[whereagles]

Try and bid these hands at IMPs:

Scoring: IMP

South deals, opps pass.

How should N/S bid?

---

First question is: what contract do you want to be in?
Second question is: how do you get there?

This comes from a regional play-off. We produced this rather unconvincing auction:

South North
1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♥ 4NT
5♦ 6♥

I was South. Everybody opens good 11 counts these days, so that's an obvious opener. 3♥ was 6 cards or a good 5-carder, unwilling to bid 3NT. Now pard has a problem: since opener hasn't yet limited himself, pard doesn't know what level we belong yet... Anyway, there's a lot of possible variations on this, but it isn't the 1st time that a red 54 caused trouble. I seem to see a pattern here, eheh. Note also it's the good spade spots that make slam playable.

What would your effort be?

[Zelandakh]

whereagles, on Mar 17 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

Try and bid these hands at IMPs:

Scoring: IMP

South deals, opps pass.

How should N/S bid?

---

First question is: what contract do you want to be in? 
Second question is: how do you get there?

What would your effort be?

Are we restricted to SAYC and 2/1?
eg

1♥ - 1♠ (relay)
1N ... (min without 4♠s)
... - 2♣ (GF relay)
2♦ ... (4+♦s
... - 3♥ (natural, starts denial cues)
3♠ ... (no ♠ control)
... - 4♦ (♠ control, ♣ control, no ♦ control, serious slam int)
4♠ ... (RKCB for ♥s)
... - 5♣ (0 or 3 kc)
6♥

Any methods where N is able to bid 3♥ as GF is going to find the required !D control, no? 30 years ago they'd just start 1♥ - 2♠ // 3♦ - 3♥, but that probably means something different to this for your pairing these days...

As for what contract, I'm not sure I mathematically want to be in slam, but after S opens it's tough to stop yourself. I guess N could 'frivolous 3NT' in there instead, but as an intermediate bidding slams is alot more fun than games, even when they go down.

[mike777]

whereagles, on Mar 17 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

Try and bid these hands at IMPs:

Scoring: IMP

South deals, opps pass.

How should N/S bid?

---

First question is: what contract do you want to be in? 
Second question is: how do you get there?

This comes from a regional play-off. We produced this rather unconvincing auction:

South North
1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♥ 4NT
5♦ 6♥

I was South. Everybody opens good 11 counts these days, so that's an obvious opener. 3♥ was 6 cards or a good 5-carder, unwilling to bid 3NT. Now pard has a problem: since opener hasn't yet limited himself, pard doesn't know what level we belong yet... Anyway, there's a lot of possible variations on this, but it isn't the 1st time that a red 54 caused trouble. I seem to see a pattern here, eheh. Note also it's the good spade spots that make slam playable.

What would your effort be?

P=1S
1NT=2NT
3H=4H
P OR RKC YOU PICK

OR
P=1S
1NT=2C(BART)
2D!=3H(MAX 3 HEARTS)
4H OR RKC YOU PICK.

[whereagles]

Zelandakh, on Mar 17 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Are we restricted to SAYC and 2/1?

Yes. That's why I put the hand in the "sayc and 2/1" subforum

[kenrexford]

My sequence:

1♥ (ugly, but I'm being honest -- I open this trash all the time with an easy rebid)
2♣ (easier when you set trumps and GF)
2♦ (could be semi-natural if balanced)
2♥ (GF, hearts agreed)
3♥ (two of the top three hearts, not two of the top three diamonds, none of the top three clubs, no spade control)
3♠ (spade control -- first round because cuebidding at all confirms the control)
4♦ (not serious, even contextually, with no club control but possession of one of the top two diamonds)

Opener now visualizes a P.O.C. Opener has no spade control, and hence at least a doubleton. He has no club control, and hence at least a doubleton. Thus, Opener probably has 2542 pattern, although 3532 or 2533 are each possible. Opener has KQ(J/x)xx in hearts, (A/K)(J/x)x(x) in diamonds, (J/x)x(x) in clubs, and (Q/J/x)x(x) in spades. With the diamond Ace and the spade Queen, this would clearly be contextually serious, given the parameters so far, so that is out. This appears to be a hand where at best this is on a finesse, although the spade suit does offer some prospects.

Judgment seems to dictate passing. If Responder continues, however, my inclination is that a 4♠ call makes the most obvious sense. Responder wants that spade Queen, even if the diamonds are K-high. It of course depends upon what 4♠ means. I think 4♠ earlier should be Exclusion, so 4♠ now should be "this suit RKCB." Opener will have 0 (4NT if regular, 5♣ if 1430), confirming that the diamond was the King. The next-up call (4NT-5♣ or 5♣-5♦) would ask for the spade Queen, the answer being no (5♥). Pass works.

I cannot imagine any sequence starting this way and yielding Opener showing the J10 tight.

