[inquiry]

We have all seen and kibitzed Jimmy Cayne matches, some of us have played in them (in my case with not a good result for me). All these hands will be from Feb 2, 2009 match. Here is the fifth hand from that match on the BBO, see how you would do. Note: these actual hands and not problem hands, per se. Most will not be a major challenge BBO forum regulars.

Eventually we will assign imps for different actions.

Scoring: IMP

(P)-1♣-(1N*)-2♠!
(P)-?

1NT was (15)16-18, partners 2♠ promised 5S+5 any minor

What do you bid?

---

[jdonn]

4♠ since partner's hand shouldn't suck at this vul. Something like KQTxx xx Qxxxx x seems pretty close to minimum, though lighter if he has more shape is possible.

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Jul 1 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

4♠ since partner's hand shouldn't suck at this vul. Something like KQTxx xx Qxxxx x seems pretty close to minimum, though lighter if he has more shape is possible.

I was more inclined to bid 2NT first. I think I'd be a little more gunshy if partner's minor is clubs.

Sorry, 5♠+5m always? I bid 4♠

This post has been edited by jjbrr: 2009-July-01, 11:48

[se12sam]

4♠ -- though I am curious whether Ben's system has a 3♦ by South to be forcing on partner (some sort of raise/correct to 4♣)

[ArtK78]

4♠. Hard to imagine not having 10 tricks on this auction.

[inquiry]

se12sam, on Jul 1 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

4♠ -- though I am curious whether Ben's system has a 3♦ by South to be forcing on partner (some sort of raise/correct to 4♣)

This is not my system, this is the auction and the alert at the table.

[Phil]

I'd be very surprised if pard didn't have diamonds, but I don't care that much.

I'm bidding 4♠.

[kenrexford]

I must be missing something, but I cannot find any indication of strength.

I mean, my call is substantially different if ♠xxxxx ♥xx ♦xxxxx ♣x is possible as opposed to 2♠ showing GF values at the other end.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 1 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

I must be missing something, but I cannot find any indication of strength.

I mean, my call is substantially different if ♠xxxxx ♥xx ♦xxxxx ♣x is possible as opposed to 2♠ showing GF values at the other end.

Oh my gosh, we have to figure out what partner would or wouldn't be bidding with even when no particular strength is agreed! I abstain, it can't be done.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 1 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 1 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

I must be missing something, but I cannot find any indication of strength.

I mean, my call is substantially different if ♠xxxxx ♥xx ♦xxxxx ♣x is possible as opposed to 2♠ showing GF values at the other end.

Oh my gosh, we have to figure out what partner would or wouldn't be bidding with even when no particular strength is agreed! I abstain, it can't be done.

Found the "mocking" now. LOL

Um.

OK, let's say I pull back the hyperbole. I have 2 covers if partner has spades and clubs (unless he has the diamond Queen) but three if he has spades and diamonds. So, I need partner to have a hand with about six losers with diamonds or five losers with clubs. That's a stronger hand than logic and judgment would require in the abstract for a competitive 2♠ call.

Using actual hands. To make it easy (because I have the club Ace and the diamond KJ), let's assume that partner has Q10xxx in whichever minor he holds.

Would ♠A109xx xx-x-Q10xxx be good enough for a competitive call? Of course, opposite an opener, I would hope. But, if the suit is clubs, we expect to lose two red cards and two black cards. If the suit is diamonds, we expect to lose one diamond, one rounded card, and one spade. That's if all goes well. Partner might even have a worse hand, I would think, as a logical possible meaning for the call.

I also, for that matter, don't understand why anyone would play that 2♠ shows spades and a minor without any agreement as to what Opener's calls mean. This is also not mentioned.

[xcurt]

2NT. I expect the opponents already have a good idea of what partner's minor is, so I might as well equalize the knowledge there. I'll bid 3S over 3C (which has to imply I was bidding more over 3D, so if partner has the stone cold nuts for 2S he can bid 4D to see which pointed suit I was coming in).

[inquiry]

Feb 2, 2009 Board 6 Here both tables played 2♠ making five. At the other table, 2♠ simply showed spades, so bidding game might have been a bit more of a stretch. But at this table, I thought 4♠ was automatic. Everyone here (except maybe rexford) picks up a quick vulnerable game swing of 11 imps.

