A simple quiz

[mike777]

Email quiz from buddy:

 

This is your quiz:

 

AK5 J72 AKQ4 AQ2

 

2C* 2D**

2NT*** 4NT

??

 

 

* strong

** At least 1 king or ace

*** 22-23 balanced

[Guest Jlall]

This is really close. pass was my first thought, but a lot of hands make 6D, or if partner has 5 clubs, 6C. He rates to have one of those as he didnt try stayman but if he has a 4333 hand without 4D he would bid the same way. I'm going to try 5D (natural, 4 card suit) but its not going to shock me if you tell me pass was the winner.

[Chamaco]

Is this not a quantitative invite ?

 

At the table I would have taken so, and therefore accepted the iinvite bidding 6NT (23, prime values, despite 4333).

[pclayton]

I think I'll try 5N. I really think 5♦ should be a 5 bagger, although AKQx sure looks like 5. Over 6♣ I'll try 6♦, which show show a 3-3-4-3. Pard can pass or bid 6N.

 

If I was 100% confident that 6♣ showed a 5 bagger I'd pass, although its hard to see how 6♣ plays better than 6N.

[sceptic]

with max I would have banged away at 6nt

[Guest Jlall]

I think I'll try 5N. I really think 5♦ should be a 5 bagger, although AKQx sure looks like 5. Over 6♣ I'll try 6♦, which show show a 3-3-4-3. Pard can pass or bid 6N.

 

If I was 100% confident that 6♣ showed a 5 bagger I'd pass, although its hard to see how 6♣ plays better than 6N.

Interesting I have always played 5D=4 and 6D=5. Is there any standard here?

 

On the upside if you can bid 5D to show 4, partners 6C would guarantee 5.

 

btw for those who don't consider this close to a pass, I really disagree. Give pard hands like:

 

Qxx Axx xxxx KJx. This is 10 points, and slam has extremely small hopes.

 

Qxx AKx Jxx xxxx. Another 10 count, and slam is not a favorite.

 

etc. There are alot of hands where slam will not make, mainly when pard is 4333. If pard has 4432 with 4 DIAMONDS in hands such as:

 

xx AQx xxxx Kxxx 6 DIAMONDS is very good, and 6N is significantly worse.

 

Qxx Ax xxxx Kxxx, same deal.

 

Qx Kxx Jxxx Kxxx, again you'd want to be in 6D.

 

It's hard to construct hands where you want to be in 6N that dont include 5 clubs.

[Beto]

Interesting I have always played 5D=4 and 6D=5. Is there any standard here?

 

On the upside if you can bid 5D to show 4, partners 6C would guarantee 5.

I also learned that way and i guess it is pretty natural.

[P_Marlowe]

5S.

 

For me 4NT would not be invitational,

for me it would be Blackwood, opener

is limited to 22-23.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

Pass. 4333 shape and this is the sort of auction where pards like to overbid.

[Al_U_Card]

For me 4NT would not be invitational,

for me it would be Blackwood, opener

is limited to 22-23.

I take it as quantitative. We have a trick that if I accept, I answer keycards for spades. I also play that I can bid 5NT to pick a slam in the minors. Otherwise I will pass and with the H holding, I will do so.

[Walddk]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates. It's a pass to me. Give me a 4432 pattern or a few 10's and 9's (preferably together), and I will consider.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

 

Arend

Agree, you have 6½ tricks. I don't think my quantitative partner with his 8-9 count can produce 5½.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

4333? I might not even open, and certainly am not accepting the slam try. (well, ok, I would open).

[cherdano]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it.

 

Arend

Agree, you have 6½ tricks. I don't think my quantitative partner with his 8-9 count can produce 5½.

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

 

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

 

Arend

[luke warm]

if 4nt is quantitative, i'll bid 6nt with my 8 controls

[Guest Jlall]

If there is such a thing as a bad 23 count, this must be it. 3343 and no intermediates. It's a pass to me. Give me a 4432 pattern or a few 10's and 9's (preferably together), and I will consider.

 

Roland

I'll agree, if we are playing NT, this is definitely a minimum hand. However, if partner has a diamond fit or a 5th club, our controls are now upgraded (unles partners diamond fit is 3343). Since partners shapes include 4333s, (32)44, and 5332s with 5 card minors, I'd say we rate to have a fit. It's just a guess though, and if I find no fit I will expect to go down in 6N.

[Walddk]

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

 

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

 

Arend

If hand evaluation is what you want to discuss, then perhaps you will care to tell me which hand you would rather want. Your 23 count above or my 20 count below:

 

♠ Ax

♥ Axx

♦ Ax

♣ AKJ10xx

 

I sincerely hope that no one treats this as 20 high card points.

 

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

4333? I might not even open, and certainly am not accepting the slam try. (well, ok, I would open).