[whereagles]

Ken... bidding 2♣ instead of 1♠ will probably solve all the problems. But that's resulting. No one would do that at table, except perhaps YOU

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Mar 17 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

Ken... bidding 2♣ instead of 1♠ will probably solve all the problems. But that's resulting. No one would do that at table, except perhaps YOU

This is not resulting. This is how I bid (as you perhaps concede). My theory is that we have an established 8-fit. If we have a nine-fit, partner's rebid will be 2♠, and I will adjust accordingly. I am, therefore, firmly convinced that the "best action" with 5♠/3♥/GF-values after a 1♥ opening is 2♣, and I bid that routinely. This time, it worked. A lot of times, it works. Occasionally, maybe it does not work so well. But, it is my genuine belief.

The results just happen to be evidence on my side of the debate.

Ever notice, BTW, how often this pattern causes problems when Responder bids 1♠ and how often this problem disappears when Responder bids that funky 2♣ call? Hmmmm....

[dicklont]

1♥ - 1♠ Wouldn't nearly everyone do that?
2♦ - 3♣
3♥ - 4♥

After 2♦ North should be warned, 13 of his HCP are not in ♥/♦.
Still the FSF seems ok to me, South can still be quite strong.
3♥ just shows a minimum for me and no extra lenght or quality, and North should now settle for game

Or
1♥ - 2NT Jacoby (but you need 4 hearts for that)
4♥ - pass
Wouldn't that be easy?

[mikeh]

This is not, imo, a 'good' 11 count.

I have no aces, only 2 kings.. this makes it a pass for me.

Thereafter, the auction is, as one would expect, easy.

P  1♠  2♥  4♥

2♥: near opener, usually only 5 hearts, since no weak 2 bid. 4♥: no reason to expect slam opposite a passed hand, no reason not to bid game. and no reason to look beyond the obvious.

My rules for opening 10 or 11 counts: 3 controls, no rebid issues and a LTC of 7 or less. This hand meets 2 out of 3, but that isn't quite enough for me.

It is essential, if method allows/requires opening this hand, that partner appreciate this. Essential, but, on this hand, perhaps inadequate.

I think a lot of players overlook the problems that arise when the opening bid is permitted to be so light... look at the problem north has over 2♦... the partnership can no longer realistically avoid a problem. 3♣ is forced, with this slam potential.

Now S is screwed; I would prefer 3♦ be a stall here, with other bids preserving their integrity, but I understand the use of 3♥. Of course, opener would bid this way with xx KQJxxx AKxx Jx and be unable to move over 4♥..since responder has never show a real heart raise, as opposed to a preference for 4♥ over 3N once opener couldn't stop clubs or prefer spades.

Maybe, just maybe, responder could try 5♥ over 3♥. This, logically, could be used as a general slam try... because both partners know that the auction has timed out very poorly.... north could well hold a hand, as here, where simply knowing the number of keycards is of no help, and where his hand is too good for 4♥. Furthermore, neither player has cue bid at all, so 5♥ should not be asking for anything in particular.

5♥ is a bad contract, but it is better than 6♥ ... and, I think, the best one can hope for after S opens (and uses 3♥ as the OP said)

Note that using 3♦ as a stall allows responder to bid 3♥ and now, if opener is permitted to hold this cheese, responder has to accept a 4♥ signoff...

[mikeh]

dicklont, on Mar 17 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

1♥ - 1♠ Wouldn't nearly everyone do that?
2♦ - 3♣
3♥ - 4♥

After 2♦ North should be warned, 13 of his HCP are not in ♥/♦.
Still the FSF  seems ok to me, South can still be quite strong.
3♥ just shows a minimum for me and no extra lenght or quality, and North should now settle for game

Or
1♥ - 2NT Jacoby (but you need 4 hearts for that)
4♥ - pass
Wouldn't that be easy?

This is unplayable.

I suspect few, if any, expert pairs would agree that 3♥, over 3♣, shows a minimum. Just what do you bid with xx AKJxxx AQxx x after the given auction?

3♣ does not tell opener anything about the hand, other than that responder is forcing to game and, if he has a clear direction, is at least minimally interested in slam... but he may not have a clear direction and he assuredly may not like hearts at all.

And, as for North signing off over 3♥.... opposite xx KQJ9xx AKxx xx he has a decent play for grand slam opposite a 13 count!

One of the problems of presenting both hands is that it leads to posts where knowledge of the actual lie persuades people that they would bid in a way that gets them to the right spot. That is not a criticism of the post... some posts don't work well when presented as a series of decisions by one hand or the other.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 17 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Ever notice, BTW, how often this pattern causes problems when Responder bids 1♠ and how often this problem disappears when Responder bids that funky 2♣ call?  Hmmmm....

Have you ever noticed how often the problem disppears when you require opener to hold an opener in order to open? That is far easier, and more mainstream, than the 2♣ response.

