Adequate Solvers Problem 2

[Echognome]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sat732hj52dktcaq6&s=skqj5h7daq9874c43]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I let North/South have a free run at this auction. A typical start is:

 

1♦ - 1♠

?

 

South now has several choices of bids to show his excellent support and 6-4 shape. The problem is that none of them fit the hand perfectly:

 

2♠ - Too much of an underbid

3♠ - Gets the strength across, but not very descriptive in terms of shape

4♦ - Gets across 4-6 shape, but diamonds are not that solid

3♥ - Splinter. Gets across heart control, but not potential source of tricks in diamonds. Typical shapes for this are 4-1-4-4 or 4-1-5-3.

 

Some pairs will have special bids here to deal with these hands, others improvised. The goal being to reach the very good 6♠. I'll let the pairs chime in here for their auctions.

[MickyB]

1♦:1♠

2♠:4♠

 

My pard picked a 2♠ raise, which is less of an underbid than it might seem because 1♦ promised an unbalanced hand. Still, he could have had a weakish 31(45), so I think 3♠ would be better, which will nearly always have five diamonds. I reckon the best call, if available, is a 3♥ invitational-plus splinter, but many play it as GF which is a little rich for me.

[hrothgar]

Board 2 is another nice illustrative auction.

 

South opens 1H, showing his 4 card Spade suit and temporally suppressing his 6 card Diamond suit. North is forced to chose between 2NT (similar to a Jacoby 2NT, though only promising game invitational values) and 1S (relay with game invitational values). I prefer the 2NT raise since it immediately clarifies trump support. Equally important, its much more difficult for the opponents to intervene in the auction. Paradoxically, a bid that uses significantly more bidding space may yield more effective bidding space.

 

After the 2NT raise, South's 3D rebid shows a maximum opening with 4 Spades and 5+ Diamonds. North has promised seven (or fewer) losers, so South knows that slam is a good shot. Sadly, North (me) failed to appreciate the value of his King of Diamonds. 4S was a sloppy bid and it killed our auction.

 

In retrospect, I should have cue bid 4C (first or second round control). South would have followed with 4D. When I rebid 4S denying a Heart control, South's hands revalues sufficiently for him to find the slam.

[inquiry]

on board 2, hannie opened 1♦, our auction was.

 

Board Two

1♦-1♠

3♥-4NT

5♠-6♠

Pass

 

We have a couple of specialized agreements regarding raises. 1minor-1Major-2NT is strongest four card raise. Since with 4/5 hearts and 5/6♦ and strong hand, he would have rebid 2♥ (reverse), this jump to 3♥ is a limited splinter with four card support (not strong enough for a jump to 2NT). We also have a rule about splinters. On this auction, his 3♥ splinter specifically denied first or second round ♣ control (our rules on splinters can be found at: http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.com/2005/07/...inter-bids.html

 

Opposite this mini-splinter, my hand is great with nothing wasted in hearts, with a very good diamond fit (KT doubleton), a fifth spades and with clubs well under control. In our 2/1 system, Hannie is virtually assured not to be 4144 or 4054 because of a treatment we use with “strong” three suiters (strong being defined as few as 16 and some 15 hcp with five or more controls). So he rates to be 4153, 4162, 4063 or similar. While I could and maybe should have gone slower, the great fit and no wastage, I reverted to old fashion roman keycard blackwood, and opposite two keycards and the queen of trumps, bid the slam. I expected to catch KQxx x AQJxx xxx or similar opposite. With a ♥ void, hannie would have showed his keycards plus the void, so grand was not out the question when I used blackwood, since he could have held KQxx void AQJxxx xxx.

[Gerben42]

This is a good hand to have specific agreements about your raises. Playing weak NT I think a simple raise is in order. If not, you might want to try 3♥ if that is a non-GF splinter.

[Free]

1♥-2NT was a great start, but after ...-3♦-4♠, the bidding is over. I'd rather bid 3♠, asking to start cuebidding and rightsiding the contract to control ♣s.

[Cascade]

We underbid

 

1♦ 1♠

2♠ 4♠

 

Retrospectively we agreed that the South hand here was worth 3♠ based on the 6th diamond or a 3♥ splinter. Either of these actions would have propelled us to 6♠.

