Adequate Solvers Problem 9

[Echognome]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skqjt9h98763d42c9&s=shaq52daqt93caj87]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Some will open the North hand with a preempt showing both majors. They will easily get to their game in hearts after that start.

 

Others will pass the north hand and south will start with 1♦, north responding 1♠. The question is then whether south wants to reverse into 2♥ or bid a simple 2♣ given the wastage in spades.

 

I'm a reverser given the extreme danger of bidding 2♣. If you bid 2♣, North's heart bid will not be natural and the heart suit can be lost forever. If you reverse, you might have a difficult time finding clubs, but this will most likely mean an inferior part-score. Here it is really unlucky if you chose to bid the simple 2♣.

[inquiry]

Pass-2♣

2♦-2N

3♥-3♠

4♥-4♠

5♣-5♥

Pass

 

This was an easy hand to bid by our methods. 2♣ is strong and forcing, 2♦ was semi=positive (at least one trick), 2NT showed a three suiter with at least five controls (Aces=2, K=1) and 2-5 losers, 3♣ asked for short suit, 3♥ said short spades with 4 or 5 "losers" with at least five controls.

 

I have to admit in real world, at this point I would have just signed off in 4♥’s. After all, look at all my wasted stuff in ♠’s. But that would hardly shows off the method, so I pulled out a 3♠ asking for number of losers and exact distribution. 4♥ showed 0(544) and 4 losers (any five card suit, but sure spade void). Now pass is still clearly indicated. But one can imagine the following hand opposite: void AKxx AKxxx Axxx, for the four losers, so, I decide to continue with the display of the method by asking for controls, 4♠ asked, and 5♣ showed six controls (three aces or two aces and two kings). This got us dangerously high but this shows the strength of the method as six hearts has some play here, and 5♥ surely will make on the real world hand because the correct play in five is to cash the ♥A then lead up to the Queen.

[hrothgar]

This was an interesting hand for us...

 

2♥ - 3♦

3N - 4♥

 

1 opened 2♥, showing a preemptive hand with either

 

4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades (could be 4432 but not 5440/4441) OR

4+ Hearts and 5+ Clubs

 

If opener has a 4 card suit, he promises Qxxx or better.

 

I'm sure that Free was cursing this convention as as he looked at his hand.

Opposite Hearts and Clubs he has a monster. Opposite Hearts and Spades, life is much less rosy... Free trotted out a 3♦ response, asking me to clarify whether I have a Spade suit. If I do, I'll also clarify length/strength. My 3N rebid showed a maximum strength preempt with 4-5 Spades. Free decided not to investigate slam and signed off in 4♥.

 

I like Free's decision to sign off. MOSCITO is a light opening system. A "maximum" strength preempt can be pretty bad. With expected Spade wastage, it makes sense to stay low.

[Free]

Obvious typo from Richard: in the auction, 4♠ should be 4♥ B) :(

[awm]

Our auction on this board started off well, but got derailed somewhere near the end:

 

Pass - 1♦

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 4♠

 

I'm not sure what convinced Elianna to raise to 4♠ on the void rather than showing her heart suit along the way. An initial reverse to 2♥ or a 3♥ call over 2♠ would get us to 4♥ relatively easily, but we instead reached the obviously inferior spade game.

[Cascade]

This was a funny hand for our methods and in the confusion we bid a little bit too much.

 

Pass 1♦

1♠ 2♥

3♣ 3NT

4♥ 5♥

 

A better auction would have been 4♥ over 2♥.

 

North wanted to bid a splinter over 2♥ but we have a blanket agreement that a jump in the fourth suit is natural and distributional. It is hard to know how we can have that hand when a passed hand so maybe it shouldn't have that agreement.

 

Anyway North tried to temporize with 3♣ and then 4♥ to show a good raise but with short clubs it is extremely unlikely that opener will have the right cards so especially with a minimum I think that a direct 4♥ is more practical.

 

Over 4♥ South imagined more fitting cards and raised to 5♥ as a general slam invite.

[han]

Adam (or Elianna), what is the reason for the 2C rebid instead of 2H? I would think that it would be easier to show the pattern without forcing to game if you bid 2H followed by 3C (IF this is not forcing).

 

Ben, could you ever be sure that I have the dream hand you showed? I don't see how 5H is a safe contract (I don't remember the other two hands, should we even consider them for evaluation purposes?).

[han]

Wayne, would 3H have been a good raise of hearts already?

 

Why do you play that 4C shows clubs and not 3C?

[Gerben42]

Fantunes auction with Inverted majors hit home run!

 

1♦ - 1♥ (♠)

1♠ (♥!) :)

 

No problem now.

[inquiry]

Adam (or Elianna), what is the reason for the 2C rebid instead of 2H? I would think that it would be easier to show the pattern without forcing to game if you bid 2H followed by 3C (IF this is not forcing).

 

Ben, could you ever be sure that I have the dream hand you showed? I don't see how 5H is a safe contract (I don't remember the other two hands, should we even consider them for evaluation purposes?).

