[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

P-(P)-3♣!-(4♠)
p-(p)-5♥-(p)
??
 
3♣ is preempt ♦ - OR - GF ♥ - OR - GF minors - OR - GF majors
5♥ : GF ♥ (4♣ Namyats opening was also available)
 
6♥, Pass or anything else?

[jtfanclub]

Why didn't I X 4♠?

Or am I just confused here?

[rogerclee]

Pass 5♥ for sure. I am not sure why I would double 4♠.

[pclayton]

Is there really any reason to post problems like this? I hate to be an a-hole, but I don't see the value of discussing 'problems' created by these bizarre systems.

Sorry.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jul 9 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

Why didn't I X 4♠? 

Or am I just confused here?

If parnter had opened 3D would you X 4S?

I think

P P 3♦ 4♠
X

is an impossible auction. Even if dealer has lots of good spades, he can't also have a hand capable of setting the pull. For all he knows, the 4♠ bidder is bidding based on the black suits and they're going to run from a failing game to a making one. The stronger dealer's spades are, the more likely that 4♠ is being bid on a two-suiter.

So I think X here should say "If you have the 3♦ opener hand, bid 5♦. But if you have the GF hand, I've got some defense for you". As a passed hand, what else are you reserving the X for?

EDIT: To increase the usefulness of the thread for pclayton, let's say you're playing full Multi.

What does the auction

P P 2♦ 3♠
X

mean to you? Full penalty or "Bid 4♥ if you have the weak hand with hearts, consider passing if you have the strong hand" or something else?



I think having X as pure penalty is useful if the Xer is an unpassed hand, but I don't even know if they play this system 1st and 2nd seat.

[mikeh]

I'm with Phil, and then some

We don't know the difference between opening 3♣, non-namyats gf in hearts, and opening 2♣ (or whatever the strong artificial opening is).

We don't know the opps' agreements over our methods. We can guess that 4♠ is preemptive, because we can look at our hand and now we know, which we didn't over 4♠, that partner has a big hand.

Most opps will play that 4♠ is STRONG!!!! After all, I suspect that the diamond preempt variant arises more often than the strong variants combined, and the standard treatment of a jump overcall over a preemptive opening is strong.

So we were never going to have a hand that wanted to double 4♠.. at least, not realistically. And the two-way meaning: bid a red v white 5♦ save unless you can beat 4♠ is not something I'd want to spring on partner, nor play if he liked it.

So this 'problem' is a guess and a guess lacking basic information that the players, at the table, would have. This means that this is a problem that is not susceptible to meaningful analysis in this forum.

[kgr]

mikeh, on Jul 10 2008, 12:52 AM, said:

I'm with Phil, and then some
We don't know the difference between opening 3♣, non-namyats gf in hearts, and opening 2♣ (or whatever the strong artificial opening is).

4C would be Namyats in H (9 tricks). 3C followed by 3H (..by 5H in this case) is 10+tricks in H (or 9 + 2 half tricks). No other ways to bid a strong hand with only Hearts (2C is weak mini precision)

Quote

We don't know the opps' agreements over our methods. We can guess that 4♠ is preemptive, because we can look at our hand and now we know, which we didn't over 4♠, that partner has a big hand.

Most opps will play that 4♠ is STRONG!!!! After all, I suspect that the diamond preempt variant arises more often than the strong variants combined, and the standard treatment of a jump overcall over a preemptive opening is strong.

Opps are weak. They also don't know if 4S is weak or strong. You can expect some Spades however.

Quote

So this 'problem' is a guess and a guess lacking basic information that the players, at the table, would have. This means that this is a problem that is not susceptible to meaningful analysis in this forum.

Hope above details will give some more info.
Actually, I wondered if this is not an automatic 6♥ and something can be said against bidding 6H. Partner promisses a GF in ♥, RHO did bid 4♠ so you will probably add two more ♠ tricks and that makes 12?

[kenrexford]

So, 9.5+ tricks, and hearts.