 

1♦ 1♠

3♥ 4♣

4♦ 4NT

5♠ 6♠

 

or

 

1♦ 1♠

3♠ 4♣

4♦ 4♠

4NT 5♥

6♠

 

* On both auctions 4♣ shows serious interest. 3NT would have been a slam try with less interest. I am not sure it is best but we have given up playing 3NT on this sort of auction.

 

Notice how this makes it easy for South with only 12 hcp to bid on over 4♠ on the second auction. North has serious interest and no control of hearts (we don't play last train). South's hand is getting better all of the time in this auction. South can imagine a slam opposite an 11 count and surely North has more than this for serious interest.

[mike777]

1d=1s

3h=4c

4d=4nt

5s=6s

 

3h=stiff not void

4c=cue

4d=cue

4nt=rkc

etc.

[hrothgar]

1d=1s

3h=4c

4d=4nt

5s=6s

 

3h=stiff not void

4c=cue

4d=cue

4nt=rkc

etc.

Out of curiousity, did you produce this auction at the table or is it double dummy?

[awm]

Elianna and I reached 6♠ here on an auction fairly similar to Inquiry's:

 

1♦-1♠

3♥-4♣

4♦-5♦

5♠-6♠

 

Good trumps seemed necessary for Elianna's splinter of 3♥ (especially given the missing ♦K and weak club holding) so I was happy to proceed to slam without bidding keycard. In fact I was looking for a heart void to follow up with 5NT (grandslam force) but the 5♠ bid ended that thought.

[Robert]

Hi hrothgar

 

Mike777's only possible biding problem 'might' be that 3H* splinter bid.

 

Once the 3H* splinter is made, responder should be good to go after the 4C-4D cuebids. I think that 3H* bid as a splinter is fair decision playing a Big Club system. In a natural framework, I might share your doubts.

 

After a 3H* splinter and an exchange of minor cuebids, all systems are go for liftoff.

 

My methods include a strong 4441(any) type bid so my mini splinter bid would promise at least a 4153 shape or 'better.' Since I play a Big Club system, the 3H* splinter would hint at a 6-4 shape as my HCP values are limited.

 

A five loser hand in a 11-15HCP limited opening is a good hand. Responder has prime cover cards plus a five card spade suit and also a possible cover card in

the club queen.

 

Standard bidders have to sometimes be cautious when making a double raise, since their HCP values could be over stated by a jump raise.

 

Big Club systems can express their values within much more narrow limits. My partner is not going to play me for 20HCP after I jump shift or make a mini splinter.

 

My methods do permit a mini splinter in certain cases. I have never been a big fan of poeple who make jump reverse 'natural' bids rather than use a normal 'reverse' auction.

 

Regards,

Robert

[han]

Robert,

 

I agree that it shouldn't be hard to reach the slam after the splinter. I do think that the splinter is clear even when playing SAYC or 2/1. 3H doesn't say that you have 20 HCP's, it says that you have an invitational hand in support of spades, with 4 spades and a stiff heart. I think that 2S is a serious underbid.

 

For Ben and me it also denied a club control, which makes the hand even more perfect.

[Robert]

Hello Hannie

 

I wrote' "20 HCP after I jump shift"

 

I assumed that almost everyone would play a 'mini' splinter as being less than 20HCP, since you could make a game forcing splinter with a 4H* bid holding

@ 19-20 dummy points(HCP plus distributional values)

 

I will try to be a bit clearer in my future posts. Sorry. :(

 

Playing SAYC without firm prior agreements, I can see the 'wheels coming off'

in some auctions beginning with 1D-1S-3Hs. I would not spring that auction on many pick up partners(unless they were of a 'certain' standard)

 

Depending on the partner opposite me, I might bid 2Ss and with other players 3Ss.

 

With my normal system making a 2S raise would be a big underbid. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[hrothgar]

Hi hrothgar

 

Mike777's only possible biding problem 'might' be that 3H* splinter bid.

You misunderstand the rationale behind my posting....

 

I have zero interest in seeing double dummy auctions to the top score.

Its simply not that exciting...

