[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     1♣    Pass
 1♦    Pass  3♣    Pass
 7♣    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

1/.1 diamond ?

2/. 3 club?

3/. 7 Club (no agreement with pard and prob would not get an agreement if I asked)

[SoTired]

1. 1D is OK. I guess responder did not want to make an inverted raise with 4333 and only 4-card support.

2. I play a 3N rebid shows this gambling 3N-type hand with an outside A/K that makes it unsuitable for a 3N opening bid.

3. Congrats on finding this excellent grand. 7C may seem risky, but it is unlikely opener bid 3C on an ace-less hand.

[kenrexford]

Weird auction. I'm not sure that I would jus play Opener for a five-loser hand that features and under-valued Qx in hearts on instinct.

My approach:

1♣ (same)
2♣ (artificial, either GF with no 5-card major OR limit+ with clubs
3NT (solid clubs, minimal values, no stiffs)
4♣ (GF, good clubs contextually, slam interest)
4♦ (diamond control -- Ace or King)

At this point, Responder can count his 12 tricks. The 13th could only come from the diamond Queen or the heart Queen, because holding the spade King wuld make 3NT too small a bid. RKCB (4♥) won't tell the tale. So...

4♠ (spade control)
5♣ (nothing new; no heart control)
5♦ (grand try, diamond card)

For this to make any sense, Responder must have all of the side Aces. He must be looking for Queens. Opener would logically bid:

1. 5♥ = heart Queen
2. 5♠ = spade Queen
3. 5NT = missing Queen (diamond)
4. 6♣ = no Queens

This works, therefore, no matter what King Responder holds.

[Fluffy]

The first 3 bids are perfect, 7♣ lacks imagination, with 4♣, 4NT etc as clear club slam forward movements it seems rdicoulous.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 ok, the alternative being 3NT,
which shows a 13-15 bal. count,
given the hard values, this is an
underbid, but not a huge one
... but 1D is ok
#2 ok, I may have bid 2C mysself,
but 3C is ok, you have the playing
strength, and you will survive
partners answers
Take away the Queen of Hearts and
2C is the bid
#3 ???
6C would be absolut enough, forget bidding
7, if you play with a stranger, forget it
Of course you could have bid 4C, which is forcing
and should set clubs, but bidding 6C is also fine,
but bidding 7C is ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Most likely we would use an inv. minor seq., followed
by an Ace / King asking sequence.

[helene_t]

1♦ is fine. Maybe 2NT is correct in SAYC but it's more important to win the board than to win the post-mortem.

3♣ is ok. I would probably have bid the same although 2♣ is ok as well.

7♣ is ok but I prefer 6NT or 7NT unless I'm afraid of p complaining about me hogging the contract.

[Codo]

With a pick up pd I liked your auction.

I had bid:

1 ♣ 1 ♦
3 NT 4 ♣
4 ♦ 4 ♥
5♦ 5 ♥
6♦ 6 ♥
6 NT 7 NT

1 Diamond, because I dislike 2 Club with 3334.
3 NT is gambling+ some outside strength
4 Club is RCKB for Club 4 Diamond says: I am minimum for my bidding so far.
4 Heart: I don´t care, please tell me your KCs:
5 Diamond shows two KCs + queen
5 Heart asks for Kings 6 Diamond, Diamond King, no Major suit King
6 Heart: Something else? 6 NT: Queen of Hearts
7 NT: 7 clubs, 2 Diamonds, 3 Hearts and a spade. Claim before the lead.
Okay partner plays, so he will claim after the lead.

[ArtK78]

Two comments. I may be repeating some things that others have already said.

1) 3♣ was an underbid. This hand is a classic 3NT rebid.

2) 7♣ is an odd call. Aside from the fact that there is a lot of room between 3♣ and 7♣ to try to determine whether a grand is making or not, what hand could partner have where 7♣ would make and 7NT would fail? If you are going to leap to a grand, it might as well be 7NT.

(There is one remote possibility - the club suit is blocked, partner has a lot of minor honors in spades and diamonds, and 7♣ makes on a squeeze or finesse - for example:

QJT
---
QJT
AK65432

And the ♣Q8 is doubleton. That would be a combination of events too horrible to contemplate.)

[Apollo81]

All the calls seem reasonable to me. The good thing about 1♦ is that most people's bidding is not well defined after an inverted minor raise, so it's often much easier to find out the nature of opener's hand after a 1♦ response. 3♣ was completely auto. Obviously responder could have been more scientific at his third call, but if the partnership has no methods to locate queens then [edit: RKC followed by] 7♣ (or 7N) seems like the percentage shot.

