Two Lady Milne hands

[Walddk]

Two hands from the English Lady Milne Trial at the weekend.

 

1.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sahkq543daj985c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♥ - 3♣*

3♦ - 4♣

4♠ - 5♣

??

 

* Strong jump shift.

 

Pass or raise?

 

----

 

2.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sahkq543daj985c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

You are responder and play a 4-card major system where 1♣ is always 4+.

 

1♣ - 3♠*

3NT - ?

 

* Splinter, game forcing.

 

Pass or bid on (4♣ presumably if you decide to bid again)?

 

Roland

[flytoox]

1.5D. Pd must have HA for the jump shift. 6C would be a lazy bid. grand is still possible.

 

2. I think we should pass here.

[P_Marlowe]

#1) 6C.

Partner has probably only

2 key cards, AK in clubs and fears

that the 4NT response is 5D

#2) 5C

The question is either Pass or 5C,

partner was not interested in 6C,

so there is no reason to bid 4C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

On hand 1, I need to kow a bit more about the jump shift style.

 

Here in the US, many people play Soloway style strong jump shifts. The SJS shows one of three different types of hands

 

1. A self sufficient suit

2. A good 5+ card suit with a fit for partner

3. A NT oriented hand

 

This auction (A SJS in Clubs, followed by a rebid in Clubs would show the self sufficient suit). Accordingnly, I'm a bit confused by by the 4♠ rebid. You have the Ace of Diamonds, but by-passed this to show the Ace of Spades. It almost looks as if you skipped the Diamond suit for feat that this might be interpreted as a natural bid rather than a cue in support of Clubs.

 

I have a damn good hand and an undisclosed first round control.

I'm raising to 6♣

 

On hand 2, I dislike the Spade splinter holding a void and good 5 card Diamond suit, however, thats neither here nor there. I've used up a lot of bidding space and I'm now forced to choose whether I should move past 3NT.

 

It would be nice to know whether we're playing a weak NT opening. If partner is either strong or unbalanced my decision would be a lot easier.

 

I'm going push on.

[Blofeld]

Raise and pass, in that order.

[Finch]

I know the history behind these hands, but FWIW:

 

1. I also would have cued 4D over 4C.

 

Anyway, now it's pretty obvious to bid a slam, I think, as long as our strong jump shifts are fairly sound - surely a minimum SJS is solid clubs and the ace of hearts; I wouldn't expect a SJS with no outside ace at all.

 

2. At the table where this auction transpired, we play a weak NT so 1C is either unbalanced or 16+. I would bid on, but I think it is close and pass is clearly a logical alternative (couldn't partner have AKQx Jxx Qx KQxx?).

[Walddk]

On hand 1, I need to kow a bit more about the jump shift style.

 

Here in the US, many people play Soloway style strong jump shifts. The SJS shows one of three different types of hands

 

1. A self sufficient suit

2. A good 5+ card suit with a fit for partner

3. A NT oriented hand

 

This auction (A SJS in Clubs, followed by a rebid in Clubs would show the self sufficient suit). Accordingnly, I'm a bit confused by by the 4♠ rebid. You have the Ace of Diamonds, but by-passed this to show the Ace of Spades. It almost looks as if you skipped the Diamond suit for feat that this might be interpreted as a natural bid rathr than a cue in support of Clubs.

 

I have a damn good hand and an undisclosed first round control.

I'm raising to 6♣

 

On hand 2, I dislike the Spade splinter holding a void and good 5 card Diamond suit, however, thats neither here nor there. I've used up a lot of bidding Spade and I'm now forced to choose whether I should move past 3NT.

 

It would be nice to know whether we're playing a weak NT opening. If partner is either strong or unbalanced my decision would be a lot easier.

 

I'm going push on.

Good points, Richard.

 

1. 3♣ followed by 4♣ for this pair shows a suit with at most one loser opposite a singleton. It is not necessarily solid.

 

2. Regarding weak NT or not: my fault, I should have said that NS do indeed play a 12-14 NT. So 3NT is either 15-17 balanced with goodies in spades or an unbalanced hand with spade stop(s).

 

Roland

[Walddk]

I would bid on, but I think it is close and pass is clearly a logical alternative (couldn't partner have AKQx Jxx Qx KQxx?).

Accidentally, or perhaps intentionally, Frances has revealed that this is a hesitation issue (North tanked before bidding 3NT our operator told us). Sure, North could have the hand you post, and so what?

 

What happens after you bid 4♣? 4NT as a sign off, of course. It takes a pretty special hand where 4NT is not safe when you have South's cards.

 

By the way, example 1 (as you may have guessed) is another huddle debate. Here North also tanked before bidding 5♣. As Frances well knows, North did not have solid clubs as she "should" have (according to Frances).

 

But how you can you be so certain regarding their methods? I had a chat with South yesterday, and she said that partner did not promise a solid suit. We are of course entitled to say what *we* think 3♣ followed by 4♣ *should* show, but we have no right to decide what that pair actually plays.

 

On both occasions, South bid on and the pair reached two excellent slams. Since the TD wasn't called to the table, there was no case regarding UI .... or maybe there is when I add the following:

 

The vugraph operator was furious with her decisions, making remarks about "A new way of slow shows" and later called her that xxxxx *****. Then he accused her of bullying one of the opposition into not calling the director. Other remarks were made to make it clear that he thought she was not playing fair - on the above "evidence".

 

I don't think any player deserves those remarks. We all like a bit of local colour from the operator, but not this.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid 6C in the first case and pass in the second case. I don't like my splinter if I have to guess what to do over 3N though.

