How to bid this slam hand?
#1
Posted 2009-June-24, 12:49
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#2
Posted 2009-June-24, 12:54
#3
Posted 2009-June-24, 12:58
3♦ 3♥
4♣ 4NT
Where 4♣ is a stronger heart raise than 4♥. It seems simple to me.
#5
Posted 2009-June-24, 13:36
Fluffy, on Jun 24 2009, 03:34 PM, said:
Is it so unbelievable that we would show a game force with a decent 8 card major and an Ace opposite an opening bid?
#6
Posted 2009-June-24, 13:41
1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ ?
2♥ gf, an overstatement of high card values opposite a potential heart void, but anything else seems calculated to cause huge problems later
3♦: extra values
3♥: I wouldn't bid 4♥ here, I would play 4♥ as a limited hand with very good hearts
4♥: I wouldn't use josh's device of 4♣ unless I held a club control, and I have already promised values with 3♦
The final pass over 4♥ is debatable... and I wouldn't argue with another move, whether that be 5♣ or keycard... my tendency is to cue bid in these auctions, and any move will get to slam. So maybe I would get to it.. but I surely don't think it is 'easy'... unless presented as a problem. That is NOT a knock on josh, btw, more a concession of my limitations. If he thinks it's easy in his partnerships, I believe him
#7
Posted 2009-June-24, 13:59
1♣ - 1♠: 16+ Any/8-11 with 5+♥
1NT - 3♥: 2♥ with 16-19/Sets ♥ as trump; Demanding Cuebid
3♠ - 3NT: Cue/Baby 1430
4♠ - 4NT: 2 Keycards with the Q♥/King Ask
5♥ - 6♥: 2 Kings/12 Tricks seems reasonable
#8
Posted 2009-June-24, 15:28
awm, on Jun 24 2009, 01:49 PM, said:
1s=2h
3d=3h
4s=(kickback for h)=etc..
#9
Posted 2009-June-24, 15:31
#10
Posted 2009-June-25, 00:32
when I can show a hand with limited high card strength but enough trick taking potential in heart in a possible misfit, I will use this sequence.
Playing SAYc however, where 1 NT can be passed, this is an easy 2 ♥ rebid.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#11
Posted 2009-June-25, 00:51
#12
Posted 2009-June-25, 08:08
jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 05:31 PM, said:
I also would not fear partner misunderstanding this 4♣ bid, and I usually take the opposite position in such situations.
#13
Posted 2009-June-25, 08:33
Apollo81, on Jun 24 2009, 07:36 PM, said:
Fluffy, on Jun 24 2009, 03:34 PM, said:
Is it so unbelievable that we would show a game force with a decent 8 card major and an Ace opposite an opening bid?
yeah by bidding 4♥ we show a game force
Seriously, I believe I make many mistakes for bidding slowly hands that I shouldn't, just because I love many rounds of bidding. But I don't think this is one of those, 4♥ shows more or less this hand, the hand just fits too good.
#14
Posted 2009-June-25, 09:48
Fluffy, on Jun 25 2009, 09:33 AM, said:
Apollo81, on Jun 24 2009, 07:36 PM, said:
Fluffy, on Jun 24 2009, 03:34 PM, said:
Is it so unbelievable that we would show a game force with a decent 8 card major and an Ace opposite an opening bid?
yeah by bidding 4♥ we show a game force
Seriously, I believe I make many mistakes for bidding slowly hands that I shouldn't, just because I love many rounds of bidding. But I don't think this is one of those, 4♥ shows more or less this hand, the hand just fits too good.
If 4♥ more or less shows this hand then why would opener pass?
#15
Posted 2009-June-25, 11:34
1♠ - 2♥ (nat ; GF except rebid after min response)
2NT - 3♥ (16+HCP no shortness ; sets trumps)
3♠ - 3NT (cue ; frivolous)
...
Now it depends if South likes his hand.
#16
Posted 2009-June-25, 12:00
jdonn, on Jun 25 2009, 03:48 PM, said:
Fluffy, on Jun 25 2009, 09:33 AM, said:
Apollo81, on Jun 24 2009, 07:36 PM, said:
Fluffy, on Jun 24 2009, 03:34 PM, said:
Is it so unbelievable that we would show a game force with a decent 8 card major and an Ace opposite an opening bid?
yeah by bidding 4♥ we show a game force
Seriously, I believe I make many mistakes for bidding slowly hands that I shouldn't, just because I love many rounds of bidding. But I don't think this is one of those, 4♥ shows more or less this hand, the hand just fits too good.
If 4♥ more or less shows this hand then why would opener pass?
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Seems to me that we're finding a making 6 more often than there is a 5 minus 1 disaster, so 4♠ seems in order.
Nick
#17
Posted 2009-June-25, 12:05
1♠ - 2♥ (invitational or better natural)
3♦ (extras, natural) - 3♥
4♥ - Pass
While I agree with the interpretation of 4♣, south has already shown extras in our methods by making the high reverse into diamonds. Is this hand really so good as to be worth showing even further extras? I suspect that 4♣ would be treated more or less as "forcing to slam if we are not off two cashers."
In a 2/1 GF style the 3♦ bid might not show as much extra (especially if 5-5) but the 2♥ bidder already upgraded substantially for the eight-card suit. While this is not an unreasonable position to take, it seems somewhat pushy for north to then subsequently upgrade again and push past 4♥ over the 4♣ "good raise."
Of course, you can always get to slam if someone is willing to push for it.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#18
Posted 2009-June-25, 13:48
awm, on Jun 25 2009, 02:05 PM, said:
1♠ - 2♥ (invitational or better natural)
3♦ (extras, natural) - 3♥
4♥ - Pass
While I agree with the interpretation of 4♣, south has already shown extras in our methods by making the high reverse into diamonds. Is this hand really so good as to be worth showing even further extras?
Yes.
Quote
That's what 4♣-4♥-5♥ is for.
Quote
Once you find out partner has doubleton support, you're worth a full game force and more, IMO.

Help
