[1eyedjack]

Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S
P..1♦..P..1♥
P..2♦..P..??

---

Leaving aside my distaste for the 2♦ rebid which I shall not regale you with here, and which on the hand in question was I believe instrumental in our failing to find 3N, I would be interested to know how this hand should be handled from my side of the table, as it would not require much change of partner's hand for his bidding to be reasonable, and then essentially the same problem would remain and the blame wholly attributable to me if I get it wrong.

To my mind, 2♠ overstates both heart length and Spade quality, but maybe it is the right bid? I cannot see an alternative forcing route that does not commit beyond 3N. And yet I can well see that 2♠ may stear us to 3N when 5♦ or even 6♦ is right.

[Jlall]

I would never consider playing 3N. We have a huge hand for a diamond slam with a 10 card fit, a stiff, and good controls.

x xx AKJxxx xxxx is a slam, and that is an 8 count.

I would just splinter with 4C.

[jdonn]

2♠ is sort of a backwards bid. It will steer you to 3NT when partner is short in spades and you don't want to be there, but steer you out of 3NT when partner is longer in spades and you do want to be there. In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

Is it beacuse it's imp's? Or would you do it in any form of scoring?

[aguahombre]

Hanoi5, on Dec 25 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

Quote

In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

Is it beacuse it's imp's? Or would you do it in any form of scoring?

I think missing a slam is not a good idea at any form of scoring. See Justin's subminimum example. Agree with Josh's observation that 2S could have a backward effect, unless it is treated as just a forcing noise and creates a slow auction which uncovers spade shortness, etc.

4C seems more direct, and should not imply anything useful in spades. So, it would be a better choice, IMO.

Remember, though, that the OP indicated the 2D rebid was wrong, so things could go sideways. Responder can only work with the assumption that Opener's 2D rebid was appropriate.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Dec 25 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

I would never consider playing 3N. We have a huge hand for a diamond slam with a 10 card fit, a stiff, and good controls.

x xx AKJxxx xxxx is a slam, and that is an 8 count.

I would just splinter with 4C.

I like the idea of supporting diamonds like this, but how does partner ever recover from the idea that you hold x or void in clubs and therefore most likely some card in spades?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Dec 25 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

I like the idea of supporting diamonds like this, but how does partner ever recover from the idea that you hold x or void in clubs and therefore most likely some card in spades?

Agree with that.

If 4♦ is not forcing I might bid 3♣. Second choice 3NT.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't want to rule out 3NT. xxx x AKJxxx xxx is a more likely 8-count than Justin's, and 3NT is the only making game.

I'd bid 2♠, followed by 3♦ if he bids 2NT or 3♣.

[eyhung]

gnasher, on Dec 26 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

I wouldn't want to rule out 3NT. xxx x AKJxxx xxx is a more likely 8-count than Justin's, and 3NT is the only making game.

I'd bid 2♠, followed by 3♦ if he bids 2NT or 3♣.

Uh, what? Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count. Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds. I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

Quick little sim (1000 hands) to make sure I'm not completely nuts here :

Makes 6 or 7 diamonds : 62.7%
Doesn't make 5D : 9.4%
Makes 3NT but not 5D : 8.8%
Makes 4NT but not 5D : 6.5%

If you have methods to diagnose the unsuitability of diamonds below 3NT, more power to you, but you're only gaining on 2.3% of the hands if you can stop in 4NT after 4♣.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a good hand for the methods I normally use.

1♦-anything except 1N-2♦-2♥ is artificial and asks opener to define his hand. Partner will now tell you a fair bit about his range and shape, and I think you'll be fairly well placed to pick the right game/slam.

I hate the auctions where you have a good hand opposite 1m-?-2m and have got in many messes before I started using next suit up as a relay.