 

The point behind the ASC is to watch actual pairs bid hands "live". Accompanying this, said pairs have the opportunity to explain their choice of bids or why their system bids certain hands the way it does.

 

I'm much more interested in the thought process even if it leads to a suboptimal contract...

 

Case in point: On Hand 3, Free and I bid to a poorish 3NT contract.

Personally, I think that we bid the hand "properly".

The auction just didn't lead to a good contract...

[han]

Bidding the hands at the table is entirely different from bidding them double dummy. The close decisions (open the north hand #1? South hand #2 good enough for a jump raise?) are just not as interesting when you can see both hands. I agree with Richard that for these threads, people should either bid the hands and explain their calls, or comment on the auctions or methods of others.

 

This is not meant as a reproach, but rather as my opinion of what these threads should look like in the future.

 

 

 

I think the current method of having pairs explain their own bidding is good and friendly. Right now we have 5 pairs who posted their auctions and it is fun to see the different methods and choices. I would encourage people to go online and bid them, these threads are probably much more interesting if you have bid the hands yourself (although I don't look forward to seeing a particularly painful auction of ours again).

[cherdano]

Bidding the hands at the table is entirely different from bidding them double dummy. The close decisions (open the north hand #1? South hand #2 good enough for a jump raise?) are just not as interesting when you can see both hands. I agree with Richard that for these threads, people should either bid the hands and explain their calls, or comment on the auctions or methods of others.

 

This is not meant as a reproach, but rather as my opinion of what these threads should look like in the future.

I agree it would be nice if we could keep these threads free of double dummy auctions. We have enough of them on BBF, and it is also not fair to the pairs that participated to have their real life auctions (including all mess-ups) next to perfect auctions constructed after seeing all of 26 or 52 cards.

 

Arend

[Gerben42]

Gerben's Fantunes auction:

 

1♦ (with 6 - 4 this is upgradable)

- 1♥ (shows ♠)

2♠ (natural ♠ support)

- 3♦ (confirms 5-3 ♠ fit, something in ♦, game or slam interest)

4♥ (submin. in HCP but hand has become huge - singleton)

- 4NT (Lackwood)

5NT (exactly 1 ♥, 2 Keys and ♠Q)

- 6♠ (to play)

[Fluffy]

My natural methods would take it easy and reach the final contrtact:

 

 

1♦-1♠

4♠*-5♣

5♥-6♠

 

4♠ is gambling, has to be based on ♦ lenght.

[Chamaco]

1D(1).....1S

3S(2).....3NT(3)

4D(3).....4H(4)

4NT(5)...5H

6S

 

Real diamond Precision

 

(1) = 4+ diamonds, max 15 hcp, unbalanced

 

(2) = distributional reverse, 4 card support, 5-5.5 losers.

Usually has 64 shape, very good diamonds and good spades or good diamonds and very good spades :(

 

(3) Serious NT: any normal opening hand opposite a 5-5.5 losers hand has the obligation to look for slam, and to show SERIOUS slam interest if a fit is found; here, despite the crappy shape, responder has the golden K of diamonds, so he makes a serious slam try

 

(4) cue in diamonds, NONE in clubs

 

(5) Last Train= Serious slam try, with a club control but none in hearts

 

(6) RKCB etc etc. Responder has suggested a strong hand with a problem in clubs, so we should be ok by simply checking the keycards.

[cherdano]

When I bid this hand with a good but completely unfamiliar partner (Ed = ewj), the SAYC bidding went

1♦-1♠-3♠-4♣-4♦

Now I bid 4♠, hoping to pinpoint the lack of heart control, and Ed passed as he had a minimum for his bidding. I think Ed was right to expect another cuebid from a North hand this good, and I should have made the unambiguous 5♦.

 

Arend

[mike777]

1d=1s

3h=4c

4d=4nt

5s=6s

 

3h=stiff not void

4c=cue

4d=cue

4nt=rkc

etc.

Out of curiousity, did you produce this auction at the table or is it double dummy?

that was me bidding both hands here is bidding with partner:

 

1d=1s

4d=5c

6s=p

 

Good to find out that one partner plays 4d as a non solid suit :).