BBO Discussion Forums: Brighton Slams VI - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Brighton Slams VI (another checkback sequence)

Poll: Move or not? (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Move or not?

  1. 3NT (1 votes [5.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.56%

  2. 4C (15 votes [83.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 83.33%

  3. 4S (2 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2007-August-20, 15:33

Scoring: IMP

1 1
1NT 2
2 2
3 3
?


1 then 1NT = 12-14 balanced, 3+ clubs, would have opened 1 with 4-4 in the minors, raise 1 to 2 freely with 3-card support and a low doubleton.

2 = game forcing checkback
3 = natural in context (could be 2434 or 2425), uncertain that NT is the right game.

3 = at least a mild slam try in spades, asking if you are interested

(partner could have bid 3 over 2 which would pretty much demand a cue bid; also could have shown a single-suited spade slam try with an outside singleton a different way)
0

#2 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,817
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-August-20, 15:46

4c cue for spades.
0

#3 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-August-20, 15:47

Principle of Restricted Range applies here, I think...

I've shown 12-14 hcp, balanced, and denied 3 spades (I should think). Within those limitations, my hand's pretty good.
0

#4 User is offline   hatchett 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 2005-November-02
  • Location:Moldova

Posted 2007-August-20, 16:00

4.... Doesn't look a very good hand to slam for me. My 5 card suit is weak and the J and Q are likely waste paper.
0

#5 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,670
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-August-20, 16:21

I'll cooperate. The spade king is a big card, and it's nice to have club ace rather than (say) king-queen. There is a potential ruffing value in diamonds. I think this hand is much better than, say: xx QJxx KQx KQxx. And 3NT could easily be a disaster (we could be off the whole heart suit, give partner AQJxxx x Axxx Kx, only 14 hcp, and 6 is excellent with 3nt possibly failing if hearts don't break).
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#6 User is offline   Echognome 

  • Deipnosophist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Joined: 2005-March-22

Posted 2007-August-20, 16:45

I'll cooperate as well. But it would help to know a bit of system. Could partner have forced with good spades earlier in the auction or is this the only way he could bid it? What suit quality would you expect for other action?
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
0

#7 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2007-August-20, 17:30

So many systemic questions here. I'll make some guesses.

First, 2, per definition, is "GF Checkback." I cannot tell whether you auto-support spades as first priority or bid cheapest major holding of possible interest. I'll assume that 2 did not deny three hearts (would bid 2 with 3/4), in which case 2 did not promise six of them. Otherwise, unless 1NT is possible as a rebid with a stiff spade (don't know), then 2 would have set trumps and cuebidding would have started immediately (possibly with 3 as a pattern bid) and all sorts of nuances would now be available.

So, it seems that 2 simply promised 5+ spades, 3 was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3 merely natural with extras. Not sure how you contrast this 3 call from an immediate 3 over 2 or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

The next problem is methods. You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything. We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

So, do I like having a hand with 13 HCP's (a maximum), with a "two without the Queen" response to RKCB? Maybe, if partner has diamonds. But, I don't know how to send that message at this point with your methods.

Back way up. This hand is a good reason for a few rules. Had 1NT denied a stiff spade, and had your 2 call required a showing of three spades if you had held them, then Responder would have clearly established spades as trumps with his 2 call. You would then have two levels of possible pattern bidding and/or cuebidding to resolve all unknowns at a nice, safe level.

Maybe you cue 3 (not two top spades, not two top clubs, diamond Ace or King), partner cues 3 (heart control), you cue 3 (one of the top three spades), partner cues 3NT (Serious), you cue 4 (club control), partner cues 4, and you bid 4 (no heart control), sending out a lot of info. That might allow partner comfort at the five-level for some other calls, or someone might make a call that closes the auction down. Whatever.

It is very difficult, though, to assess an auction with dozens of unanswered questions, let alone to suggest any solutions.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#8 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-August-20, 18:42

Like Ken I wonder about the methods. Did partner have a direct 3S available as a slam try?

Anyway, seems I am worth one cuebid, so 4C.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#9 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-August-20, 22:39

This depends on style: that is, partner's degree of aggression after 4. If I am expected to coperate with even mild interest, then that seems to be what I have. If I am to cooperate only with significant (medium or better) interest, I bid 4. As an earlier poster commented, the Q is not very valuable: it's not as if I will be pitching a club or heart loser on his AJx side suit. Compare to Kx Jxxx Kx AQxxx: now that's a hand on which I'd cooperate whether he asked for mild, medium or strong interest.

