Return to a Previous Discussion

[kenrexford]

This looks good, but I have a lurking question. Have hearts been agreed as trumps? If not, when could the partnership sign off? Each bid along the way seems to ask relevant questions, but are all the calls safe if the answer is poor? In other words, is this series of Q&A calculated to end at game when slam is off?

 

For that matter, I assume that 1♣ promised 15+? Change the hearts to xxxx, and will this auction be the saqme, or will a different auction work as well to the same slam?

[kenrexford]

FYI -- assuming a 1♣ natural opening from East, my "natural" approach defines this hand very well. Responder bids 1♥ and is raised to 2♥. 2♠ by West is now a long suit game try or a spade cue. As east can accept, he starts to cue. 2NT by East accepts the game try (maximum, probable help in spades) and denies thereby good trumps. West clarifies his intentions by cuebidding 3♣, showing a top (A/K/Q) club honor, clarifying that 2♠ was a cue. It also shows good trumps (a "cover" for East's poor trumps).

 

East now cues 3♦, a control. West cues 3H to clarify that his hearts are two top honors (or better). East clarifies that his "help" in spades was the Ace or King, with 3♠. This allows West to cue 3NT (Serious), contextually expected to indicate at least one unshown control, of course.

 

When East solidifies clubs (4♣ -- two top honors), West knows that East holds a maximum, with Kx(x) in spades, xxxx in hearts, a diamond control, and AKx(x) in clubs. 10 tricks are obvious from power alone, if Opener holds the death Kxx-xxxx-Kxx-AKx. An 11th will come from a diamond finesse, if needed, and the 12th from a spade or diamond shortness. 4D LTTC will work.

 

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S. 4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

 

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

[mike777]

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

 

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

[hrothgar]

This looks good, but I have a lurking question.  Have hearts been agreed as trumps?  If not, when could the partnership sign off?  Each bid along the way seems to ask relevant questions, but are all the calls safe if the answer is poor?  In other words, is this series of Q&A calculated to end at game when slam is off?

 

For that matter, I assume that 1♣ promised 15+?  Change the hearts to xxxx, and will this auction be the saqme, or will a different auction work as well to the same slam?

Take away the Jack of Hearts and the hand is not longer suitable for a strong club opening.

 

The auction would start with a 1♦ opening showing 4+ Hearts. I personally would make a conventional 2♠ response showing 4+ Hearts and game invite+ in values (I don't like to relay with a big fit since it increases the chances that the opponents will intervene and decreases your ability to punish them when they do)

 

If I did relay, the auction would start

 

1♦ - 1H (1♦ = 4+ Hearts, 1♥ = relay)

1M - 2♣ (1NT = balanced or 4 Hearts, 2♣ = relay)

2♦ (2♦ = balanced with 4+ hearts...)

 

The remainder of the auction would be identical

 

This indicates one of the nice features of a relay auction... You are applying a standardized system rather than special casing everything

[hrothgar]

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S.  4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

 

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

All very impressive, if a bit contrived...

 

I am, however, curious why 6♣ specifically asked for the Club Jack...

What if you needed the club Queen instead?

[Winstonm]

BTW, given that the natural bidders are so much better at placing jacks, i'd love to see a convincing sequence that can different between

 

AK86 and

AKJ6

 

in the East hand

 

The only time I've been able to show/place jacks was years ago when I played Sontag/Weichsel Power Precision - in the suit asking bids they devised, if responder showed a positve and a suit, the 1C opener could then ask and responder could show a suit with honors plus the jack.

[kenrexford]

Opener now clarifies his shortness by cuebidding 4S.  4NT (RKCB) by Responder locates the diamond as the Ace, and 6C asks for the club Jack.

 

Thus, the grand can be bid, if the clubs were AKJx.

All very impressive, if a bit contrived...

 

I am, however, curious why 6♣ specifically asked for the Club Jack...

What if you needed the club Queen instead?

As you already showed the club Queen, you cannot need that card. As partner showed AKx+, his "missing potential value" is the club Jack. Voila!

[kenrexford]

BTW, given that the natural bidders are so much better at placing jacks, i'd love to see a convincing sequence that can different between

 

AK86 and

AKJ6

 

in the East hand

 

The only time I've been able to show/place jacks was years ago when I played Sontag/Weichsel Power Precision - in the suit asking bids they devised, if responder showed a positve and a suit, the 1C opener could then ask and responder could show a suit with honors plus the jack.

Discovery of missing Jacks is not all that difficult. In my cuebidding approach, I can discover Jacks in many sequences.

 

First, most Picture Jumps promise three of the top four honors in a specific suit. If the fourth is held by partner, the Jack is known to be held by the partnership.

 

Second, after Picture Jumps, some asking bids request information about the side suits, seeking Jacks.

