[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

all Red, South Dealer, opponents are silent

♠A9
♥AQJT83
♦K52
♣74

vs.

♠KQ32
♥K
♦JT7
♣AKQ83

This hand came up in trainng session with a student, and I am
trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much
on lot of special gadgets.

My current auction looks something like

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦ (1)
3♦ (2) - 3♥ (3)
3NT (4) - 4♥ (5)
4♠ (6) - 4NT (7)
5♥ (7) - 6♥

(1) FSF, the system in use was inv.+, but I am not sure, that it really matters in
the current situation
(2) add. strength no clear direction (if you play 2D as gf, this may be different)
(3) 5 1/2
(4) half stopper in diamonds
(5) 6 cards
(6) cue
(7) RKCB for hearts, 2KC without

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

I like the 3♦ raise.

I would raise 3♥ to 4♥ with stiff king.

[LH2650]

I discussed it with a regular partner, and we settled on 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♥- 5♥ - 5N - 6N

[jdonn]

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦
3♣ - 3♥
4♦ - 4NT
etc.

4♦ shows a good raise to 4♥. I admit it might be a bit too advanced for a student, but I think it's the clearly 'correct' action.

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 12 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Hi,

all Red, South Dealer, opponents are silent

♠A9
♥AQJT83
♦K52
♣74

vs.

♠KQ32
♥K
♦JT7
♣AKQ83

This hand came up in trainng session with a student, and I am
trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much
on lot of special gadgets.

My current auction looks something like

1♣       - 1♥
1♠       - 2♦ (1)
3♦ (2)  - 3♥ (3)
3NT   (4)  - 4♥ (5)
4♠ (6)  - 4NT (7)
5♥ (7)  - 6♥

(1) FSF, the system in use was inv.+, but I am not sure, that it really matters in
     the current situation
(2) add. strength no clear direction (if you play 2D as gf, this may be different)
(3) 5 1/2
(4) half stopper in diamonds
(5) 6 cards
(6) cue
(7) RKCB for hearts, 2KC without

With kind regards
Marlowe

my take:

Teaching students to bid to 6-1 fit slams is the least of our problems.....again what do we want you to teach us?

As a nonexpert this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

As a nonexpert this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time.

If you are not interested in the problem then please post in another thread and stop wasting our time.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jul 12 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

As a nonexpert this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time.

If you are not interested in the problem then please post in another thread and stop wasting our time.

again you missed the main and only point sigh





this was billed as a teaching issue....and I posted what I thought the main teaching issue was. Well worth the time I thought.


"This hand came up in trainng session with a student"

As a nonexpert....I thought this was the main teaching point not finding a 6-1 fit. I thought it usefull to let experts know another viewpoint when teaching.

[jdonn]

No the point is

"I am trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much on lot of special gadgets."

When, instead of offering an auction, you say

"this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time."

then you are giving a stupid answer. So again, if you are not interested in the problem then just don't answer it. There are plenty of other problems on here that may interest you more.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jul 12 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

No the point is

"I am trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much on lot of special gadgets."

When, instead of offering an auction, you say

"this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time."

then you are giving a stupid answer. So again, if you are not interested in the problem then just don't answer it. There are plenty of other problems on here that may interest you more.

no that is not my point again I told you twice and you choose to ignore for some reason.....


My point to repeat was I thought this teacher, while great, was focusing on a non important issue for nonexperts....if you disagree ok read the post I thought he was focusing too much on this issue as a teacher.


If you think this is an important issue worth discussing for nonexperts ok.....but you do not say so.

I just express my opinion as stated...nonexpert.

[jdonn]

Talking to you is like playing tennis with a wall that has bumps all over it. I can never get the last shot, but the returns always go down the street or into the gutter until I finally get sick of playing.

[mike777]

Granted at ridicule you are good and all points lost.

I was trying to make a polite but pointed point but ok.....end.

[zasanya]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 12 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Hi,

all Red, South Dealer, opponents are silent

♠A9
♥AQJT83
♦K52
♣74

vs.

♠KQ32
♥K
♦JT7
♣AKQ83

This hand came up in trainng session with a student, and I am
trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much
on lot of special gadgets.

My current auction looks something like

1♣       - 1♥
1♠       - 2♦ (1)
3♦ (2)  - 3♥ (3)
3NT   (4)  - 4♥ (5)
4♠ (6)  - 4NT (7)
5♥ (7)  - 6♥

(1) FSF, the system in use was inv.+, but I am not sure, that it really matters in
     the current situation
(2) add. strength no clear direction (if you play 2D as gf, this may be different)
(3) 5 1/2
(4) half stopper in diamonds
(5) 6 cards
(6) cue
(7) RKCB for hearts, 2KC without

With kind regards
Marlowe

The opener has 18 hcp .Usually sufficient for a reverse? Could we advise the students to look favourably on a singleton hon in Partners suit and rebid 2♠ instead of 1♠?Most pairs should reach 6♥ or 6 NT then.
Is ihe reverse a special gadget according to you ?Or is the reverse requirement higher for your students?
May be your students are more advanced than I presume and will interprete FSF and subsequent raise of ♦ as you do and consider it as normal.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

<snip>

my take:

Teaching students to bid to 6-1 fit slams is the least of our problems.....again what do we want you to teach us?

As a nonexpert this is the least of my bridge issues. Please teach me important stuff or refund my money and stop wasting my time.