Playing with me, I'd bid 4, knowing that 3 was available over 2.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#10 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-August-20, 23:49

To me this seems like bidding 4 then giving up unless partner can move. Having shown that I only have a doubleton spade I think this is too good to not try at least once.

I don't prefer 4 since it just sounds like better clubs than this when I have already shown 5. I don't think partner should assume no control when I skip a long suit, he should just assume a bad suit.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#11 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2007-August-21, 01:21

Uh?, I also like 4 how can I agree with josh? :)

Anyway if Frances didn't put it as an option my guess is 4 categorically denies A, so it will do.
0

#12 User is offline   ulven 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 2005-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Sweden
  • Interests:Real name: Ulf Nilsson
    Semi-pro player.

Posted 2007-August-21, 01:44

I'll cooperate at least once. This is a very good hand in the context. I don't share the view that 4C should imply a good/better suit and that 4D doesn't deny a club control.

My choice is 4C.
"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
0

#13 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2007-August-21, 02:36

kenrexford, on Aug 21 2007, 12:30 AM, said:

So, it seems that 2 simply promised 5+ spades, 3 was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3 merely natural with extras. Not sure how you contrast this 3 call from an immediate 3 over 2 or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

The next problem is methods. You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything. We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

Ummm, I did actually answer some of these questions in the original post.

I pointed out that partner could have bid 3S over 2H to show a serious single-suited spade slam try.

I also said that partner could have auto-splintered (what you call a self-splinter, I think).

3NT over 3S would show a bad hand in context (contract suggestion).

You won't usually have a singleton spade having opened 1C (after 1D - 1S - 1NT you might be 1444); exceptionally you might have a singleton spade honour in a 1(43)5 with very poor clubs.
0

#14 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2007-August-21, 05:42

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2007, 03:36 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 21 2007, 12:30 AM, said:

So, it seems that 2 simply promised 5+ spades, 3 was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3 merely natural with extras.  Not sure how you contrast this 3 call from an immediate 3 over 2 or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

The next problem is methods.  You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything.  We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

Ummm, I did actually answer some of these questions in the original post.

I pointed out that partner could have bid 3S over 2H to show a serious single-suited spade slam try.

I also said that partner could have auto-splintered (what you call a self-splinter, I think).

3NT over 3S would show a bad hand in context (contract suggestion).

You won't usually have a singleton spade having opened 1C (after 1D - 1S - 1NT you might be 1444); exceptionally you might have a singleton spade honour in a 1(43)5 with very poor clubs.

Fair point, but I still do not know enough about what the parameters are for exercising the various options, when trump agreement in spades is established, or the cuebidding style.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#15 User is offline   Walddk 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Joined: 2003-September-30
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:Cricket

Posted 2007-August-21, 07:49

The hand is good enough for 4. It's too timid to sign off with two keycards and the best possible trump holding. I am content with my approach after

4 - 4
4

I don't agree with Josh. If you bid 4, you deny a club control. Apparently, that is not how you play it, but I think most folks do.

Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
0

#16 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-August-21, 11:01

Fluffy, on Aug 21 2007, 02:21 AM, said:

Uh?, I also like 4 how can I agree with josh? :angry:

Anyway if Frances didn't put it as an option my guess is 4 categorically denies A, so it will do.

It always seems like a shock when someone agrees with me these days. Especially one of the smart people like you ;)

I think my idea about 4 is useful, it's important for partner to know the quality of our long suit. But of course I won't bypass that bid if partner will think it denies a control.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#17 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,727
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2007-August-21, 11:59

4. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#18 User is offline   Walddk 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Joined: 2003-September-30
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:Cricket

Posted 2007-August-21, 12:04

skaeran, on Aug 21 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

4. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

Take notes people. A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane agreeing. That is not everyday stuff! :angry:

Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
0

#19 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,727
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2007-August-21, 14:33

Walddk, on Aug 21 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

skaeran, on Aug 21 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

4. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

Take notes people. A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane agreeing. That is not everyday stuff! :)

Roland

Take notes??
It's obviously a sign of the end of the world, I don't think notes will help. :P
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#20 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2007-August-21, 14:56

Easiest of the set I guess. Partner may well be short in , 4.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users