AKT8 - 2 - T97532 - KT, 1S - (P) - ?

[jtfanclub]

2NT isn't a spade raise, even though several posters in this thread seem to have thought it was. It's natural/GF.

 

We started playing this way after reading Gitelman's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" article series. It looks to me like he still plays something like this with Moss (in response to 1S, all calls from 3C through 4S show some kind of spade raise -- although 4H might be natural).

Ah, OK, my mistake.

 

There seems to be two reasons to not bid 4♠ directly...

1. You don't know what to do if the opponents bid 5.

2. You think there's a possibility of slam.

 

I can't imagine, for option 2, that 4♥ is better than the oversized Golady of 3♣. Heck, you even mention that responses show Min/Max and specific shortness. Surely that's more useful than partner trying to figure out if slam can be in the cards if he has, say, AJx and Qxx in the minors. If you Splinter with this hand as a slam try, then Splinters are going to be useless, since you could have a freakin' 17 count and still want to Splinter.

[jdonn]

I can't imagine, for option 2, that 4♥ is better than the oversized Golady of 3♣.  Heck, you even mention that responses show Min/Max and specific shortness.  Surely that's more useful than partner trying to figure out if slam can be in the cards if he has, say, AJx and Qxx in the minors.  If you Splinter with this hand as a slam try, then Splinters are going to be useless, since you could have a freakin' 17 count and still want to Splinter.

Splintering on a 17 count is wrong unless you think you are good enough to bid again over a signoff, they should be minimal (but useful for slam) game forcing hands.

 

If partner is AJx Qxx in the minors he has 4 losers he needs you to cover, not to mention that he is off AK of spades. He will NEVER expect a splinter to cover 5 out of 6 losers outside the splinter suit. 4 would be nice.

 

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

[foo]

MP,

♠AKT8♥2♦T97532♣KT

 

Partner deals and opens 1S in a strong club context (5+S, ~11-15HCP).  RHO passes.

I have a control rich 6 loser hand. Odds are we make or are +1 in 4♠. pd needs the right, and unlikely, 6 loser or 5 loser hand for 6♠ to have play.

 

I am not:

a= forcing to slam. Nor

 

b= splintering. A splinter implies a 3 suited hand with values in all of the side suits. My hand is not that hand. Nor

 

c= "pinging 4♠ off the wall". After all, we could miss a slam. :)

Also, a 4♠ bid by me on such a shapely hand absolutely =hangs= pd if They compete to 5♥. The pass vs compete vs X decision is hopeless for pd under such circumstances.

 

 

I have a GF hand that needs a delicate auction to decide what level We should play. 2♦ it is.

[jdonn]

How is bidding your worst suit an improvement over a bid that you would like to have an honor in every suit? Or I'll ask differently. Show me the hand for partner that reaches slam after 2♦ but not after 4♥.

 

If you don't like splintering then the game forcing raise (3♣ in this case) seems to do things nicely. 2♦ will simply cause partner to think diamond shortness is bad and Qx or Qxx is good, which is quite opposite of the truth.

[jtfanclub]

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

I don't know....I just don't know.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19768

 

On that thread, people (including you) are bidding 4 diamonds, on a hand where I think 5 diamonds is so obvious that I wouldn't have even considered 4. Some of the comments (not including you) are to the effect of why bid 5, they haven't even bid 4 yet! This is an auction where both opponents have bid.

 

Now on this thread, we're discussing whether to make what I like to call a 'courtesy slam try'. The opponents have been silent so far, and to make a 4 level bid because of a 'what if they suddenly come in at the three level'.....

 

This may just be a question of my skill, or rather the lack thereof. I keep imagining being opener, and 4♥ just doesn't tell me whether I want to go on or not. For one thing, I'm going to look at my hand and say "I'm missing the AK of trump. Partner hasn't promised those, and that could be two losers right there." If I have the Axx in a minor, is that no losers, or one, or two.... Just hand after hand, we make slam, and I wouldn't even be willing to take a crack at it. It's not like I have intermediate bids to show an some interest. I'm not going to try anything (as opener) unless I'm 100% sure we can make 5. Not many hands I can say that about.

[cherdano]

I am a little confused by the confidence of the 4♥ bidders. I would probably bid it too, but note that EVERY SINGLE example given in this thread so far are examples where slam would be horrible if you switch opener's minors. If you really all think opener will "of course" blackwood with the given hands, then we will get to many no-play slams by 4♥, too. I think there is a lot of merit in a GF raise if you can find out about partner's diamond shortness quickly.

 

I will note in passing that I just love it how many of the example hands have 6 trumps.