[Gerben42]

Quote

he good thing about 1♦ is that most people's bidding is not well defined after an inverted minor raise, so it's often much easier to find out the nature of opener's hand after a 1♦ response

Sounds like a bad reason. Maybe spend some time here with partner?

[Apollo81]

Gerben42, on Jan 2 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

Quote

he good thing about 1♦ is that most people's bidding is not well defined after an inverted minor raise, so it's often much easier to find out the nature of opener's hand after a 1♦ response

Sounds like a bad reason. Maybe spend some time here with partner?

I didn't say it was the best auction. I said the calls were reasonable and was giving the upside to this call over the obvious 2♣ call.

And BTW I would probably make this call if I hadn't discussed followups to inverted minor raises, which is true every time I play with someone other than a regular partner.

[neilkaz]

Blackwood and it's varients were invented to stay out of slams when you lack the needed number of aces/keycards.

The next time West masterminds the auction and blasts to 7♣ I hope east holds ♠KQJ ♥ QJ ♦K ♣KQxxxxx.

Then the next time West masterminds the auction and blasts to 7♣ I hope east holds exactly the same cards as the OP hand, but their opps get to the laydown 7NT and win the match based on that IMP differential.

[jtfanclub]

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

well that cost me 2900 and I can not remeber how many imps poss 20 by the time all 16 tables have been taken into account

Huh?

You went down?

How?

[whereagles]

Bidding seems fine, though I would bid RKCB to make sure we got all 6 keycards (4 aces and ♣KQ). It would be a bit embarassing if opener were to show up with

Kx
Qx
Kx
AQJTxxx

and the ♣K was offside

[awm]

Can't opener have:

♠Kxx
♥xx
♦Kx
♣AKQxxx

I think I would rebid 3♣ on that, yet 7♣ has no play at all.

Anyways, the 1♦ start is okay. Responder's first bid depends on things like whether you're playing inverted minors, whether an inverted 2♣ promises five clubs or could be four, what your methods are over inverted minors if any, and whether 1♣-2NT would be forcing to game. There are definitely answers to these questions that result in 1♦ being the right bid.

Assuming the 1♦ start, I'd recommend:

1♣ - 1♦
3♣ - 4NT(1)
5♠(2) - 5NT(3)
7♣(4)

(1) Keycard in clubs.
(2) Two with the queen.
(3) We have all the keycards, do you have any more help?
(4) My hand is great (seventh club, two side kings)

One could bid 4♣ over 3♣ to get a round of cuebidding in (assuming 4♣ is forcing, which it should be) but this won't end up making much difference.

[whereagles]

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

Can't opener have:

♠Kxx
♥xx
♦Kx
♣AKQxxx

I think I would rebid 3♣ on that, yet 7♣ has no play at all.

There might be a compound double squeeze, but yeah 7♣ is not where you want to be.

Still, it's very hard to gauge the bad fit of the hands without relay bidding, so the auction as it was is reasonable.

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Jan 2 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

Can't opener have:

♠Kxx
♥xx
♦Kx
♣AKQxxx

I think I would rebid 3♣ on that, yet 7♣ has no play at all.

There might be a compound double squeeze, but yeah 7♣ is not where you want to be.

Still, it's very hard to gauge the bad fit of the hands without relay bidding, so the auction as it was is reasonable.

I believe that the term "compound double squeeze" is redundant. All compound squeezes are double squeezes.

[han]

There might also just be a double squeeze.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jan 2 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

I believe that the term "compound double squeeze" is redundant. All compound squeezes are double squeezes.

In a sense, and I know what you mean, but not really. It is a triple squeeze on one player, squeezing him down to letting the partnership subsequently be double squeezed.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 2 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

I believe that the term "compound double squeeze" is redundant.  All compound squeezes are double squeezes.

In a sense, and I know what you mean, but not really. It is a triple squeeze on one player, squeezing him down to letting the partnership subsequently be double squeezed.

Sorry.

I meant "double squeeze" in the sense that both opponents are squeezed.

"Triple squeeze" is a three-suit squeeze against one opponent.

A compound squeeze is a combination of a three-suit squeeze (triple squeeze) against one opponent and a two- or three-suit squeeze against the other opponent.

Bridge terminology can sometimes be inconsistent. If it were consistent, a triple squeeze would be a squeeze against both of the opponents and against either the dummy or the declarer (or maybe against a kibbitzer).