No. I can never be sure... as I said, I could have bid 4♥ immediately over 3♥ or I could have passed 4♥. What fun would that have been. Five hearts is only slighly too much. The hands were singleton heart king offside. If you cash the heart ACE, you will make six. In six, you can't afford to cash the heart ACE I think. I don't remember the other hands either. The trick to five is simply not to lose two hearts, so you take the safety play.

[Cascade]

Wayne, would 3H have been a good raise of hearts already?

 

Why do you play that 4C shows clubs and not 3C?

As I stated this was a funny auction for us. We had not explicitly discussed this sequence by a passed hand.

 

3♥ would just be a minimum raise since 2♥ is only a one-round force. We play very simple methods over a reverse. I think this is right (and certainly simplest) since the most common hand for responder will be something in the 6-9 range so I like to be able to describe those common hands as quickly as possible.

 

3♣ would be 4th suit forcing and artificial. We have only been playing a jump in the fourth suit is natural for a relatively short time 6months-year and they do not come up that often so we have not worked out every detail as this hand illustrates. This method seems to work well for us. Although it is more problematic when the jump takes us beyond 4NT. No doubt sometime in the future we will tidy up this agreement.

[han]

I don't understand why you would want a jump in the 4th suit to be natural. It seems to me that you would most often want to be in 3NT with the hands that would make this call. Especially as a passed hand I cannot imagine a hand that would bid this, can you give an example?

 

It isn't clear to me from your post whether you only play this natural stuff as a passed hand (which makes sense to me) or also with unpassed hands (which seems to simple = bad).

 

 

[i now begin to think that you meant "3NT" where you wrote "4NT", then it would all make sense]

[mike777]

p=1D

2H=4H

P

 

2H=REVERSE FLANNERY 4+h and 5+s weak.

[Elianna]

Adam (or Elianna), what is the reason for the 2C rebid instead of 2H? I would think that it would be easier to show the pattern without forcing to game if you bid 2H followed by 3C (IF this is not forcing).

In retrospect, I think that my correct bid was 2♥. At the time, I discounted my hand because of the spade holding, because I'm very hesitant about getting to mediocre games involving misfitting hands.

 

I believe that your suggested auction is forcing to game. I could be wrong, I'm still tired.

 

If I recall correctly, we bid these extremely late at night for me, after a full day teaching high school, playing bridge, and directing. My tiredness was bound to show sometime.

[han]

Arend and I had that exact auction not so long ago:

 

1D-1S

2H-2S (forcing)

3C

 

I thought that I was just patterning out (and that 3C could be passed), he thought I was showing a huge hand. Unfortunately I don't remember what we agreed upon afterwards (do you Arend?). These reverse auctions are tricky and I think that they require solid agreements.

 

For us my bidding would necessarily show 1-4-5-3 or 0-4-6-3 shape, because with a strong 0-4-5-4 we would open 2C (as was demonstrated here).

[awm]

This seems to be another sequence where it's advantageous to bid notrump with length in the fourth suit opposite an apparent misfit. I believe Elianna and my agreement is:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 2♠ (5+♠ forcing one round)

 

2NT = minimum reverse, no spade fit, at least cards in clubs; often 1-4-5-3 but 0-4-5-4 is ok

3♣ = 4th suit forcing to game; may/may not have clubs, often only way to show 19+ hcp

3♦ = natural and not forcing, often 4-6 in the reds, could be 4-5 with strong ♦, weak ♣

3♥ = 5-6 in the reds, not necessarily forcing but I don't pass this often

3♠ = 3451 or the rare "fake reverse" hand with 3361 or the like; in any case 3♠ and NF

3NT = to play, probably something like a 1-4-5-3 or 0-4-5-4 max deterred by the misfit

4♣ = splinter with a game forcing 3-4-5-1 or the like (note 3♠ would be NF)

 

It's certainly possible for us to back into clubs on hands where responder has good cards. "Missing" the 3♣ partial is just part of the price we pay.

[Guest Jlall]

Our auction started:

 

1C-1S

2H

 

at this point I splintered instead of just bidding 3H (forcing). This made partner fall in love with his hand and he bid 5S exclusion, and we ended in 6H.

 

I don't understand a 2S rebid over 2H, we do have FIVE card support.

[mike777]

edit

[Fluffy]

Nowadays I am using 1m-1♠-2♥-2♠ as 4SF. to pattern out quick. usign 3♣ as natural.

[pclayton]

Well I play reverse flannery too, but I think the south hand is too strong for a simple game signoff.

 

I'd bid it:

 

1♦ - 2♥

3♣ - 3♥

4♣ - 4♥

Pass or 5♥ - Pass

 

3♣ asks for more clarification; 3♥ shows the 5th heart. 4♣ = cue (denying a spade card) and 4♥ is a signoff (4♦ would be last train)

 

Perhaps we should have a further distribution ask here to find out about specifically a 5=5=2=1 shape.

 

I don't love this auction and I think we need to add more clarity to these sequences.