Not that I am arguing with you on this hand... as I posted in an earlier thread, I long played a relay method using 2♣ over 1Major, and, while one loses a lot by not using relay, there are going to be lots of hands on which the artificial gf response works. I happen to think that there are going to be many hands on which it loses (typically hands on which opener need to know about responder's hand to evaluate.... I like dialogues and artificial 2♣ leads to monologues) and even more where it breaks even.. but this hand is certainly a good commercial for the method.

[dicklont]

mikeh, on Mar 17 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

I suspect few, if any, expert pairs would agree that 3♥, over 3♣, shows a minimum. Just what do you bid with xx AKJxxx AQxx x after the given auction?
[snip]
And, as for North signing off over 3♥.... opposite xx KQJ9xx AKxx xx he has a decent play for grand slam opposite a 13 count!

I would bid 2♥ with that AKJxxx, not 2♦.

But I can see why you prefer 3♦ to be the weakest bid.
And I totally agree that this hand is a warning for opening too light.

With xx KQJ9xx AKxx xx I would also rebid 2♥.

[inquiry]

P  1♠
2♥ 4♥
P

South hand 11 hcp - 2 control points, 12 distributional points for 25 Zar points... even lose one for Jx (ok, ok JT doubleton) to reduce it to 24 Zar points. I pass this everytime 1st, 2nd and 4th seat.

2♥ goodish hand, 5+♥...

[Cascade]

We don't play SAYC or 2/1 but I don't see that it matters much.

We would bid:

1♥ 1♠

2♦ 3♣** 4th suit

3♦* 3♥** * no extras ** setting hearts as trumps

3♠* 3NT** * no serious slam interest ** spade control one more try

4♦* 4♥** * diamond control no club control ** partner can move given i made a serious slam try

Pass

Actually I am not sure whether responder is worth the 3NT "cue".

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Mar 17 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

Have you ever noticed how often the problem disppears when you require opener to hold an opener in order to open? That is far easier, and more mainstream, than the 2♣ response.

Where have you been? No one needs an opening hand to open any more! LOL

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Mar 17 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

1. I have no aces, only 2 kings.. this makes it a pass for me.

2. Now S is screwed; I would prefer 3♦ be a stall here

3. Maybe, just maybe, responder could try 5♥ over 3♥. This, logically, could be used as a general slam try...

1. Well, add the ♣J or ♦Q then. It becomes a clear opener and the problem remains, though with the ♦Q slam is much better. This hand pattern has issues when pard has 5 spades and is invitational to game/slam, but I don't think that's enough reason to let go the first bite at the cake.

Actually, with this particular pard I could have opened a 9-11 NT (we allow 5CM on all NTs), but that was a bit too much, even for me Also, to us, responder's invitational hand with 5 spades is not an issue because opener, with a 3541, will rebid 2♠ (not 2♦) if min. It's only the slam invite with 5 spades that can cause trouble.

2. Right. But I'm trying to keep stuff as natural as possible

3. Pard also thought of that, but our rules are clear: a 5♥ bid at this stage asks for good trumps. It might be a bad agreement, but at least it's an agreement

[foo]

Folks, Mikeh is right that ♠JT, ♥KQJxx. ♦KJxx, ♣xx is not a mainstream 1st or 2nd seat opener. It does not have 2 defense tricks. Worse, hands with no A's are supposed to be downgraded.
In fact, because of the wasted ♠J, it is not likely to be an opener even by Rule of 20 standards.

This is not "a good 11 count". It is more like a 10 count.

I also agree with his other comments, but that stuff is secondary if you are opening hands like this.

If your openings can be anything from this to a shapely 21 count or so, pard is going to have a hopeless time fielding your openings.

[kenrexford]

OK, you force me to pass first seat. Then what?

P (forced)
1♠ (normal)
2♥ (5+ hearts, almost opening strength
???

Opener knows that Responder does not have spade support. With spade support, he would use Drury, as 2♥ is passable.

So, he tries to construct an appropriate hand. KQxxx in hearts seems easy and necessary. A diamond control is equally necessary. Could partner have the "right" hand?

Shortness in diamonds is almost impossible. 2515 would be opened, so the diamond control must be at least the King. With the Ace, and any fitting cards, Responder would have opened for sure.

So, how about Qx-KQxxx-Kxxx-xx? Requires two finesses.

Anything similar is hopeless. So, simply put, 4♥, ending the auction.

[foo]

♠AK98x ♥ATx ♦xx ♣AQx
+
♠JT ♥KQJxx ♦KJxx ♣xx

Does anyone want to be in slam on these cards?

You have 1.5 losers in ♦'s and .5 losers in ♣'s

6H is ~1/4. 5H is ~1/2.

I'll be quite happy to play no more than 4H with these cards, thanks.

[pclayton]

Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ - 4♥.

Anything else would be uncivilized.