I agree, that it is not important to reach slams on 6-1 fits, but
understanding FSF is important.

We ended up in 4H+?, I was playing, so I may not have made
all overtricks, I am not very interested, if it comes to overtricks,
one of my biggest weaknesses.
I mentioned, that to reach slam one need FSF, at the table I did
not bid 3D, I did bid 4H, which ended the auction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

zasanya, on Jul 12 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 12 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Hi,

all Red, South Dealer, opponents are silent

♠A9
♥AQJT83
♦K52
♣74

vs.

♠KQ32
♥K
♦JT7
♣AKQ83

This hand came up in trainng session with a student, and I am
trying to come up with a realistic auction without relying to much
on lot of special gadgets.

My current auction looks something like

1♣       - 1♥
1♠       - 2♦ (1)
3♦ (2)  - 3♥ (3)
3NT   (4)  - 4♥ (5)
4♠ (6)  - 4NT (7)
5♥ (7)  - 6♥

(1) FSF, the system in use was inv.+, but I am not sure, that it really matters in
     the current situation
(2) add. strength no clear direction (if you play 2D as gf, this may be different)
(3) 5 1/2
(4) half stopper in diamonds
(5) 6 cards
(6) cue
(7) RKCB for hearts, 2KC without

With kind regards
Marlowe

The opener has 18 hcp .Usually sufficient for a reverse? Could we advise the students to look favourably on a singleton hon in Partners suit and rebid 2♠ instead of 1♠?Most pairs should reach 6♥ or 6 NT then.
Is ihe reverse a special gadget according to you ?Or is the reverse requirement higher for your students?
May be your students are more advanced than I presume and will interprete FSF and subsequent raise of ♦ as you do and consider it as normal.

(High) Reverses would be ok, similar opener jump shifting .-)

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

1♣ - 1♥ is an obvious start.

Opener has the first interesting decision at his rebid. There are three reasonable options:

1♠ is the "book" bid, with a wide range of values and hand types. It is not forcing but could be a good hand.

2♠ is a slight overbid that gets the values across. It's forcing to game and so a bit pushy with 18 opposite what could be 6.

2NT is a reasonable call, showing 18-19 balanced. Obviously this hand has a singleton, but with a singleton king it is often reasonable to treat the hand as balanced. If partner has six hearts and insists on playing there, this will be reasonable support.

Note that on the actual hand, responder has an easy time forcing to slam opposite either the 2♠ or 2NT rebid. So the hand is only really a bidding "problem" if opener chooses 1♠.

After 1♣-1♥-1♠, responder has a game force and is not yet sure where to play the hand. He should bid 2♦ "fourth suit forcing" to get more information from partner. So 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦! is a reasonable start.

Now opener has another decision at his third bid. The main question here is how you play a 3♦ rebid. One way to play it is "length but no stopper with a good hand" which describes opener's cards perfectly. But some would play it as more "natural" (like a 4045 hand) in which case 3♣ would be a better option.

Either way, responder should bid 3♥ over opener's 3♣/3♦ to suggest hearts as trump and look for slam.

Opener now needs to recognize after 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦!-3♣/3♦-3♥ that he has a very good hand. Partner has shown a game force and he has big extras (18 where he could have 12) and also has an okay fit for hearts (singleton king much better than small singleton). He needs to push for slam, but his hand is wrong for bidding keycard because diamonds are potentially wide open. He should try to find a call to express extras and a heart fit.

It's reasonable to treat 4♦ here as showing exactly that, since a natural interpretation doesn't make much sense and 4♥ obviously could be minimum. This is a "gadget" of sorts but a popular one among good players (impossible suit bid at the four level = raise of partner's major too good to bid 4M). Without this gadget, you can always bid 5♥ which should be a slam try in hearts normally weak in the unbid suit.

[skjaeran]

Agree with Josh's posts.

[P_Marlowe]

In my original auction: 4H instead of 3H is better, since it limits responders
hand, of course opener still needs to decide, if he should make another
move with a combined 30-32.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: And yes, I like jdonns auction, but the auction assumes 2D as GF, which
is ok, but we are still in discussion, standard in Germany is inv.+, and personnaly
I am happy with inv.+, and dont like gf, but my personal preference is not
important, since I am only a player who partners the members of a course.

[quiddity]

I don't completely understand the 4D bid - it sounds like a cuebid. When does such a bid promise a control, as opposed to just a raise with extras?

[AnJoe]

Good question, Quiddity.

I like a 3 club, or preferably a 4 club call, over the 2 D fsf bid. Shows what I have in my hand, five clubs and four spades, and the 4 club shows pretty strong.

I don't get all these "inference" bids.

love
joan

[jdeegan]

Has bidding really gotten better over the past two decades? My bidding (circa 1989) would have gone:

1♣-P-1♥-P
2NT-P-4♣-P
4♥-P-6♥-P
P-P

The 2NT rebid shows the strength of the hand and lies only a little about the second heart. Other possible rebids are 1♠ that fails to convey the strength of the hand now that I like the ♥ king a bit more, and 2♠ which forces to game with a hand that is not really strong enough. 4♣ has to be ace asking since 4NT would be quantitative. 4♥ shows one ace since no suit has been agreed. Then, responder who 'sees' 32+HCP, a running 6 bagger, and sufficient controls to prevent the cashing of two defensive tricks off the top is able to bid 6♥.