[Antrax]

---

Spot cards are accurate, sadly. Opponents leave the rest of the auction to us. What's your approach? (specifically, what's your second bid, as I suspect 3♦ is always the first bid)

[JLOGIC]

Do we have any methods, like what 3S would mean? If not, I would bid 3C (stayman) then 4C. My 5th heart will get lost but I'm not willing to transfer and bid 6C and get to the wrong slam with such bad hearts.

[Antrax]

3♠ would just say "partner, keep talking", partner would bid a suit if it makes sense for him to or 3NT if he's something like 4-3-3-3 with four spades.
Interestingly, I asked the TD about this after the game (he's a BBO star and world-class player) and he proposed the 3♦-3♥-6♣ auction. It seemed quite risky with the terrible spots in both suits, which is why I'm asking for opinions.

[FrancesHinden]

It depends on what my agreements are (do we play "system on"?). I would transfer to clubs, then transfer to to hearts. This isn't very helpful, but failing that I agree with JLOGIC I would Stayman then bid 4C, and give up if partner signs off in 4NT.

[the hog]

I don't like 3D 3H 6C. I understand it, but I don't like it because the heart spots are poor. As posted by some already, Stayman first, followed by 4C, followed by pass if pd bids 4NT after all that.

[Antrax]

Interesting. For us system is on, though we don't have a way to transfer twice. So I could transfer to clubs then show spade shortness, or transfer to hearts and show a club suit.
At the table, if it's of any interest, I chose the latter, so the auction proceeded 3♦-3♥, 4♣ (natural) - 4♦ (cue), 4♠ (p let's go slamming) - 4NT (no, I don't like your suits), 5♣ (that's too bad but this is a better game) - 5♦ (apparently I was kidding earlier when I said I don't want to go further), 6♣. A laborious auction but surprisingly free of misunderstandings (except for partner's 5♦, that he intended as a cue but I'm not sure what a cue bid after he already signed off tells me), ended in a good contract. Partner's hand was ♠ATx ♥Kx ♦AKxx ♣QTxx. I ended up down 1 due to poor declarer play - the breaks were worse than I thought (clubs 4-0 to my right and diamonds 5-1) but there was a line that makes on the diamond lead I received.

[the hog]

Antrax, on 2011-July-09, 23:20, said:

Interesting. For us system is on, though we don't have a way to transfer twice. So I could transfer to clubs then show spade shortness, or transfer to hearts and show a club suit.
At the table, if it's of any interest, I chose the latter, so the auction proceeded 3♦-3♥, 4♣ (natural) - 4♦ (cue), 4♠ (p let's go slamming) - 4NT (no, I don't like your suits), 5♣ (that's too bad but this is a better game) - 5♦ (apparently I was kidding earlier when I said I don't want to go further), 6♣. A laborious auction but surprisingly free of misunderstandings (except for partner's 5♦, that he intended as a cue but I'm not sure what a cue bid after he already signed off tells me), ended in a good contract. Partner's hand was ♠ATx ♥Kx ♦AKxx ♣QTxx. I ended up down 1 due to poor declarer play - the breaks were worse than I thought (clubs 4-0 to my right and diamonds 5-1) but there was a line that makes on the diamond lead I received.

You must be posting about a different hand. C cannot be 4-0 as there are only 3 outstanding and Ds cannot be 5-1. (3-0 and 5-2 perhaps, or perhaps hearts 5-1?)

[Antrax]

You're right. Most likely p had one less club and one more diamond, since I'm sure diamonds were 5-1 and clubs 4-0, as that's the reason I went down
(Hearts were 4-2)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Antrax, on 2011-July-10, 02:13, said:

You're right. Most likely p had one less club and one more diamond, since I'm sure diamonds were 5-1 and clubs 4-0, as that's the reason I went down
(Hearts were 4-2)

You did reach a very good contract... and probably a cake-walk with decent splits.

I previously tackled the difficult problem of Responder showing a Major/minor 2-suiter, slammish for 2NT openings.... http://www.bridgebas...892#entry507892 ....

I tackled it, but probably have not solved it... but it is based on a 6 Ace-RKC "showing" principle.

Applying it here, Advancer reveals the 2-suiter: transfer to the major and then bids the minor.
Partner ( the 2NT overcaller ) then "shows" the number of key cards in the 2 suits by a series of "next step bids" and the final decision is based on the total number of keycards with a "pass or correct" at the end -- either below slam or in slam.