[1eyedjack]

Interesting. Does this mean that you play 1♦-2♥ as a natural weak jump shift? Ie one which in natural methods would have bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♥? I have a bit of an aversion to weak jump shifts, but might change my mind if the benefits are worth it. Playing weak jump shifts if you have 4♠ and 6♥ partner opens 1♦ and you potentially miss the ♠ fit if you jump to 2♥ natural and weak, while if you respond 1♥ and happen not to have a ♠ fit you cannot now bail out in 2♥ after the 2♦ rebid. Just by way of example. There may be other problems, possibly mainly match-point related

Presumably you give up on the hands with 5♠ and 4♥ opposite the 1♦-1♠-2♦ sequence unless responder has a full-blooded game try? Not saying that is bad, just want to be sure that I identify the bad hands for the method, and I would tend to view with scepticism a claim that there are none.

[ONEferBRID]

I like Justin's 4C!-splinter.

[1eyedjack]

swap the club ace for the spade ten and 4C splinter would be perfect in my view. Goes beyond 3N but is simply too descriptive to resist. I agree that it may be the best of several imperfect options the way the cards are dealt.

[Cyberyeti]

1eyedjack, on Dec 26 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

Interesting.  Does this mean that you play 1♦-2♥ as a natural weak jump shift?  Ie one which in natural methods would have bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♥? I have a bit of an aversion to weak jump shifts, but might change my mind if the benefits are worth it.  Playing weak jump shifts if you have 4♠ and 6♥ partner opens 1♦ and you potentially miss the ♠ fit if you jump to 2♥ natural and weak, while if you respond 1♥ and happen not to have a ♠ fit you cannot now bail out in 2♥ after the 2♦ rebid.  Just by way of example.  There may be other problems, possibly mainly match-point related

Presumably you give up on the hands with 5♠ and 4♥ opposite the 1♦-1♠-2♦ sequence unless responder has a full-blooded game try?  Not saying that is bad, just want to be sure that I identify the bad hands for the method, and I would tend to view with scepticism a claim that there are none.

We don't play weak jump shifts, also 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ would be almost any game try or better, so 2N would show hearts and less than that, but would commit you to the 3 level unless partner could find a pass.

[rogerclee]

Cyberyeti, on Dec 26 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

This is a good hand for the methods I normally use.

1♦-anything except 1N-2♦-2♥ is artificial and asks opener to define his hand. Partner will now tell you a fair bit about his range and shape, and I think you'll be fairly well placed to pick the right game/slam.

I hate the auctions where you have a good hand opposite 1m-?-2m and have got in many messes before I started using next suit up as a relay.

maggieb posted something similar over the auction 1C-1H; 2C-2S in a previous thread which seemed like a good idea to me. I think it was something like:

1m-1H
2m-2S

2N = minimum (3C asks shortness)
3m = max, balanced
3om/3H/3S = max, shortness

[Winstonm]

Perhaps we should create X, Y, X, which states: in any auction in which opener rebids his suit, the use of the cheapest club bid is an artificial force and relays to diamonds.

[gnasher]

eyhung, on Dec 26 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Uh, what?  Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count.  Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds.  I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think that partner has an 8-count. Nor, I imagine, did Justin when he posted an 8-count.

Justin's point, as I understand it, was that you could take his eight count and top it up with useless cards to make an opening bid, and 6♦ would be making. Similarly, there are several ways to top up my 8-count with useless high cards to make an opening bid, and 5♦ will still be poor or dreadful, with 3NT still cold. For example: Qxx x AKJxxx Qxx, xxx x AKJxxx Kxx, xxx x AKJxxx KQx, etc.

Given the bidding, in particular opponents' silence, it seems to me that partner is more likely to hold ♠xxx than a small singleton.

Quote

Quick little sim (1000 hands) to make sure I'm not completely nuts here :

Makes 6 or 7 diamonds : 62.7%
Doesn't make 5D : 9.4%
Makes 3NT but not 5D : 8.8%
Makes 4NT but not 5D : 6.5%

What criteria did you use?

Quote

If you have methods to diagnose the unsuitability of diamonds below 3NT, more power to you,

You make this sound difficult, but I don't think it particularly hard. If we bid 2♠-2NT;3♦-3NT, what do think partner is going to have?

