[ArtK78]

So, you are playing in a Sectional Swiss Team. It is round 5 of 6. Your team took the idea of the Swiss Gambit (lose an early match to get better draws for the rest of the day) to an extreme by losing the first match by 56 IMPs (!). Since then, you have been doing well, winning matches 2, 3 and 4 by large margins to crawl back into the event.

You are having an up and down match against a reasonable team. This is the last board of the match.

Scoring: IMP

(1♣) - ?

---

RHO opens the bidding with 1♣.

(1) What is your plan of attack?
(2) If you bid 1♠, LHO bids 3♥ preemptive and that is passed back to you. Now what?

[TylerE]

As a simple soul at heart I'm strongly temped to just shootout 6♠.

[kfay]

Well I'm definitely starting with 1♠.

Over 3♥ now I've actually got a decision. I guess I'll bid 4♥ and if partner bids 4♠ I'll bid blackwood (to find the Q... no way I can find out about the ♦J), if he does something else I'll just bid 6♦.

[manudude03]

1♠ for me, after 3H comes back to me, I'll bid 6♦. Hopefully this emphasises spades more than any 2 suit overcall, and will hopefully provoke partner to bid 7♠ with the Queen.

[Fluffy]

1♠, if parnter doesn't support, 7♦ next.

[HeavyDluxe]

1♠ seems automatic.

Over 3♥. Well, I think the two areas I suck the most are bidding judgment with freaky hands and in competitive auctions. So, this sucks a lot.

I like Kevin's plan of 4♥ having heard it, though I think I wouldn't have done that in the seat.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Jan 6 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

1♠, if parnter doesn't support, 7♦ next.

me too ... wtp?

[Flameous]

I think I'll start with 2C Michael's. Even though it's extremely unlikely 1S would be passed around, the chance exists so why not to avoid it. I'm going to bid atleast to the 6 level anyways so I'll try to find out partners better suit.

[kfay]

Cascade, on Jan 5 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 6 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

1♠, if parnter doesn't support, 7♦ next.

me too ... wtp?

Yeah maybe I'm being a little wimpy but the problem is going down in a grand when we're cold for small. I think it's clearly pretty easy to see if partner has the queen of spades. Barring that I don't see why we should take a leap of faith since partner obviously has clubs and hearts on this hand and suffer a slam swing when the person at the other table decides to pussy-foot.

Everyone always says that nobody knows how to bid these freak hands. But one thing that I have heard much mention of is that it's important to be the declarer... the exact level is secondary.

I'm not saying I dislike 7♦, probably we can make grand. But I'm practically certain that we'll make 6. I'm not a gambler.

[qwery_hi]

kfay, on Jan 5 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 5 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 6 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

1♠, if parnter doesn't support, 7♦ next.

me too ... wtp?

Yeah maybe I'm being a little wimpy but the problem is going down in a grand when we're cold for small. I think it's clearly pretty easy to see if partner has the queen of spades. Barring that I don't see why we should take a leap of faith since partner obviously has clubs and hearts on this hand and suffer a slam swing when the person at the other table decides to pussy-foot.

Everyone always says that nobody knows how to bid these freak hands. But one thing that I have heard much mention of is that it's important to be the declarer... the exact level is secondary.

I'm not saying I dislike 7♦, probably we can make grand. But I'm practically certain that we'll make 6. I'm not a gambler.

I agree with 1 ♠ and 6♦. Partner may find a raise to 7 with either the Q♠ or (less probable) the J♦.

[ASkolnick]

1♠ followed by 6♦. Good chance things are breaking badly.

[Cascade]

ASkolnick, on Jan 6 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

1♠ followed by 6♦. Good chance things are breaking badly.

On what do you base this?

[Cascade]

Simulation suggests that 7♠ or 7♦ is likely to make around 80% of the time - 836 times out of 1000 one or both slams made double dummy. Yes sometimes this will include dropping a doubleton ♠Q offside when you do have an entry but there will also be occasional hands where partner has an ace in an otherwise entryless dummy and they lead the wrong suit and you can now take a winning spadde finesse that you would not have been able to take.

We are never going to find for sure in the bidding partner's ♦J for an entry to take the odds on spade finesse or the ♠Q and sometimes we might not even be able to find partner's four-small spade or diamond support - which is likely all we need.

Thinking of avoiding a swing by bidding on to a small slam is flawed in that the opponent might bid the grand.

[Fluffy]

if aprtner has opposite 2 suiter all the best, I prefer that he has 1 spade and 2 diamonds than 2 spades and 2 diamonds.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Jan 6 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

if aprtner has opposite 2 suiter all the best, I prefer that he has 1 spade and 2 diamonds than 2 spades and 2 diamonds.

In my simulation:

RHO a 1♣ opener - 12-14 Bal, 18-19 Bal, 11+ 4=4=1=4, 5+ clubs unBAL, usually no 5-card major;

LHO 6-9 HCP 7 hearts;

RHO loosely (this is harder to program automatically) no heart raise. I used some graduated scale based on HCP and heart length. So RHO raised freely with four hearts but almost never with no hearts.

Average number of spades for partner: 2.47
Average number of diamonds for partner: 3.075

Only 12.2% of the time did partner have fewer than two cards in both of your suits.

[Fluffy]

more than 3 diamonds!, oh well, that's to be expected, opponents are bidding clubs and hearts, what is partner suposed to hold!.

Also partner might double when he has 5 hearts, this probably takes away a couple of your bad cases in the simulation.

[Hanoi5]

1♠ and 6♦ for me.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Jan 6 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

more than 3 diamonds!, oh well, that's to be expected, opponents are bidding clubs and hearts, what is partner suposed to hold!.

Also partner might double when he has 5 hearts, this probably takes away a couple of your bad cases in the simulation.

There are probably some good cases that I should have taken out too - partner didn't raise spades nor take some other action.

[rogerclee]

Fluffy, on Jan 5 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

1♠, if parnter doesn't support, 7♦ next.

yes

[Hairy_Scot]

Based on the responses so far it looks like Ghestem is out of favour or not widely used, yet this would appear to be an ideal hand on which to use it.
Pard will know your suits, and if ops come back in over the 3♣ you still have time to force with a ♠ bid.
If ghestem not an option, then 1♠ followed by 6♦ would be my choice.