦. That is a joke. It is misdescriptive, will totally mess up your game auctions when responder doesn't have a direct fit, and will pay a huge price every time you actually have a diamond suit worth bidding without an amazing heart suit.

[Robert]

Hi cherdano

Please read my posts more carefully. My "could be a problem" choice of words indicated a possible problem. Jlall is a 2/1 GF bidder here, however, he understands that others might not. This could be a problem in bidding a slam here.

The opening bid style is very wide spread on this and other forums.

In SA methods a 2/1 reguires 10+HCP and that makes a 2/1 choice somewhat more easy. You have to decide what this hand is worth in a 2/1 GF style, before you make a limit type raise, use a forcing 1NT* or perhaps even bid a 2/1 GF 2c bid.

Playing SA type methods, "some bidders" would pattern out by 'bidding around the clock' to show diamond shortness and mild slam interest.

The question was asked how to bid slam here? I suggested one way.

Regards,
Robert