[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

Scoring: MP

---

At a pairs (matchpoints) tourney about 4 years ago, my partner got a pass on his right and had to decide what to do with this monster hand.

We were playing SAYC with the usual gadgets. You can make or state any assumptions you like about our system.

What was the best opening bid ?

[TylerE]

7♥ is reasonable.

[Foxx]

Gadgets..... Bah Humbug.

System....... Bah Humbug.

I'm going to pull a Dirty Harry and open 7♥.

[ralph23]

Consider the form of scoring in use.

[Echognome]

Specific ace ask is reasonable if we have that gadget available. Open 4NT and if partner bids 6♣ to show the ♣A, then shooting it out in 7NT is fine. If partner bids 5♣ (no aces), then 7♥ is reasonable.

I can't think of a way to get doubled along the way, so I'll stick with the plan above (if available). If you catch partner with a void heart, then pray for 3-3. I imagine most people are going to be in that boat.

[ralph23]

We don't really need specific ace-ask, do we? He's only missing one Ace

Won't regular old Blackwood be good enough ?

[Echognome]

ralph23, on Jul 20 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

We don't really need specific ace-ask, do we? He's only missing one Ace

Won't regular old Blackwood be good enough ?

I don't know of many partnerships that even have regular old blackwood available.

If that is your reasoning, can I start with 4♣ Gerber?

Or we can start with 2♣ and roll out Rainbow Gerber... (see www.poorbridge.com)

[ralph23]

Open 4NT = good old fashioned Blackwood or specific Blackwood. Comes in handy sometimes. Works just fine here.

Point was, whatever form of ace asking you use, it will work here. As long as partner is in sync. Specific BW is not necessary.

Having 4♣ opening = Gerber would be ..... hmmm.... not something I would suggest in the B/I Discussion Forum. Lord knows, people are already confused enough about Gerber.

[Quantumcat]

You can still open 7♥. Partner knows you didn't open 7NT because you were without the Ace in a suit thus void in it, if he holds the ♣A He will know to raise you to 7NT. Thus avoiding confusion with an opening specific ace ask

[mike777]

Opening 7H is just plain silly at MP. Expecting partner to bid 7nt with Ace of clubs is just plain silly.
So much for Bridge is a partnership game.

[Quantumcat]

Why is it silly? What kind of hand do you envisage your partner is looking at when she opens 7♥?

It's possible she has *two* voids, but in that case wouldn't she want to find out which of her suits you liked best before embarking on grand?

[skjaeran]

Quantumcat, on Jul 21 2007, 05:43 AM, said:

Why is it silly? What kind of hand do you envisage your partner is looking at when she opens 7♥?

It's possible she has *two* voids, but in that case wouldn't she want to find out which of her suits you liked best before embarking on grand?

With AKQJ AKQJTxxxx v v you'd not be interested in partner's preference, would you?

[skjaeran]

I'd start with 2♣, show my ♥'s and get to 7♥ (or 7NT if partner's got an ace) unless partner seems to be very short. If partner is able to show a very long ♠ or ♦ suit, I'd consider a grand in his suit.

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

The story has a happy and somewhat humorous ending. A good news/bad news story:

1. We were playing specific Blackwood opening 4NT. So partner had exactly the right tool at his disposal to make the genius opening bid.

2. Unfortunately, partner got all excited seeing this incredible hand. Thought only "Hey, as long as an opponent doesn't have Jxxx in ♥, I'm in like Flynn!!" and seeing how unlikely that pessimistic scenario was, he opened 7♥.

3. I remarked "Yea, I was going to bid that too" and passed.

4. I did NOT have the Ace of ♣. That hit the table as the opening lead, along with two ♥ from my hand. Partner ruffed the opening lead, pulled trumps in two rounds, and claimed. The six missing ♥ were divided 2-2-2.

5. I figured this would be an almost flat board -- surely, everyone would reach this contract. But about 25% of the tables only reached 6♥. That was hard to understand. Anyway, we got a pretty decent MP score as a result.

6.... Does anyone know the probability that, if you have a 7-card suit, the missing six are divided either 4-2-0 or 4-1-1 ? It seems pretty unlikely. (And even if they are divided that way, there is 1 chance out of three that partner, not the opps, has the 4-carder.)