The disadvantage here for the hand in question, is if you are off ONE key card, you could be off 2 quick losers in Diams. But I would probably hope that the missing Ace was the Spade ( the weak-2S Opener holding it ).


In principle Responder ( Advancer here ) lays out that he has M/m two-suiter -- at least a 5/5 -- by transfering first ( 3D!/3H! )to the major and then bidding the minor ( 4C/4D ) -- thus announcing a slammish hand as the good reason to go beyond 3NT .

At that point, Opener ( the 2NT Overcaller here ) "shows" key cards ( 6 Ace-RKC ) for the 2 suits in question .
Advancer then makes a decision based on total keycards ( and Q's ) whether slam is on the horizon or not.
Advancer can sign-off by bidding 4M or 5m for "pass-or correct " -- depending on the available space.

Or Advancer can bid slam: 6m for pass or correct to 6M.

For this hand, Advancer finds all 6 keycards and then makes a Q-ask to find 1 Q .
He then bids 6C for pass or correct to 6H.

[mtvesuvius]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-July-10, 08:39, said:

[Stuff about playing 6KCB here]

lol Don this is the B/I forum, not the "Let's play 6 keycard blackwood in random auctions" forum.

[mgoetze]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-July-10, 10:33, said:

lol Don this is the B/I forum, not the "Let's play 6 keycard blackwood in random auctions" forum.

And downvotes were disabled just as it started to seem like he was learning the lesson...

[Antrax]

I'm confused. This post: http://www.bridgebas...post__p__559128 was welcomed by people to the B/I forum. The above one apparently isn't. Both seem to detail relatively elaborate systems posted by well-meaning posters trying to extend the poster's system to handle such cases better. What's the key difference?

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2011-July-10, 23:32, said:

I'm confused. This post: http://www.bridgebas...post__p__559128 was welcomed by people to the B/I forum. The above one apparently isn't.

FWIW, I didn't think Paul's post was particularily well-placed either. That said, I feel that Don's style seems to insist that you must be playing all these home-grown gadgets - which is definitely not true - while Paul was simply presenting a possible solution to a problem that had come up. I am probably biased by the fact that I believe Paul's ideas have more bridge merit than Don's.

[mtvesuvius]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-11, 04:47, said:

FWIW, I didn't think Paul's post was particularily well-placed either. That said, I feel that Don's style seems to insist that you must be playing all these home-grown gadgets - which is definitely not true - while Paul was simply presenting a possible solution to a problem that had come up. I am probably biased by the fact that I believe Paul's ideas have more bridge merit than Don's.

I completely agree with this view. A structure like Paul's could be (with a reasonably small amount of effort) remembered at the table, whereas I could never play any of Don's gadgets, since most of the time they are in obscure and rare auctions that aren't broken anyway.

I have a reasonably good memory (I have played three different relay systems IRL in the same day), but nowhere near enough to remember all the nuances and odd system things Don would use. If he can play them at the table and remember them all, as well as find a partner to do the same, more power to him. However most of us, including myself, find his ideas quite impractical and create a large system tax.

Personally, instead of discussing 6 Keycard Blackwood in 2NT opening/overcall auctions, I think anyone's time would be better spent working on defensive or competitive agreements.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-11, 04:47, said:

FWIW, I didn't think Paul's post was particularily well-placed either. That said, I feel that Don's style seems to insist that you must be playing all these home-grown gadgets - which is definitely not true - while Paul was simply presenting a possible solution to a problem that had come up. I am probably biased by the fact that I believe Paul's ideas have more bridge merit than Don's.

I don't insist on anything.
But my apologies ( to the "experts" ) in trying solve some difficult bidding situations that arise time and again.
Here I try to take some of the "guesswork" out of the final contract.
What better way than to find out about the "nuts" in Advancer's 2-suits -- one suit of which most likely will be the best contract ( rather than NT ) for these types of hands .

Try to tackle this problem if the MINOR suits were swithced in both hands.
Whether you use Stayman ( a la Justin ) or Transfer ( to Hts a la Antrax ), the rebid of 4D in either case puts an additional constraint on exploration.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-11, 04:47, said:

I am probably biased by the fact that I believe Paul's ideas have more bridge merit than Don's.

Not to take anything away from Paul's 1C >> 2D! artifical reverse structure, but lord help him if in any way he was inspired by a post from last October ( reply # 25 ): http://www.bridgebas...__gopid__505992