Quote

but you're only gaining on 2.3% of the hands if you can stop in 4NT after 4♣.

How many pairs do you think can stop in 4NT after a 4♣ splinter? None of my partnerships can.

[eyhung]

My point about the unfairness of the 8-count example is that given that partner has a 1♦ opener, it requires a somewhat pathological distribution of high cards and shape in the side suits to make 5♦ poor. Yes, a spade singleton is unlikely -- but so is xxx given that partner has an opener and the opponents have failed to overcall or double. I expect a spade control or spade values very frequently, and the sim bears this out.

When a small slam is making approximately two-thirds of the time, it seems unwise to attempt to cater to 3NT especially when it's unclear to me that partner is making an intelligent decision on 3NT vs. diamonds. Part of this is because you have not told me what your 2♠ - 3♦ - 3NT sequence shows -- but I doubt most people really know either. How does partner know that you don't hold something like AKxx Jxxx Q987 A, where heart weakness is death; or AJ AKxx Q9xx xxx where club weakness is death? Partner is just rebidding 3NT with 0-2 hearts and stuff in the blacks. If your blacks fit well, sometime you're playing in 3NT when you're cold for 5 or 6D, and sometimes you're even down in 3NT when 5D is cold. I don't think finding a good 3NT is nearly as frequent as finding a good 6D.

If you can come up with a plausible sequence that could describe your hand so well that a "random expert North" could accurately judge 3NT vs. 6♦, then your approach has merit, but absent that, I think your hand needs to take control.

I reran the sim with tighter constraints :

West is a passed hand
North has 6+ diamonds, 12-bad 16 HCP, no side 4-card suits
East cannot act over 1D
West cannot act over 1H

Slam in diamonds makes = 690
Down in 5D = 69
Makes 3NT but not 5D = 67
No game makes = 2
Makes 5D but not 3NT = 85


And for what it's worth, my partnerships can stop in 4NT, because I explicitly define that 4NT is always strain-suggesting, never keycard, over a minor. I don't expect that treatment to be popular enough to use opposite a random expert North, but partnerships who use some form of redwood or kickback can probably do something similar. And even if 4C completely forecloses notrump, you're only missing out a small percentage of the time. I suspect trying 2♠ with the intent of stopping in 3NT on some auctions is going to lead to a missed diamond slam more frequently.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Dec 26 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

eyhung, on Dec 26 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Uh, what?  Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count.  Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds.  I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think that partner has an 8-count. Nor, I imagine, did Justin when he posted an 8-count.

Justin's point, as I understand it, was that you could take his eight count and top it up with useless cards to make an opening bid, and 6♦ would be making. Similarly, there are several ways to top up my 8-count with useless high cards to make an opening bid, and 5♦ will still be poor or dreadful, with 3NT still cold. For example: Qxx x AKJxxx Qxx, xxx x AKJxxx Kxx, xxx x AKJxxx KQx, etc.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Justin's point is that on such a hand you could add any high cards and you would have slam. But opposite your example you could have a good slam opposite useful high cards that constitute a minimum strength opener, it would just be bad opposite (the admittedly more likely case of) wasted strength.

[mike777]

1eyedjack, on Dec 25 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S
P..1♦..P..1♥
P..2♦..P..??

---

Leaving aside my distaste for the 2♦ rebid which I shall not regale you with here, and which on the hand in question was I believe instrumental in our failing to find 3N, I would be interested to know how this hand should be handled from my side of the table, as it would not require much change of partner's hand for his bidding to be reasonable, and then essentially the same problem would remain and the blame wholly attributable to me if I get it wrong.

To my mind, 2♠ overstates both heart length and Spade quality, but maybe it is the right bid? I cannot see an alternative forcing route that does not commit beyond 3N. And yet I can well see that 2♠ may stear us to 3N when 5♦ or even 6♦ is right.

ok I dont get any of these posts

thought 4c as said long ago...was easy.