[TimG]

mcphee, on Mar 1 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

I think S should open 2N, however that aside clearly the N player must bid over 4S.

Why would south want to grab the NT? He has no declarer value; it's almost a sure bet that any NT contract will play better from responder's side.

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 06:11 AM, said:

You guys are kidding!
South has 9!!!!!! controls - count them! You expect Nth to move with that collection of quacks.

Let's give opener ♠KJ, ♥QJ, ♦KJ = 11 HCP. Opener must have at least 2 aces for his jump to 4♠ (to get to 19 HCP, notice that opener must also have two aces to get to 18, 17, or even 16 HCP). And, if that's all he has, 5♠ will be safe.

Yes, we all know that this collection of quacks isn't as good as most 13 HCP hands with some aces in it. But, in this case we KNOW partner must have those aces. And, once we have aces in combination with our quacks, the quacks pull their full value, or more. No need to stubbornly devalue our quacks when we know they will be working.

[the hog]

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 04:42 PM, said:

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

Yes, that's atypical. Because jumping to 4♠ overstates the value of the doubleton honors. A jump to 3♠ should be plenty with this hand.

Tim

[the hog]

Tim, I doubt if anyone would bid 3S on this, especially at Imps. You miss too many games.

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

This hand doesnt qualify for a 4S jump. At least not for me.

[HeartA]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 04:42 PM, said:

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

This hand does not qualify for 4♠, in my standard. As I said before, 13-15 (including distribution points): 1m-1M-2M; 16-18: 1m-1M-3M, 19-21: 1m-1M-4M>
This hand has 17 hcp plus 1 distribution point. But I would down-grade it a little since 10 hcp were placed in short suits.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments here:

I'm sure that few long time readers of this forum will be surprised to hear that I basically agree with Ron's key points:

1. Raises to 4S are extremely awkward in natural system
2. South has a control rich monster

One of the central tenets of K-S is that constructive bids that use large amounts of bidding space should be highly descriptive. Associated with this, I'll note that balanced hands should strive to establish captaincy rather than transfer captaincy.

Notice how much easier this hand is in Polish Club, where the auction can start

1♣ - 1♠
2♦

[the hog]

I totally agree Richard. I would be very interested to see how many of the result merchants would move if only the North hand were shown. It is easy to bid when both hands are on view.

I quite like Arend's suggested structure. I also quite like a 2NT rebid by opener as an artificial gf.

[HeartA]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 09:13 PM, said:

I totally agree Richard. I would be very interested to see how many of the result merchants would move if only the North hand were shown. It is easy to bid when both hands are on view.

I quite like Arend's suggested structure. I also quite like a 2NT rebid by opener as an artificial gf.

If 1m-1M-2N were artificial gf, then the all structure would have to change, which is not the purpose of the post. if North got ♠xxx, ♥QJxx, ♦Kxx, ♣xxx, he has to respond 1♥, right? Then North should pass South's 2NT rebid.

And I don't like 1♣-1M-2♦ with this kind of flat hand, and with (good) 4-card for pd's major.

[the hog]

You have missed the point of Richard's post. Richard said that in Polish C a sequence such as 1C 1M 2D is so much easier. This sequence is an artificial gf relay showing 19+ with 3+ cards in support.

You have also missed my point. If 1C 1M 2NT is an artificial gf then it is a gf regardless of whether responder bids 1H or 1S. GF bids are not usually passed.

[mike777]

2D

Here is another option. 2D=18-19 Balanced. Off shape ok.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 10:42 PM, said:

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

Frequency?!? Enough said imo...

[the hog]

Thx Frederick, I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking!

There are many other similar hands as you have now come to realise.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 11:42 PM, said:

Kxxx
AQ
KJ
Axxxx

So you are happy being in 5S? Is this an atypical hand for the auction? Not at all.

This is a 1NT opening. If you play a weak 1NT, it's a 3♠ rebid.

[HeartA]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

You have missed the point of Richard's post. Richard said that in Polish C a sequence such as 1C 1M 2D is so much easier. This sequence is an artificial gf relay showing 19+ with 3+ cards in support.

You have also missed my point. If 1C 1M 2NT is an artificial gf then it is a gf regardless of whether responder bids 1H or 1S. GF bids are not usually passed.

I don't think I missed your point, Ron. My post is under "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion", isn't it?

[mikestar]

Seeing the North hand alone, I bid 5C. As I am so conrtol poor, I hate it, but I have and opening bid and a slam try under the Culbertson Rule. I expect to be wrong fairly often.

Certainly if there is an artificial GF available and partner chooses not to use it, there is an implication this his hand is not slamworthy and I pass like a shot. My answer was predicated on the idea that 4S was the only way to show game values with spade support.

In some SAYC or 2/1 partnerships, I have agreed on 1m-1M-3N as a game raise in M, no stiff but control rich, splinters, and 4M discouraging slam even if responder has a good hand. More sophisticated version are available--you could adapt some of Bergen's high level responses to 1M--it porbaly pays to have responder ask for the stiff so you aren't showing it to the enemy when responder is minimum.

[hrothgar]

HeartA, on Mar 8 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

You have missed the point of Richard's post. Richard said that in Polish C a sequence such as 1C 1M 2D is so much easier. This sequence is an artificial gf relay showing 19+ with 3+ cards in support.

You have also missed my point. If 1C 1M 2NT is an artificial gf then it is a gf regardless of whether responder bids 1H or 1S. GF bids are not usually passed.

I don't think I missed your point, Ron. My post is under "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion", isn't it?

You are still missing the point apparantly...

I was NOT arguing that 2♦ is the correct bid playing SAYC or 2/1. Rather, I was suggesting that there is a systemic flaw in standard North America methods if they force opener to show rather than ask with this hand.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

I was NOT arguing that 2♦ is the correct bid playing SAYC or 2/1. Rather, I was suggesting that there is a systemic flaw in standard North America methods if they force opener to show rather than ask with this hand.

You're not going to get too far with that reasoning here in North America. One of the first things beginners learn is that a 1NT opening bid is a very good start to the auction because it immediately puts responder in control.

[Rebound]

To me, the fact remains that on this hand South bid game all on his own. In standard methods, I believe this means South expects to make game opposite a bare 6-count (although I have seen pairs on BBO respond with much less). North has as much as 2 kings more than his 1♠ bid has shown. I think North should bid again.

I will admit that at the table I would probably just bid 4NT, but I now see the wisdom in bidding 5♣.