 

Third, when a series of cues have located the A, K, and Q, or two of these with a known gap, a later cue is often the Jack.

 

Fourth, 4NT is occasionally bid when control count is known, such that "anything else" concepts allow introduction of Jacks.

 

A simple example where Jacks are known all over:

 

1S-P-2C-P-2D-P-2S. Starts out with GF and spades trumps.

 

If Opener now bids 4C, he is known to have two top honors (or better) in spades, three of the top four honors in diamonds, and a stiff in clubs. If Responder holds the diamond Queen, for example, Responder knows about the diamond Jack.

 

Responder might then bid 4H, asking about clubs. Sure, clubs are stiff, but the responses are 4S (low stiff), 4NT (stiff Jack), or 5C (stiff Queen).

 

After 4NT (stiff Jack), Responder might bid 5H, asking for the spade Jack.

 

I have to admit that this "natural" approach includes some asking bids after Picture Jumps. However, similar principles and definition can exist in non-jump cuebidding. For example, if one person shows the exact hand necessary for a Picture Jump, but does not do this, we "know" that he is missing the Jack in his side suit, often.

[Winstonm]

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

 

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

Here is my contention and my partner and I have discussed this very issue.

When we sit down against Hamman/Hamman/Lall/Lall or other teams of this caliber, we are underdogs. But for us that is the fun of the game and those are the players against whom we want to compete. We don't chase masterpoints - better to play a WC and getted knocked out day 1 than reach the finals against someone of your own level. Oddsmakers would make us 3-1 or 4-1 against in a 24 board match, let's say. If we all reached the same contracts and we relied on card play and defense to win, our odds would go down to some 99-1.

 

The only way to for us to compete with them is to outbid them. If we were talking about evenly matched opponents, I would agree with you. But if your goal is to be competetive against these types of players, unless you yourself can match their level of play the only advantage you can have is in the bidding.

 

On average, these teams are 12-13 imps better than us at the start. If we can reach just 1 slam that they cannot, we have brought this spread back to near even and then the match is on.

[mike777]

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding.

I could not disagree more strongly with your proposition.

 

My proposition is that more money, imps and mp are won in the play and defense of the hand for 99.995% of all bridge players. I could accept rephrasing my last sentence to counting/visualizing.

Here is my contention and my partner and I have discussed this very issue.

When we sit down against Hamman/Hamman/Lall/Lall or other teams of this caliber, we are underdogs. But for us that is the fun of the game and those are the players against whom we want to compete. We don't chase masterpoints - better to play a WC and getted knocked out day 1 than reach the finals against someone of your own level. Oddsmakers would make us 3-1 or 4-1 against in a 24 board match, let's say. If we all reached the same contracts and we relied on card play and defense to win, our odds would go down to some 99-1.

 

The only way to for us to compete with them is to outbid them. If we were talking about evenly matched opponents, I would agree with you. But if your goal is to be competetive against these types of players, unless you yourself can match their level of play the only advantage you can have is in the bidding.

 

On average, these teams are 12-13 imps better than us at the start. If we can reach just 1 slam that they cannot, we have brought this spread back to near even and then the match is on.

Winston, First off Congrats, a big Congrats on having your article published in BW! That is great. Of course we forum posters got to read it more than a year ago it seems. Now the rest of the bridge world can catch up with us. :)

 

Secondly I do not accept your proposition that the GNT winners bid slams better than your team so that is the number one area your team needs to focus on to win. :)

 

I do know when my late night online partner/buddy lost to the GNT winners it was not slam bidding that was their downfall.

 

Hopefully I can coax an email out of him or his partner to give their thoughts on the loss. It would be great to hear more from Phil, Uday, Han and other forum posters who played in the Spingold and their thoughts. :)

[Winstonm]

Winston, First off Congrats, a big Congrats on having your article published in BW! That is great. Of course we forum posters got to read it more than a year ago it seems. Now the rest of the bridge world can catch up with us.

 

Secondly I do not accept your proposition that the GNT winners bid slams better than your team so that is the number one area your team needs to focus on to win. 

 

Thanks a lot Mike. That's why I like this forum so much. Alternate views can be given and respected - respected being the key word.

 

Perhaps I made myself unclear. What I meant is that these types opps do not bid slam better than we do - and if we turn a match into a "par" event we have no chance. Their advatage is in card play and judgment and experience. The only hope we have to gain an advantage is in the bidding. (Given that no matter how hard we try we will not totally catch up to them in card play/experiece.)

 

For those not familiar with the BW article, it started with the simple premise of being unhappy with traditional responses to major-suit weak two bids. To me, the most likely game contract is 4 of the opened major, yet most methods seemed to be geared to reaching 3N. "A Losing Trick Count Over Weak Two Bids" is designed to bid the major suit game ahead of the quest for 3N.