[whereagles]

Matchpoints, NV vs V. You're playing with a pard that usually has his bids.

You hold:

♠ 862
♥ AQT
♦ QT96
♣ Q42

Pard RHO you LHO
1♣ . pass 1NT.. 2♣
4♣ . pass ..??

1♣ = two-way. Either a natural 1♣ opener or any strong hand, 21+ hcp (close to a sayc 2♣).
1NT = natural, 7-10 hcp.
2♣ = natural overcall.
4♣ = major two-suiter with 4 or less losers.

What do you bid and why? Feel free to ask questions about agreements.

[ulven]

5H. Got some useful support. It's a value bid, not a club control asking bid.
Close to 6H but has already promised 7-10 hcp.

[kenrexford]

Do we now transfer?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 8 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Do we now transfer?

Judgment Ken, judgment! Pretend it was 2♦ 4♦ P back to you.

I like 5♥ since partner was under no pressure to do this, whereas if they had overcalled 3♣ I would certainly just bid 4♥.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 8 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Do we now transfer?

Judgment Ken, judgment! Pretend it was 2♦ 4♦ P back to you.

I like 5♥ since partner was under no pressure to do this, whereas if they had overcalled 3♣ I would certainly just bid 4♥.

Um, I was told that I could ask for agreements. If we use transfers, then an immediate 5♥ is different from a transfer then 5♥. Plus, if I can set trumps, then I have more available.

For instance, if 4♦ transfers to hearts and sets hearts as trumps, then I can use my JUDGMENT to suggest slam. But, I can do it intelligently by NOW bidding 5♥. The former, immediate 5♥ seems to suggest bidding 6 if Opener has clubs controlled, whereas the slow 5♥ sees to be a simple COV bid, slam interest with no spade card, no club control, and no diamond control, and no intent on bidding 4NT myself.

[gnasher]

If it's really 21+ high card points, shouldn't I just bid Blackwood? Even opposite the worst two-ace 21-count I can construct, AQJxx KJxxx AK K, slam is on a finesse.

[whereagles]

It's 21 hcp or an equivalent in playing strength. As in 9+ tricks and major, 10 tricks and a minor, etc. Must not have preemptive character, of course.

Ken: no, we don't transfer. Sorry.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on May 9 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

It's 21 hcp or an equivalent in playing strength. As in 9+ tricks and major, 10 tricks and a minor, etc. Must not have preemptive character, of course.

Ken: no, we don't transfer. Sorry.

Q2: If 4♥ agrees hearts and 4♠ agrees spades, then is 4♦ a Last Train bid? I mean, I cannot imagine ever having a reason to bid 4♦ naturally after an initial choice of 1NT.

This seems to SCREAM transfers, and the fact that you DON'T is disappointing and should probably change, IMO. Not only do you gain in the ability to make intelligent slam moves because you set trumps and have the added depth of two routes to take, but you also accomplish the secondary and wise goal of having the strong hand hidden and receiving the lead.

But, if that's not your cup of tea, or too much, then surely 4♦ at least shows slam interest, eh?

I suppose 4♦ also makes sense as choice. But, then you still have capacity for two levels of bidding. An immediate 5♥ would be different from a delayed 4♦...5♥.

[whereagles]

lol... going berserk again?

Anyway, 4♦ is undiscussed. As such, it would be taken by pard as some sort of major fit + diamond control.

[whereagles]

Thx all. Pard had

♠ AKQJ54
♥ K9654
♦ AJ
♣ --

I think responder should definitely make a slam try (be it 4♦, 5♥ or 4NT), given he has 2 cover cards opposite a 9-10 trick hand. Opener would certainly have accepted it.

As it went, responder merely gave preference with 4♥, over which opener wiggled and passed, fearing 2+ heart losers. With the ♦K onside, he took all 13 tricks.

[kenrexford]

I find three of the words in your last two posts related and telling:

wriggled
fearing
undiscussed

[whereagles]

excuse me?

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on May 10 2009, 04:30 AM, said:

excuse me?

Opener "wriggled" and passed out of "fear" because the partnership was in a sequence that was "undiscussed." Undiscussed sequences present less options to each partner, not only because useful space is not maximized, atechnical problem, but because the cost-benefit of any decision is different. If a call might be useful in describing something, then it might be made if discussed, whereas the risk of misinterpretation may counsel against the move in favor of a more practical call.

You blame Responder for not making a slam move. However, if Responder doesn't know what his slam moves mean, for sure, or how Opener will interpret them, for sure, then the slam move might just kick the auction up one level without any useful benefit.

If Opener and Responder had discussed this sequence, or at least similar sequences from which princples could be derived, then perhaps Responder would have had more comfort in his options and in the expectation that his choice of options would be understood, such that action would be meritorious.

I know that I am right in this analysis for one simple reason. You indicated that 4♦ would be taken as some sort of diamond control with a major fit. You later listed 4♦ as an option that Responder should have considered, despite lacking a diamond control. So, you want Responder to consider bids that would be understood as showing that which he does not have. Obviously, Responder would be right in assuming that some moves toward slam would be misinterpreted and might subject the partnership to a slam bid that fails, like when Opener does not have a diamond control but thinks Responder does because of his recommended 4♦ cue.

You then suggest two other options, as if Responder can make three different calls with the same hand. That's a really bad approach. But, you don't even address what 4NT, one of the ptions, would mean. Is this 6KCB? Is this RKCB for spades? Is this RKCB for hearts, but Responder can correct? Is this Blackwood? How is Opener supposed to Respond? Sure, THIS time he can just blast, probably. But, how precisely is Opener supposed to answer?

So, you end up with a 5♥ option as the only one that at least focuses the right trump suit. But, how should Responder expect this to be interpreted? Pure quantitative? Quantitative without a diamond control because Responder did not bid 4♦ (although that was an option, apparently, with this hand)? GSF? Quantitative WITH a diamond control because he did not bid 5♦?

I mean, the funny thing is that the one call not mentioned that stands out is a 5♦ call. Why not that? If you want to force Responder into a guess-the-agreement problem, then 5♦ as a non-descript major slam invite (Opener bids proper level of major; Responder corrects if necessary) without a diamond control makes as much sense to me as anything.

How much easier is it to discuss what to do when you play complicated systems? Whatever amount of time the partnership dedicated to discussing how to handle a Polish Club or similar approach might have merited a little time to discuss resolution principles when two possible focus suits exist. A simple meta-agreement is to play Flags whenever you can (e.g., 4♣ flags hearts, 4♦ flags spades), but transfers as the exception when you have touching suits and only one call below game left (this situation). That meta-agreement can translate into tons of sequences and solve a world of "undiscussed" problems.

[whereagles]

dude, you have FAR too much time in your hands

[cherdanno]

@ Ken: Of course 4M is to play, and 4D is COG. I can also tell you the difference between 5H and 4D 4H 5H - the latter is a slam try that didn't know which suit to play in.
Natural bidding is so amazing!

[kenrexford]

cherdanno, on May 11 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

@ Ken: Of course 4M is to play, and 4D is COG. I can also tell you the difference between 5H and 4D 4H 5H - the latter is a slam try that didn't know which suit to play in.
Natural bidding is so amazing!

"@ Ken: Of course 4M is to play, and 4D is COG. I can also tell you the difference between 5H and 4D 4H 5H - the latter is a slam try that didn't know which suit to play in.
Natural bidding is so amazing..."

...-ly useless in this situation.