Well, I think part of the system is being left undescribed. After 3♣-4♠-P-P, Opener cannot have a unilateral sacrifice at 5♦, or he would have opened 5♦. With GF and both majors, he hits 4♠ hard.

So, he must have both minors, or just hearts, right?

With both minors, he could bid 4NT or 5♣. With just hearts, then, he clearly has two options -- 5♦ and 5♥.

The question, then, is what the difference is. One could argue that these two calls distinguish loser count, whether 3-loser hands or 2-loser hands. But, it seems to me more useful for one to show a spade control and one to deny a spade control.

If 5♥ denied a spade control, then the AQ clearly produces two tricks. With a full two tricks, and first-round control of spades, I think a grand slam try is appropriate. 5♠ seems right -- spade first-round control (shown by bidding anything butpass or 6♥), and a secondary spade trick (shown when you cue that which you must have, otherwise redundantly), but nothing more to show. I'll decline to show anything else.

If 5♦ would have denied the spade control, then 5♥ must show a spade control, meaning a stiff or void. A void would be really lousy, but a stiff also is not so good. That spade Queen only works as a pitch of a slow loser, and partner may well have something like KQJ in some side suit, or something like that, where the spade Queen is not all that useful, especially if I must take that pitch at trick #1.

So, I need to know what your agreement is as to 5♦ and 5♥.

[655321]

Agree with pclayton, and would never agree to play such a system.

I suppose I could pretend the auction has gone:
P-(P)-2♣-(4♠)
p-(p)-5♥-(p)

But still this is different - after 2♣ we could have doubled 4♠.
Anyway, on that auction I would now bid 5♠.

Perhaps partner is void in spades and will still lose 2 tricks in the minors, or perhaps partner has 12 or 13 tricks, so 5♠ seems a reasonable compromise.

How relevant this is to the actual auction, where we could have a maximum pass and be forced to pass again over 4♠ in case partner has a 3♦ opening, I don't know.

[andy_h]

I also agree that I would not play the system. I don't know the value of discussing this sort of problem, but isn't bridge like other board/card games are all about solving problems? I would've just thought if one did not know the meaning of this, what the opponent's methods are etc. one would just ask the OP and wait until he specifies anything he's left out from his problem? I know that this situation will almost never come up for all of us, but it's bridge and it's something new! I mean, if someone had a chess problem and decided to ask you about it and started off the story by "my opening move was a4" would you just be turned off by it and not particularly interested with the problem now? Maybe that's a bad analogy..hehe

Anyways, Ken's analysis seems to take in the deeper meanings of the convention about what partner's 5♦ would mean etc. If we did not have agreements about that (sigh) and given this is MPs I think I would just bid 6♥. Maybe my ♥9 would be an entry if partner has a stiff spade, or maybe we'll just get a decent score as the field may not be even close to bidding a grand. Maybe their auction would go as specified by 655321 2C-(4S)-X-(p)-p/5H with some passing and some bidding 5H and then they may not know what to do. If partner had a spade void and we were off 2 cashing minor suit tricks..oh well, I lose :\

[cherdano]

Pass.

[kgr]

andy_h, on Jul 10 2008, 06:15 AM, said:

I also agree that I would not play the system. I don't know the value of discussing this sort of problem, but isn't bridge like other board/card games are all about solving problems? I would've just thought if one did not know the meaning of this, what the opponent's methods are etc. one would just ask the OP and wait until he specifies anything he's left out from his problem? I know that this situation will almost never come up for all of us, but it's bridge and it's something new! I mean, if someone had a chess problem and decided to ask you about it and started off the story by "my opening move was a4" would you just be turned off by it and not particularly interested with the problem now? Maybe that's a bad analogy..hehe

Anyways, Ken's analysis seems to take in the deeper meanings of the convention about what partner's 5♦ would mean etc. If we did not have agreements about that (sigh) and given this is MPs I think I would just bid 6♥. Maybe my ♥9 would be an entry if partner has a stiff spade, or maybe we'll just get a decent score as the field may not be even close to bidding a grand. Maybe their auction would go as specified by 655321 2C-(4S)-X-(p)-p/5H with some passing and some bidding 5H and then they may not know what to do. If partner had a spade void and we were off 2 cashing minor suit tricks..oh well, I lose :\

Thanks for the answer. This was partners hand:

---

Opp did not lead his ♠'s but did lead ♦Q for 6♠-1.