[jdonn]

I am a little confused by the confidence of the 4♥ bidders. I would probably bid it too, but note that EVERY SINGLE example given in this thread so far are examples where slam would be horrible if you switch opener's minors. If you really all think opener will "of course" blackwood with the given hands, then we will get to many no-play slams by 4♥, too. I think there is a lot of merit in a GF raise if you can find out about partner's diamond shortness quickly.

 

I will note in passing that I just love it how many of the example hands have 6 trumps.

They have 6 trumps because they are (intentionally, at least in my case) examples of the lightest hand partner can reasonably have that make slam, and because they will excite partner greatly if his controls are good. I have no doubts a splinter will sometimes get us too high. On the other hand, where is partner most likely to be short if anywhere, our 6 card suit or our doubleton?

 

I don't think its soooooo obvious to splinter. I think it's obvious to do something investigatory and not just bid 4♠ though. I don't hate 3♣ at all. I like 3♣ and I like 4♥ better, that's all.

[jdonn]

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

I don't know....I just don't know.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19768

 

On that thread, people (including you) are bidding 4 diamonds, on a hand where I think 5 diamonds is so obvious that I wouldn't have even considered 4. Some of the comments (not including you) are to the effect of why bid 5, they haven't even bid 4 yet! This is an auction where both opponents have bid.

 

Now on this thread, we're discussing whether to make what I like to call a 'courtesy slam try'. The opponents have been silent so far, and to make a 4 level bid because of a 'what if they suddenly come in at the three level'.....

 

This may just be a question of my skill, or rather the lack thereof. I keep imagining being opener, and 4♥ just doesn't tell me whether I want to go on or not. For one thing, I'm going to look at my hand and say "I'm missing the AK of trump. Partner hasn't promised those, and that could be two losers right there." If I have the Axx in a minor, is that no losers, or one, or two.... Just hand after hand, we make slam, and I wouldn't even be willing to take a crack at it. It's not like I have intermediate bids to show an some interest. I'm not going to try anything (as opener) unless I'm 100% sure we can make 5. Not many hands I can say that about.

What does that have to do with this? I didn't bid 5♦ there because I don't like going for huge numbers. I guess what 4♦ there (instead of 5♦) and 4♥ here (instead of 4♠) have in common is they involve partner in a decision rather than making a random guess. So on second thought, yes these problems do have something to do with each other.

 

Your examples keep being thoughts about a particular suit, like gosh I don't know how this Axx looks. Try thinking about entire hands and I think you will see 4♥ will usually (not always) help partner make a good slam decision, and virtually without fail help partner make a correct 5 level decision if the next hand bids.

[foo]

1= How is bidding your worst suit an improvement over a bid that you would like to have an honor in every suit? Or I'll ask differently. Show me the hand for partner that reaches slam after 2♦ but not after 4♥.

 

2= If you don't like splintering then the game forcing raise (3♣ in this case) seems to do things nicely. 2♦ will simply cause partner to think diamond shortness is bad and Qx or Qxx is good, which is quite opposite of the truth.

I plan on bidding this as if it were a GF =4153:

1S - 2D;

2something - 3S; (assuming 2S here is unavailable or a Preference.)

something other than 4S - 5C;

(if pd bids 4S, they are showing a 7 loser hand w/o interest and I go quietly.)

I have now "told my story".

 

 

1=

a= QJxxxx Axx x Axx.

"A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short ♦'s?"

b= QJxxxx Axx x AQx

"This is not even remotely close to a 1♣! bid, yet slam is cold."

c= Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx:

"not even close to a 1♣! bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold."

 

Opener should be able to "see" the play for 6 if they have these hands.

 

 

2= since we are looking at 6/13 of the ♦'s, there are only 7 of them out. 5/7 of them are honors. And pd Opened.

Once I pattern out a =4153 shape, ♦ shortness or hard ♦ values become positive assets. (and the only reason I could be taking such a long route bidding my hand is that I have aspirations beyond game. That implication should be crystal clear.)

[jdonn]

Since when is shortness good opposite partner's main suit? And why do you want partner to like diamond honors??

[foo]

Since when is shortness good opposite partner's main suit? And why do you want partner to like diamond honors??

This is a side suit we are talking about. Responder already knows that Our "main" suit is Something Else ( ♠'s in this case.)

 

Shortness implies less losers.

Honors imply that the suit will be an easier to set up source of tricks.

Either means increased playing strength.

 

The problem holdings in side suits for playing evaluation are voids or soft values.

 

Say Responder describes a GF =4153 and you as Opener have something like one of the original 3 example hands:

QJxxx Axxx x Axx

"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something. Hmm. AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

 

QJxxx Axxx x AQx

Similar story.

 

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx

"♠Kxxx♥x♦who cares♣Kxx is a claim for 6♠."

 

Now examples from the other side of the coin:

 

Qxxxx Axxx AKx x

"A 9 card fit plus a side 8+ card fit and =I'm= looking at the high ♦'s? pd is not bidding this way w/o values. They must be in S+C. Lot's of holdings where 6♠ looks good."