Well done to the forum members.

[kenrexford]

What was Responder's hand? Also, any clue as to what the range actually was???

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 1 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

Would ♠A109xx xx-x-Q10xxx be good enough for a competitive call? Of course, opposite an opener, I would hope. But, if the suit is clubs, we expect to lose two red cards and two black cards.

If he has that, we probably can't beat 4♥ - clubs will probably be 3-0, because LHO overcalled 1NT rather than making a takeout double. And RHO has been very quiet given his considerable shape.

The latter consideration makes it very unlikely that partner has five clubs.

[inquiry]

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2009, 07:08 AM, said:

What was Responder's hand? Also, any clue as to what the range actually was???

Click the link in my last post and you will see the full hand, with full bidding and play. As for responder's hand, it was pretty much exactly what jdonn suggested (well AKTxx of spades instead of KQTxx).

[TimG]

inquiry, on Jul 2 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2009, 07:08 AM, said:

What was Responder's hand?  Also, any clue as to what the range actually was???

Click the link in my last post and you will see the full hand, with full bidding and play.

When I click on the link, I see the full hand, but not the bidding and play.

[kenrexford]

Missed the link bit.

That's a 6-loser hand. I would certainly not expect that without discussion. I mean, look at the alternative to bidding 2♠, namely a penalty double. If Declarer plays 1NTX, he seems to get two tricks simply because we run out of steam. If Advancer corrects to hearts, THEN Responder can show his hand, which is a powerhouse.

Obviously, if that hand was possible, no one at that level should pass with Opener's hand. The fact that 2♠ was apparently passed twice (unless I'm missing something, which is very possible) suggests that the real problem was the heavy 2♠ call.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Missed the link bit.

That's a 6-loser hand.  I would certainly not expect that without discussion.  I mean, look at the alternative to bidding 2♠, namely a penalty double.  If Declarer plays 1NTX, he seems to get two tricks simply because we run out of steam. If Advancer corrects to hearts, THEN Responder can show his hand, which is a powerhouse.

Obviously, if that hand was possible, no one at that level should pass with Opener's hand.  The fact that 2♠ was apparently passed twice (unless I'm missing something, which is very possible) suggests that the real problem was the heavy 2♠ call.

The second time it showed only spades, not a minor as well. I think an expert passing at the table suggests people aren't used to evaluating in that situation, or can't get over the mental roadblock that they don't expect to have game after the 1NT overcall. If the ace of spades were the queen there would still be game.

[Deevan]

Occasionally, one may lose 11 IMPs just because another partnership pair with the given hands landed in 4Spades; and got lucky. In the long run (any 24-26 board match), I am not sure that bidding games on this type of bidding sequences will be a winner!

I wonder how many top flight pairs will bid game on this bidding sequence?

A case could be made for the responder to double 1NT; and, then lead a small Diamond! 5S+1H+4D+1C= +1100 down 5 doubled! Sorry the 4S bidders lost the board! Now, I am sure someone will tell me that the opponents will somehow land in 2H!!

The two hands turned out to be a perfect match. Is it really a good idea to establish your partnership bidding just because a particular layout of hands results in a game?

On the given bidding, I would expect partner to have a weaker hand; and I would pass 2S! Okay, I am willing to lose 11 IMPs on this board!

[jdonn]

Deevan, on Jul 2 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

The two hands turned out to be a perfect match. Is it really a good idea to establish your partnership bidding just because a particular layout of hands results in a game?

You can tell during the auction they match! You have support for partner's 5 card spade suit, and for his 5 card minor you have either KJx with two outside aces or five card support.

Your entire argument is a straw man. No one has suggested bidding game 'on this type of sequence' or that we should bid it because this time the hands matched. The suggestion is to bid game because you can tell from your hand and the auction that there is a good chance it will make. If you can only tell rarely 'on this type of auction' that 'the hands match', then you only bid game in those rare cases, you don't fail to bid game simply because you don't usually have game on this auction.

Obviously suggestions that many top players would miss game, or that the auction could have gone differently from your side and achieved a better result, are completely irrelevant.