[ONEferBRID]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠ 

---

Since Responder has slam intentions as well as the top dog suit, he can afford to make a "false 2nd suit" bid to find out more information from partner using this neat invention ( not mine, but I wish it were ). The 6 Ace RKC is my contribution :

1NT - 2♥!
2♠ - 3♣ (ostensibly showing a 2nd suit, GF )
3♦!* - 3♥ ( cue )
3♠ ( cue ) - 4♣ ( marking time )
4♦ ( cue ) - 4NT ( 6 Ace RKC, Sp & Cl )
5♠ ( 2 + 1Q ) - 6NT ( in case the Diam cue = K )
____________________________________________________________
* The complete convention ( by IanD ) after 3-minor rebid by Responder :
3M = 3 cd support for the major, no 4 cd support for the minor
3-new suit!(♦) = 4 cd support for the minor(♣),slammish, only 2 cds Major(♠)
3NT = 2M/poor hand for minor slam
4-minor! = 3 cd M support AND 4 cds minor support
_____________________________________________________________
Actually, there is no need for RKC.
You have heard the cues you needed.
Opener must have working Queens for his bid.
And even if he doesn't have the ♣A, he would have to
have the ♦A for his count, sooo
just bid 6NT after the 4D cue.

This post has been edited by ONEferBRID: 2009-September-19, 13:35

[mike777]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠

---

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

ok ok ok/.I miss simple texas and then rkc.........simplistic....

[csdenmark]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠ 

---

This hand came up on BBO yesterday.  We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv.  I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control.  Why didnt we bid the slam?

In my preferred methods responders first bid must be Game Forcing. 2-level transfers are rarely so.

In this auction responder may bid whatever he wants to except 4♠ which can be misunderstood as end.

[Chris2794]

Yes .. 2NT asking for distr.

becaus if yo are INV you have 4spade (or 4 heart ;-)), than you bid 2S (only forcing if opener has 4c spade) or if you are GF 2NT

[junyi_zhu]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠

---

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

It's usually a good idea to equip a gadget in one's system to set up a trump and
force to game at 3 level or lower. Certainly the standard treatment in North America is quite bad.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 29 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 29 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

I suppose right siding it might with my xx... (Is that what you meant?)

DING DING DING (that is what he meant).

LoL. Maybe right-siding the contract is too old-fashioned?

The hand is misprinted. Opener's minors were actually:

♦AKQ
♣9762


After the contract was right-sided, an opening lead through the ♣Kx scuttled it.

[barryallen]

Cascade, on Aug 29 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 30 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I disagree with most and think west has a bid part of the blame.

Partner showed clubs with 3 clubs, and you failed to raise him because you though 3♦ was something conventional that you can show with 3♠ instead.

Next he showed a slam interest hand with 6 spades, and you have ♠Ax, ♣AQ9x in his suits!. Passing was very bad judgement IMO.

I agree.

I don't really understand the 3♣ bid.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the 3♣ bid, a subsequent 4♥ bid over 3NT should make this relatively easy?

[Jlall]

Lobowolf, on Oct 9 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 29 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 29 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

I suppose right siding it might with my xx... (Is that what you meant?)

DING DING DING (that is what he meant).

LoL. Maybe right-siding the contract is too old-fashioned?

The hand is misprinted. Opener's minors were actually:

♦AKQ
♣9762


After the contract was right-sided, an opening lead through the ♣Kx scuttled it.

It is obviously possible to be necessary to play from your side but surely you can see it's much more likely that it's necessary to play from partners side.