 

KQxxx.AKxx.xxx.x

"Riigghht. If pd had the hand I need for 6, he'd have bid it differently."

[jdonn]

QJxxx Axxx x Axx

"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something.  Hmm.  AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

Yes obv partner always assumes you have NOTHING wasted in diamonds. And opposite his aces you always have a singleton or KQ, never another holding. Very fair. When he has QJxxx Axxx x Axx he won't be able to sign off fast enough. Unless he has never played bridge before. He knows you have Axx KQx AQxxx xx. Ok from now on partner makes a 2/1 he never has the K, Q, or J of his suit, I hope I'm short there.

 

Sometimes you are too ridiculous for words.

[cherdano]

I see. 2♦ is now an advance empathetic splinter. So much new bidding theory everyday, I can't keep up...

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid 4S with this hand. I would never splinter with it and think we will get to way more bad slams than good slams that way. If I wanted to investigate it I would go through my forcing raise, but I think tactical considerations trump accurate constructive bidding here. I really don't like a splinter and would expect partner to blackwood with a lot of hands where slam is just bad or hopeless.

[jdonn]

I would bid 4S with this hand. I would never splinter with it and think we will get to way more bad slams than good slams that way. If I wanted to investigate it I would go through my forcing raise, but I think tactical considerations trump accurate constructive bidding here. I really don't like a splinter and would expect partner to blackwood with a lot of hands where slam is just bad or hopeless.

Your forcing raise is 2♦, what now.

[foo]

QJxxx Axxx x Axx

"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something.  Hmm.  AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

Yes obv partner always assumes you have NOTHING wasted in diamonds. And opposite his aces you always have a singleton or KQ, never another holding. Very fair. When he has QJxxx Axxx x Axx he won't be able to sign off fast enough. Unless he has never played bridge before. He knows you have Axx KQx AQxxx xx. Ok from now on partner makes a 2/1 he never has the K, Q, or J of his suit, I hope I'm short there.

 

Sometimes you are too ridiculous for words.

Josh, you are being a bit "over the top". You know as well as any here that ITRW expert bidding is a process of playing the hand in your head based on the likely shapes and values pd has shown thus far and then either continuing the conversation or placing the contract.

 

Responder =has= to have a 5-6 loser hand with decent controls that is concerned not only about overall strength but even more so about value placement or they would not be bidding this way.

 

In addition, there are lot's of useful negative inferences from the choices Responder !didn't! make in describing their hand.

 

...and I "played honest" with the example opening hands I gave and the thought process I'd expect to be used. If I had a pd I trusted and We were using Precision when the example auction I gave came up while holding the hands put forth as examples, I'd do exactly as I posted I would.

 

Bids where either shortness or values in a particular suit are supposed to be good and where empty length or soft values are supposed to be bad have as long a history and as much precedent as two-way game tries. (for example :) )

[jdonn]

"Would you like your hand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't"

- Fred Gitelman (from "Improving 2/1 Game Forcing - Part 1", discussing opener's feelings about a singleton club on the auction 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠)

 

"Bids where either shortness or values in a particular suit are supposed to be good and where empty length or soft values are supposed to be bad have as long a history and as much precedent as two-way game tries. (for example tongue.gif )"

 

See the difference?

[foo]

"Would you like your hand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't"

- Fred Gitelman (from "Improving 2/1 Game Forcing - Part 1", discussing opener's feelings about a singleton club on the auction 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ 3♠)

Agreed if that's all there is to the auction.

 

But in the context of 2/1 GF w/ Fast Arrival, Responder is showing a "Moose".

 

Let's translate that conversation into "LTC speak"

 

1S= "I have 7- losers, the controls you'd expect, and 5+S"

2C= "I also have 7- losers, the controls you'd expect and either 5+C or significant extra values and 4+C".

 

2S= "I have a minimum opening bid"

3S= "So what. I have the World's Fair . My 5- loser hand is interested in slam even opposite your miserable 7 loser minimum."

At this point Opener basically owes Responder at least one cuebid or other useful bid rather than signing off in 4S unless they opened an 8 loser sub-minimum.

 

3N= "cheapest cue, in this case SA or SK+SQ, as demanded."

4D= "My =4135 thanks the gods that you did not open your usual 8 loser trash. If you have =anything= extra, I want to hear more cuebids or bids of value concentration."

 

Now all of the sudden Opener's stiff C is a potential asset, not a liability since

Responder has heard Opener's negativity and =still= is pressing the issue.

What's Responder got to justify this course of bidding by them?

 

I don't know what Responder has, but I =do= know that Responder has basically told Opener that they don't want this auction to stop if Opener doesn't have 2 fast losers in C's...