[han]

Ha, thanks for noticing my joke Phil .

Though as bridge player I'm more American than Dutch I think, and what is more important, bridge or passport?

[blackshoe]

Heh. Okay. So far the bidding has gone (never mind what folks here want to bid ):

1♣-(P)-1♠-(2♦)-2♠-(P)-3-♦-(P)-3♠

Opponents are not bidding any more. Responder now bids 4♥. What's going on? How do you evaluate your hand now (you're opener, remember)?

[jillybean]

Ive had enough, 4♠

[kenrexford]

Let's see:

1♣ (natural)
1♠ (natural) [2♦]
2♠ (natural, promising 4-card support)
3♦ (weird HSGT)
3♠ (I cannot help you)
4♥ (some sort of undefined slam try)

Now what?

I have no idea what partner has.
I have no idea what we play.
I have no idea what I'm supposed to look for in my hand.

But, I do have a plan. I'll stare straight forward for about ten seconds. Then, I'll stand up, waver, and fall down across the table. I'll pretend to have passed out. When they "revive me," I'll talk about this happening to my grandfather and my father and pretend to panic. I'll leave the game, run to my car, grab my cell phone, call my buddy, pick him up, take off down the road, and hopefully catch at least the midnight game in the other tournament a few states over.

[jtfanclub]

I agree with Ken!

[han]

I get confused in long auctions like this. She's trying for slam and she hasn't bid blackwood yet. Who is this partner and why is she playing with me?

I pass.

No wait, undo undo, I bid 4♠! DIRECTOR!

[Codo]

I like Kens plan.

But besides this, I bid 4 NT.

Resoning: Pd asked me for cvalues/help in diamonds. I denyed them. After this he had slam interesst. So obviously he has short diamonds but forgot to bid 4 Diamond after my 2 Spade bid- or judged that 4 Diamond won´t lead us to the correct spot. Opposite a hand with 4 Spades, a singleton Diamond and Slam interesst, my hand is golden and I bid Blackwood.

[blackshoe]

I guess this has gone on long enough. And it seems there's more to hand evaluation that even George Rosenkranz imagines. :-)

The putative auction, after 1♣-1♠-(2♦)-2♠-3♦-3♠-4♥-5♣-6♣-7♠-all pass.

After 4♥, opener reasoned that partner was making a slam try all along with 3♦, showing first round control, and that 4♥ shows first round control of hearts. With

---

opener decided he liked his hand, and cooperated with the slam try by cue-bidding his ♣A. When responder then cue-bid 6♣, he reasoned this was a grand slam try holding ♣K, so the jump to 7♠ was "easy".

The actual hands:

---

The book is Godfrey's Bridge Challenge, George Rosenkranz and Phillip Alder, 1996. Chapter 1 is on hand evaluation. The main point is how the value of opener's hand changed with every bid his partner made. A hand that started out as a minimum opening bid became, in the end, worth a grand slam.

What I found most interesting is the analysis as the bidding went along. It was, I supposed, an insight into the thinking of experts. I was surprised that nobody here thought along similar lines at any point.

Personally, I think Blackwood is overrated - and overused.

[kenrexford]

My head just exploded.

[blackshoe]

Well, clean up the mess, then.

[kenrexford]

blackshoe, on Sep 27 2007, 06:38 AM, said:

Well, clean up the mess, then.

OK.

Rosenkranz is right in one respect. IF the cuebidding style is such that you MUST cuebid Aces-first, up-the-line, and only then may you cuebid the King in partner's suit, and if you only cuebid 5♣ with the spade King (not sure how that has been shown yet) or if 6♣ asks specifically for that holding, then the auction makes sense.

There are so many problems, though. I'll focus on the one, however, that made my head explode.

When one makes calls that have GT or ST double-meaning potential, one should try to have a general feel of consistency between them. This style did not, in the slightest.

As an example. If, in a sequence, 3♦ asks for something, that "shows" a lack of values there. All subsequent auctions should retain that general feel -- weakness, hole, denial, etc. This protects the auction when partner does something unexpected in reaction to your call (like jumping to 4♥ as a splinter).

Thus, consider this 3♦ call. If it shows values for game, but may later prove to show valuers (control) for slam, these are consistent. If it shows a hole (like xxx) for game (HSGT), and if it later is deemed a "denial" cuebid (denying a control if slammish), these are consistent. When it shows either xxx if a GT or the Ace if a ST, the inconsistency yields confusion and heads exploding.

This hand is a lot easier if Rerponder bid 3♣ instead of 3♦. Opener likes that card and splinters, suggesting (1.) good clubs, (2.) a stiff heart, (3.) good spades, and (4.) no diamond control. RKCB follows and the grand is reached. Note that a splinter after 3♣ (filling in Opener's suit) is more appealing than after 3♦ (which seems to deny filling in clubs).

But, to each his own.

I don't use a general approach of denial cues. However, I do like to retain denial meaning to a "proven" cue when the auction later becomes slammish. So, for instance, I would expect 4♥ to suggest slam interest but confirming that the 3♦ HSGT was a HSST (a denial cue), seeking diamond shortness for slam purposes. If I could force partner to bid 3♠, then I could have this switchie-cue style. How do I know, however, what to intelligently do if partner makes a slam try like 4♥? Is he showing a diamond control? Must I later clarify what I held?

This auction may not illustrate the problem all that well. However, there are auctions where one person makes what sounds like a game try or notrump probe only to find out that partner was secretly planning to launch his own slam try. If a call may be based on weakness or strength, this turn of events leaves an inability to resolve the problem effectively. If that problem exists in some auctions, I want consistency across the board, for memory's sake.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Food for thought.

This hand evaluation thing isn't as easy as some experts make it look.

[skjaeran]

blackshoe, on Sep 27 2007, 05:06 AM, said:

Heh. Okay. So far the bidding has gone (never mind what folks here want to bid ):

1♣-(P)-1♠-(2♦)-2♠-(P)-3-♦-(P)-3♠

Opponents are not bidding any more. Responder now bids 4♥. What's going on? How do you evaluate your hand now (you're opener, remember)?

Obviously 3♦ was an advance cuebid. My hand is great now and I'll just RKCB.. In my cuebidding methods a grand shouldn't be possible, but with an unknown non-Norwegian partner I'll not rule it out.

[han]

Let me just point out that the 4♥ splinter would have worked out really well. Opener can abuse RKC and ask for the club queen and everybody is happy.

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on Sep 27 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

Ha, thanks for noticing my joke Phil .

Though as bridge player I'm more American than Dutch I think, and what is more important, bridge or passport?

I didn't take the joke, I actually though you became american.

Doe it mean you will never agree with me again?

[cherdano]

They really recommend 3♠ in the book after 1C 1S (2D) 2S 3D? This looks very weird! And a bad example for making their point, because after 6♣ the hand is worth a grand slam partly because we underbid earlier, not just because the hand's value increased on the auction.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Sep 27 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

Let me just point out that the 4♥ splinter would have worked out really well. Opener can abuse RKC and ask for the club queen and everybody is happy.

Ask for club queen eh? And on what hand do you not want to be in the grand opposite a 4♥ bid with 2 keycards and no spade queen?