A deck of cards $2

A session of bridge $15

This quote.....priceless :D

[pclayton]

I think I'll try 5N. I really think 5♦ should be a 5 bagger, although AKQx sure looks like 5. Over 6♣ I'll try 6♦, which show show a 3-3-4-3. Pard can pass or bid 6N.

 

If I was 100% confident that 6♣ showed a 5 bagger I'd pass, although its hard to see how 6♣ plays better than 6N.

Interesting I have always played 5D=4 and 6D=5. Is there any standard here?

 

On the upside if you can bid 5D to show 4, partners 6C would guarantee 5.

 

btw for those who don't consider this close to a pass, I really disagree. Give pard hands like:

 

Qxx Axx xxxx KJx. This is 10 points, and slam has extremely small hopes.

 

Qxx AKx Jxx xxxx. Another 10 count, and slam is not a favorite.

 

etc. There are alot of hands where slam will not make, mainly when pard is 4333. If pard has 4432 with 4 DIAMONDS in hands such as:

 

xx AQx xxxx Kxxx 6 DIAMONDS is very good, and 6N is significantly worse.

 

Qxx Ax xxxx Kxxx, same deal.

 

Qx Kxx Jxxx Kxxx, again you'd want to be in 6D.

 

It's hard to construct hands where you want to be in 6N that dont include 5 clubs.

I guess it depends on the nature of 4N. If 4♦/ 4♥ are Tejas, 4♠ should be some sort of Kantar - Kleinman slam try or high level MSS. If such a 4♠ call is available, then it greatly should influence what a 5♣/5♦ call over 4N should mean.

 

For the sake of theory, lets assume that 4♠ over 2N shows a quant raise to 4N but with interest in a 4-4 minor suit fit. I think pard would still shy away from a 4-4 diamond fit with his expected ♦xxxx.

 

I think playing KK, 5♦ over 4N should be a 5 bagger. 5N over 4N should be pass-the-buck. Maybe 6 of a minor is a great 5 bagger or even 6.

 

Over 4♠, Goldsmith states that 5 of a minor should be at least a good 4 card suit - KQTx I think is his minimum. 6 of a minor should be 5. 5N tries for 6m with a weaker 4 card minor.

[han]

I don't think that this is such a bad 23 count either. Move a diamond to a heart and it is worse. And the aces are good.

 

I know that Ben's personal religion requires him to divide his points by 2 since he is 4333, which gives him a sound opener (11.5 count). He then substracts 2 points for being balanced and is left with little more than 9 points, a light but clear opener. There is no point arguing about this, as is the case with most religions.

 

I would also bid 5D here, 6D would show 5 diamonds. I think that this is far better than showing the number of aces with a hand that accepts the invitation. (You might think that nobody who responds here likes that, but you would be wrong)

 

Like Arend I would not expect partner to invite with most 8-counts.

[mike777]

If the bidding had gone:

 

2C=2D

2NT=3C

3D=4NT

 

Would you change your rebid now? If so to what?

[EricK]

At MPs I definitely pass, as I would rather be 4N+2 with a few bidding slam than 6N-1 with most making 3N+2. I estimate that slam is never going to be much more than 50% anyway.

 

At IMPs I probably pass too, but might hazard 5♦ (as long as we had the agreement that this shows 4) and pass 5NT if that is all partner can muster. It depends how confident I am feeling - I would have to play the hand after all.

 

I find that going negative when I hold a huge hand (especially when bidding to a hopeless contract) is one of the worst feelings in bridge, so this probably colours my thoughts on this one.

 

Eric

[Guest Jlall]

If the bidding had gone:

 

2C=2D

2NT=3C

3D=4NT

 

Would you change your rebid now? If so to what?

yes I would pass as a diamond fit is much less likely.

[cherdano]

I don't understand hand evaluation by counting tricks. Given that ♣Kxxxx is 3½ tricks by your count, and ♥KQ is two, and ♦xxxx is one, it seems very well possible that 8 hcp produce 5.5 tricks (I would rather give partner 9-10 hcp).

 

I am not claiming it is clear to bid, but I just don't think this is a very bad 23 count. (I guess in part we are having the old debate whether 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces even at notrump play.)

 

Arend

If hand evaluation is what you want to discuss, then perhaps you will care to tell me which hand you would rather want. Your 23 count above or my 20 count below:

 

♠ Ax

♥ Axx

♦ Ax

♣ AKJ10xx

 

I sincerely hope that no one treats this as 20 high card points.

 

Roland

If you are starting to make silly examples, then so can I. Which hand would you rather have on the given bidding,

♠AKx

♥Jxx

♦AKQx

♣AQx

or

♠AKQx

♥KJx

♦KQx

♣AJx?

The first hand has a better honor location, and a better chance for a fit. (And please give me some credit for not introducing any total wasted honor combinations like KQJ or AKJ or AKQ or AJ tight :D) The latter is a clear pass, while the first hand is close IMO.

 

Anyway, as I have said before, I don't feel so strongly about this, and I will let Roland have the last word :D.

 

Arend