[Walddk]

I would bid 6C in the first case and pass in the second case. I don't like my splinter if I have to guess what to do over 3N though.

I agree with Justin on both counts. Another matter is that 3NT was a serious misbid in my opinion:

 

♠ AQ103

♥ AK32

♦ 8

♣ QJ85

 

Roland

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I agree that the problem with bidding two hands 'without'knowing the details of the system makes the bidding decision much more difficult.

 

Strong jump shifts in Blue Team Club show 12+HCP 'with' a good suit and are game forces.

 

1. I am bidding slam, unless playing a Blue Team Club type SJS.

 

2. I am bidding higher, is a 4C bid forcing using these methods? Why I did not show a side suit of AKxxx before supporting clubs is 'not' my normal bidding style.

 

Regards,

Robert

[pclayton]

1) Pass. I think we preempted ourselves out of an easy 3N. Pard should have 7 or so solid clubs, and an outside card (not two, since pard should find another call over 4♠). My gut says 6 makes in a non-diamond lead, and the non-double of 4♠ worries me a little.

 

2) 4♦; easy. At worst we play 4N or 5♣ (no loss at IMPs), but I'd like to hear a 4♥ cue. By the way, hearts may be our soft spot in NT, not spades. MPs its tougher.

[pclayton]

(dooped)

[Finch]

Accidentally, or perhaps intentionally, Frances has revealed that this is a hesitation issue (North tanked before bidding 3NT our operator told us).

Accidentally. Sorry.

 

As Frances well knows, North did not have solid clubs as she "should" have (according to Frances).

 

But how you can you be so certain regarding their methods? I had a chat with South yesterday, and she said that partner did not promise a solid suit. We are of course entitled to say what *we* think 3♣ followed by 4♣ *should* show, but we have no right to decide what that pair actually plays.

 

I didn't mean to imply that 3C followed by 4C *should* have a solid suit, I said that opposite a minimum SJS such as a solid suit and an outside ace we were making slam. A 1-loser suit, an outside ace and additional side suit controls (as actually partner had) are also fine opposite.

 

I should have added that we already know partner has a serious hand when she didn't bid 3NT (or 3S) over 3D.

[hrothgar]

Accidentally, or perhaps intentionally, Frances has revealed that this is a hesitation issue (North tanked before bidding 3NT our operator told us). Sure, North could have the hand you post, and so what?

 

...

 

By the way, example 1 (as you may have guessed) is another huddle debate. Here North also tanked before bidding 5♣.

For what its worth, I think that this is a very good example of how discussions regarding hesitations and UI should be handled.

 

Discuss the board in the absence of UI.

Determine whether there is a clear consensus about the bid.

Then introduce the UI to the equation

[Finch]

Another matter is that 3NT was a serious misbid in my opinion:

 

♠ AQ103

♥ AK32

♦ 8

♣ QJ85

 

Roland

When these hands come up *as rulings* or for discussion it's always the case that

 

- partner bid 3NT slowly

- partner's 3NT was (at least arguably) a serious misbid

- it was correct to move over the slow 3NT

 

We simply never see the hands where it was wrong to move over 3NT, because they never get ruled on.

 

Giving rulings too often turns you into a cynic if you aren't careful.

[mikeh]

I would certainly raise on the first hand: with 2=5=5=1, I'd pass but with my actual shape, my hand is too good for mere game.

 

 

On the second, I do not understand Roland's suggestion that the choice is between pass and 4♣. Were I to hear 4♣ as responder the one thing I do know, other than partner's slam interest, is that partner lacks the ♦A.

 

I bid 4♦. I chose that before looking at the comments, and I appreciate Frances' comment that opener could hold AKQx Jxx Qx KQxx. Of course, she can bid 4♠ and then pass 4N or 5♣ and that rates to be okay. More problematic is AKQx xxx Qx KQxx :)

 

Now I get us too high, but life is never risk-free and my hand is too good to settle for 3N: wouldn't she have bid 3N with AJ10x Kx Qxx KQxx? Or KQxx AJx xx KQJx? and so on: heck on a worst day (xxx in♥) we are not actually down yet in either 4N or 5♣.

[Walddk]

On the second, I do not understand Roland's suggestion that the choice is between pass and 4♣. Were I to hear 4♣ as responder the one thing I do know, other than partner's slam interest, is that partner lacks the ♦A.

If you bid on, 4♦ is probably better, but I honestly don't think you have a bid when partner settled for 3NT opposite my spade singleton or void. It's not for me to determine if my partner misbid her hand or not.

 

It makes life a lot simpler when you bid the hand *you* hold, rather than the one partner has. 3NT was a serious misbid but that is not my concern, at least not until the post-mortem.

 

The huddle (UI) before 3NT made it more attractive for South to bid again, and South should not be allowed to take advantage if pass is a logical alternative. I think it is. Since there was no ruling, there is nothing further to discuss. All academic.

 

However, I wouldn't mind if you comment on the operator's remarks.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

For what its worth, I think that this is a very good example of how discussions regarding hesitations and UI should be handled.

 

Discuss the board in the absence of UI.

Determine whether there is a clear consensus about the bid.

Then introduce the UI to the equation

I agree, and that was my intention. That's exactly why I didn't say a word about hesitation in my original post (although some might guessed early). Accidentally, Frances revealed it. Can happen, not a big deal.

 

Roland

[Codo]

Even as a fan, this comment was much too rude, so I dislike the operators comments. Especially as an operator you have to try to be as neutral as possible.

 

But I wonder why the TD was not called. AFter all at that level, any player knows how to handle ab hesitation.