Jump to content

2-part question


han

Recommended Posts

Here is part one of a 2-part question:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sk10xxhk10xxxdxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2C-(p)-2D-(3C)

3S-(4C)-??[/hv]

 

You are playing with jdonn, 2D showed some values (2H would be negative) but you have no further agreements. What is your next call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5.

 

The odds are very high that he has a stiff or void (or A) of s, but there seems to be little risk in asking.

 

I suspect that the second part may have to do with what we bid over 6 by him.

 

I have my idea on that, but I'll wait to see if that is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6: that is a VERY interesting call.

 

We can draw some useful inferences.

 

In my view, he must hold both red Aces and first round control.

 

Without 1st round control, he'd bid 6 with a stiff, or the highly improbable Kx (no, I don't think he should bid 5N at imps to 'protect' the Kx)

 

With no control, he'd pass 5.

 

Therefore he holds 1st round control. If he held that and only one red suit control, he should bid 6 and allow me to cue my Ace if I hold it... which gets me back to my idea over 6... I was going to bid 6.

 

So he has both red Aces.

 

I think he has something like AQJxxx Ax AKQx A or AQJxxx AQx AKQx void (I like this second hand more than the 1st).

 

I don't believe that he should have a holding of Axx... it is too much to expect us to tell whether our actual holding is adequate or whether we need KQxxx... plus he may infer that we are unlikely to hold KQxxx after our non- positive response. I will conceal a good suit, to bid 2, but only with a complex hand: simple hands are shown simply. So I, for one, am unlikely to hold KQxxx.... some would have absolutely denied it by now.

 

So I bid 7: I cannot construct a hand on which 7 is better.... if LHO can ruff a , well, if we found partner with AQJxxx AQJx AKx void, maybe he'd ruff a if we played s. In the meantime, bidding 7, while not likely to lead to disaster, adds a layer of ambiguity for no good purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 is fine, but I might have just tried 4N, since I trust my opponents.

 

6? Well this absolutely shows 1st round control of clubs. What I'm concerned about is the diamond suit, however, since 6 was bypassed.

 

AQJxxx, AQxx, KQx, A, seems possible but this is a VERY specific hand, but thats the conclusion I'll draw. So I'll try 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have just bid RKC. I suspect that for every time partner has xx of clubs (I suspect almost never) then you will misjudge 6 versus 7 at least once as a result.

 

It's pretty hard to argue that 5 isn't the best bid, so I won't go there.

 

I would guess to bid 7 over 6. Hopefully partner wouldn't have bid this way without the A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have given this more thought, after reading Phil's post.

 

I think that there are several approaches, of which I think the following two are best (bearing in mind that we are speaking of making this up at the table and expecting partner to work out our meaning)

 

1. 6: shows the control and denies a control. We will play 6 unless partner bids 6, over which I can, if I choose, cue 6 as another try

 

6: shows the and the control and denies a control

 

6: shows all 3 side controls and asks for generic red suit help: do you have ANYTHING extra, knowing that any red suit K will be enough. On this hand, opener will have something like AQJxxx AQx AKQx void but (if we held Kxxx x Kxxxx xxx) he might bid exactly this way with AQJxxx AKQx AQx void

 

 

or

 

2. 6 shows the control and denies control of one or both of the suit or the suit, and expects responder to cue his red ace if he holds one (or to jump to 7 if by some miracle he holds both)

 

6 shows all side suits and asks specifically for help in s

 

6 shows all side suits and asks specifically for help in s

 

I think the second makes more sense, and it is the one I would deduce. However, I can see the logic behind the first approach.

 

I should add that I do not accept Phil's construction of AQJxxx AQxx KQx A because it is unreasonable for opener to assume that we need all of the trump K, the K and the A to bid grand. He will expect us to bid 7, if 6 denies the A, on Kxxx xx Axxxx xx, as an example.... wouldn't we argue (if we accept the logic that 6 denies the A) that he has made a brilliant bid on AQJxxx AKQx KQx void?

 

No, opener will hope we have two working cards, plus trump length... he will not expect us to know that 2 keys are not enough.

 

 

Edit: BTW, regardless of whether I am correct in my thinking, I want to say that I like the fact that jdonn bid this way... it shows confidence in both his own thinking and in partner's. Whatever it meant, I like the attitude displayed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this hand and I wondered if the following construction was possible:

 

QJTxxx

AQx

AKQ

A

 

Tough to know how this hand is supposed to bid.

good point

 

My suggestion is that this hand should bid 6

 

It requires partner to hold AK(x)(x) of trump and the K in order for grand to be on, and no responder would miss grand with that hand after 6.... I think :P

 

Alternatively, this hand could pass 3, but I doubt that I could bring myself to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...