BBO Discussion Forums: How would you bid these? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

How would you bid these?

#1 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-November-01, 22:23

Scoring: MP


The opponents will be silent throughout.

System concerns are as follows:

1. The system is basically standard, but...
2. A 1♦ opening would show 6+ or 4+ with a stiff/void somewhere; thus 1♣ is either unbalanced with clubs or balanced with 2-5 of either minor
3. Not Walsh; 1♦ denies a five-card major; 1M = 5+
4. 1NT = 6 to a bad 11, 2NT = 11+ to 13-, 3NT=13+ to 15-
5. 5-card major openings

Let me know if I am missing anything.
"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

#2 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2007-November-02, 02:16

sorry misread that 1 Spade had shown 5 :)

Now I agree with Justin....
Kind Regards

Roland

Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#3 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2007-November-02, 02:38

Using what I think is your system it looks like it would start:

1C
1D (no 5 card major)
1S (could still be balanced or unbalanced, or have either minor I believe in your system)

Now responder is borderline between 3S and 4S at MP, he has good controls and a ruffing value but very poor trumps in only a 4-4 fit and only 11 points opposite what may be a balanced minimum. At MP I think 3S is reasonable.

If responder bid 3S, opener is borderline between 4S and pass too, he has great trumps but a potentially wasted jack and he has no idea how the hands fit. His decision is less close than responders, and I would pass with his hand.

So it could go, in order of likelihood for me:

1C 1D 1S 3S p
1C 1D 1S 4S p
1C 1D 1S 3S 4S

I suppose if you play xyz over this it might reasonably go 1C 1D 1S 2C 2D(forced) 2S 3C 4S, where opener is able to describe his invite. Or you may play 1C 1D 1S 2C 2D 2S as a weaker invite than 1C 1D 1S 2C 2D 3S, and then opener could bid 4S on the latter sequence.

Basically because of some system ambiguities it will come down to a judgement call unless you have some sort of tools over 1C 1D 1S.
0

#4 User is offline   firmit 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 263
  • Joined: 2007-January-26

Posted 2007-November-02, 07:18

What is 2H used for? When 1C-1D* is alerted as no 5-card major - but generally promise diamonds or a 4 card major, I guess?

XYZ non-existing, but 1S is forcing, I would say 2C may be used to show simple club support and 4c hearts - leaving 2D to show diamonds. This leaves 2H...don't it? Any NT bid by responder implies H and no fit so...

If this is the case, I would say
1C-1D-1S-?
- 2H*
- 2S
- 3S
responses should be well defined, all jumps being some kind of RF fit-jump invitational.

Edit: given that 1D may be artificial, 2H is not 4th suit GF. Therefor, this might be used in some other way, with 2H a combo: a question of spade quality - 2S: HHxx, 2N: Hxxx, 3S: HHHx or better, and a RF spade raise.... but i don't know... just a thought :)
"Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)
0

#5 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2007-November-02, 07:56

1♣ - 1♦
1♠ - 4♠

Nothing else would ever occur to me. To bid less than 4♠ on the South hand would be criminal.

I am assuming that the 1♦ response is purely artificial - showing a response without a 5 card major and a hand unsuitable for any other call (such as 1NT). I consider the South hand unsuitable for any notrump call because of the presence of 4 spades in a suit oriented hand (all controls).
0

#6 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,704
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-November-02, 10:20

I'd bid 1♣-1♦-1♠-3♠-4♠ in the methods given.

South has a decision between 3♠ and 4♠. However, south has something like eight losers and very poor trumps in an 8-card fit. If we move one of north's small clubs to diamonds, I am sure we all open the north hand and the 4♠ game has no chance. Even if we give north an additional red queen game has no play. I think 4♠ on the south cards is an overbid.

North has great trumps and a six-loser hand. If we add points for the singleton north's hand is worth something like 14-15 hcp. I think it's clear to accept an invite on the north hand. Even if partner has diamonds (say xxxx xx AKxx Kxx) you will probably have some play for game.

I should mention that the overuse of artificial minor suit bids here (i.e. north doesn't have to have clubs, south doesn't have to have diamonds, etc) does make it substantially more difficult to evaluate your game (and sometimes slam) prospects. People often ignore this when selecting their methods.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
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-November-02, 10:24

Any takers for a direct NT call with the South hand?
"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   Echognome 

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

Posted 2007-November-02, 11:14

kenrexford, on Nov 2 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

Any takers for a direct NT call with the South hand?

I opened this hand because it had good controls. Seems much more suited to a suit contract. So if I can bid a natural 1♠, why wouldn't I? (Yes I know, bad trumps.)

But A with AK, seems like I'd be happier in a suit.
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
0

#9 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-November-02, 11:51

1♣ 1♦
1♠ 3♠
4♠ at any form of scoring would be the bidding if I were sitting north and south.
Only 3♠ by south because of 8 losers, bad trumps and light opening style. 4♠ by north because of 6 losers only, but this is still close. ♣J instead of ♠J would make the raise automatic.
Kind regards,
Harald
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-November-02, 12:19

skaeran, on Nov 2 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

1♣ 1♦
1♠ 3♠
4♠ at any form of scoring would be the bidding if I were sitting north and south.
Only 3♠ by south because of 8 losers, bad trumps and light opening style. 4♠ by north because of 6 losers only, but this is still close. ♣J instead of ♠J would make the raise automatic.

I agree with this auction. I think with almost any hand including AKQJ of spades the invitation should be accepted, because it's obvious partner is downgrading a bit due to bad spades.

I think it's suicide for south to bid 4♠ himself. If partner passed 3 I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that went down if the fit was bad.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#11 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-November-03, 10:46

I was also curious if anyone would consider opening North 1♠?
"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

#12 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-November-03, 11:35

kenrexford, on Nov 3 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

I was also curious if anyone would consider opening North 1♠?

And get forced to play in spades by partner with xxx and start off being tapped in diamonds? No thank you.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • 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