[the hog]

Pass the first and definitely pass the second. If pd bids like this....well...but it is an academic discussion anyway.

[jdonn]

TimG, on May 6 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

On the first, I think opener has ♠KQJx and nine solid clubs (or similar). jdonn would have opened 4N asking for specific aces.

Lol is this really so unusual that I am referred to when the possibility arises?

[pclayton]

hotShot, on May 6 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

TimG, on May 6 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 6 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

cherdano, on May 6 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

♠KQJx ♥- ♦- ♣KQJxxxxx2, your opening bid?

I'd open it 1 club, the Rule of Spades applies.

I don't know the rule of spades, but I call KQJxxxxxx trumps (even if the smallest spot is the deuce).

Remember that the 1♣ opening is defined as:

Quote

polish 1♣ (which includes all hands with 15+ pts and 5+ clubs (unbalanced) or any hand with 18+ pts)

Responder has so many ♣'s that the chance partner hold the 18+ pts is relevant.
With a strong hand as shown why should he jump to 6♣?
Holding ♠xxx ♥- ♦- ♣QJ98765432 you would not care to know how strong opener is and you would find it more likely that opps would be able to make 6♥.

Do we really have to bend over backwards to show a 10 card suit missing the AK? Such silly examples.

[brianshark]

First of all, we should all acknowledge that the 6♣ bid on both auctions should not happen. No hand partner could have would completely justify a direct jump to 6♣. So he's taken some extravagance but we just have to figure out on either hand whether it's worth making more of a gamble after a bid that's known to not be known what it means... if you get what I mean.

On the first hand, I deduced that because I was staring at all those aces that it was highly unlikely partner was bidding to make. Therefore he is bidding pre-emptively. And I believe that a hand with 9+ solid clubs is much too good to risk pre-empting because your staring at 9 notrump tricks at the very least. Therefore a broken suit seems more likely and I passed.

Parner turned up with TEN ♣s to the AQJ but we struck gold when the suit broke 0-2 offside. I think the auction at the other table was a more sane 5♣-6♣-P though my memory was a little vague... maybe that was the suggested auction in the post-match analysis.

On the second hand, there is so much more variables and possibilities. A few people in this thread said that because you just can't be sure what partner holds, it's best to play it safe and I completely agree. Not finding a grand is bad, but finding one that doesn't make is a heck of a lot worse.

Maybe I just had the above 6♣ in my head but I decided to play it safe and pass this one as well. LHO doubled with his 2 red aces and led his ♦A. Partner turned up with ♠x ♥- ♦KQTxx ♣QT9xxxx, there was no ruff and I quickly claimed 12 tricks. I think the other table played in 5♣.

Later in the session (playing with the partner from hand 2), there was an auction that went (all white with partner opening)
1♠ - (2♦) - P - P
6♥ - All pass

Partner has ♠KQJTxxx ♥AKJxx ♦- ♣x, I table ♠T ♥9xxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxxx. Defense cash their 2 aces and pard lost another trick with ♥Qxx offside. At the other table our teammates pushed them to 5♠ but the defence slipped and allowed them to make. buckets of imps out. Maybe that'll learn him.

[benlessard]

Quote

First of all, we should all acknowledge that the 6♣ bid on both auctions should not happen. No hand partner could have would completely justify a direct jump to 6♣.

I disagree with that statement. Its not because its very unlikely that i hold a 11 card suit that i cannot bid it when i have one. I dont remember having a 11 card suit in my life, but if i have one at least I can say that its likely to be headed by AK.

AK 11th or 10th with a KQx outside look like a 6C opening for me.


As for hand 2.

---
---
AKQJx
QT9xxxxx

is my idea of a 6C bid. Bidding 6C (RED) purely as preempt with no hope of making it make no sense.

[655321]

benlessard, on May 9 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

As for hand 2.

---
---
AKQJx
QT9xxxxx

is my idea of a 6C bid.

That is my idea of a 5NT bid.

[brianshark]

benlessard, on May 9 2008, 05:36 AM, said:

AK 11th or 10th with a KQx outside look like a 6C opening for me.

No, that's a specific ace ask opening. 6♣ should have it's loser in clubs.

[gwnn]

brianshark, on May 9 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

benlessard, on May 9 2008, 05:36 AM, said:

AK 11th or 10th with a KQx outside look like a 6C opening for me.

No, that's a specific ace ask opening. 6♣ should have it's loser in clubs.

And if pd doesn't have the ace, he's bound to have the jack?

[Apollo81]

On the first one, the most realistic hands for partner, IMO, are 5-8 or 4-9 hands with at least a king in the side suit and 8+ solid, so I would raise to 7♣. I think he could have the KQJx -- -- KQJ9th hand too, or he could have (300)10 or (200)11 with ♣AK