[kenrexford]

Funny problem.

If partner bids whichever of 5♦ or 5♥ you would expect as showing a spade control, AQ in spades looks like a duplication, and you wisely pass.

If partner, on the other hand, shows a hand with no spade control, the AQ looks like two tricks, and you make a grand stab.

[kgr]

kenrexford, on Jul 10 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

Funny problem.

If partner bids whichever of 5♦ or 5♥ you would expect as showing a spade control, AQ in spades looks like a duplication, and you wisely pass.

If partner, on the other hand, shows a hand with no spade control, the AQ looks like two tricks, and you make a grand stab.

I would actually expect 5H to show 10 tricks in H (hoping that I can add one) and 5D to show 11 tricks - with S control - and an invite for 6H.

[cherdano]

I would expect 4N to be minors, 5C to be minors with better clubs, and 5D to be minors with much better diamonds. And hearts to be hearts. This system is known in some groups as "bid what you have", but I admit that group might not be used to playing such a 3♣ opening.

Anyway, I would pass, and I don't think it's close.

[kenrexford]

kgr, on Jul 10 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 10 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

Funny problem.

If partner bids whichever of 5♦ or 5♥ you would expect as showing a spade control, AQ in spades looks like a duplication, and you wisely pass.

If partner, on the other hand, shows a hand with no spade control, the AQ looks like two tricks, and you make a grand stab.

I would actually expect 5H to show 10 tricks in H (hoping that I can add one) and 5D to show 11 tricks - with S control - and an invite for 6H.

I would imagine that having 11 tricks is wildly less likely than 10. My personal belief, then is that the best idea is to tell partner whether his values are or are not working and whether he does or does not need a spade control.

For that matter, if you have 11 tricks, open 5♥.

The Cherdano idea of 5♦ as both minors but much better diamonds seems silly. If you actually have that hand (and for some reason did not open some other way), bid 4NT and then convert 5♣, if needed, to 5♦. I certainly would not want to waste a useful 5♦ call on that nonsense.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

I think

P  P  3♦  4♠
X

is an impossible auction.  Even if dealer has lots of good spades, he can't also have a hand capable of setting the pull.  For all he knows, the 4♠ bidder is bidding based on the black suits and they're going to run from a failing game to a making one.  The stronger dealer's spades are, the more likely that 4♠ is being bid on a two-suiter. 

So I think X here should say "If you have the 3♦ opener hand, bid 5♦.  But if you have the GF hand, I've got some defense for you".  As a passed hand, what else are you reserving the X for?

I didn't realize I have to open with KQTx xxxx x AT9x. Or that this is an auction where anyone would run when doubled. Or that I am supposed to ever fear them going a level higher when they know opener's first suit isn't breaking, and for all he knows his partner will have to go back to it and get doubled a level higher.

Given problem sure seems like a pass. If I raise the opponent could be sitting there about to cash AK of a suit, while I pray he has the Q to take as well.

I really hate systems like this.

[nige1]

kgr, on Jul 9 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

Scoring: MP


P-(P)-3♣!-(4♠)
p-(p)-5♥-(p)
??
3♣ is preempt ♦ - OR - GF ♥ - OR - GF minors - OR - GF majors
5♥ : GF ♥ (4♣ Namyats opening was also available)
 
6♥, Pass or anything else?

---

IMO _P = 10. 5N=6.
My ♠ are of doubtful value.
Still it's a relief to be playing a sensible system after all those 2/1 guessing games