kenrexford Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Opener: ♠AQJx ♥Qx(x) ♦AQxx(x) ♣AxResponder: ♠xxxx ♥AKx ♦x ♣Q10xxx I cannot recall Opener's shape in the reds exactly. However, this set of hands was interesting and humorous. I'm thinking that we got an undeserved top, but I'm not sure how this really should have been bid. Opener started with 2NT, showing 19+ to 21-. I'm not sure I agree that this is "19+," but that choice was made by partner. I bid 3♣ Puppet. Partner responded 3♦, and I bid 3♥ to show spades. Partner now had several options. 4♠ would have shown no interest and probably should be his call with all of the Quacks, considering the dubious upgrade. However, with extras he is supposed to bid his first suit with two of the top three honors, with 3♠ showing very good spades. If you treat this as slammish, 3♠ is just about right. I bid 3NT, showing contextually strong slam interest and inviting another cuebid like the above. I was "getting under 4♣" to allow him to cuebid 4♣ with the Ace and King. Partner cuebid 4♣. I think that this was a tad much, considering the fact that he kept overbidding an ugly-mess minimum and did not have AK in clubs, but he "treated" Ax as if AQ (third-round control). I then opted to slow things down a bit with a 4♥ call. This implied a lack of a diamond control, but I felt that this sequence was unlikely to be repeated elsewhere and wanted some greater assurance that our ultimate bid was not a freakl bid. Plus, this seemed to be a hedge against partner being overly optomistic (he frequently is). Partner inquired (4NT) and was surprised by the 5♦ (one) response. Interestingly, he worked out my hand pattern fairly well. He assumed that I probably held the actual hand except only two hearts and instead two diamonds, but guessed that I probably held the club King. However, he explained the 4♥ call during the post-alert as "ostensibly" no diamond control, acknowledging that he worked out the chance that I held a stiff diamond and just the club Queen and was slowing down the auction. This was a neat read, I thought. So, he bid 6♠, figuring that it had play. My RHO (SL) lead a club from Jxx (!?!), pickling the King held by my LHO (PR), SL and PR being well-known and having shown their back sides when we arrived at the table. Making the overtrick did not improve the top, but it did humor my partner, who was in a "whose is bigger" debate with PR and SL (as I sat there quietly). I think that this contest was the reason for my partner taking a favorable position with the actual hand, rewarded of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 So partner made a small lie, then another, then another, then you made a bigger lie, then partner seized control for no reason and you ended in a reasonable spot because the hands mesh very well. And for some reason partner suspected that you had lied. Well bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 So partner made a small lie, then another, then another, then you made a bigger lie, then partner seized control for no reason and you ended in a reasonable spot because the hands mesh very well. And for some reason partner suspected that you had lied. Well bid. If you note, I conceded that we got an undeserved top. LOL The question was how this should properly be bid, if at all. The obvious normal start is: 1♦-P-1♠-P-4♠ This, of course, jams the Hell out of the bidding. It seems that perhaps there should be some way to slow these auctions down for when Responder has slam interest. I'm not sure how. After 4♠, Responder knows that slam might be on but has little clue how to further explore this thing. I'm curious about this cute hand, as to how people think that this could be bid. I'm also curious if another system might work, as no one reached this slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Assuming that opener is 4-3-4-2 my auction with Arend would start: 1C* - 1H**2NT*** - 3S*** We open 1C with all balanced hands containing 17-19 HCP, 1H shows spades, 2NT shows a strong spade raise (often balanced) and 3S shows slam interest with short diamonds. Then we'd have to start cuebids and perhaps think. Note: two rounds of bidding and no major lies yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Actually, Ken, I've thought about this sequence and came up with what I call the "anti-splinter". 1m-1M4M What an ugly sequence. Very little useful information passed.Normal systemic treatments are also rare for these two sequences. 1m-1M4nm* *new minor 1m-1M4sm* *same minor Why not instead simply use the jumps to show a hand strong enough to force to game and the cheapest control - the anti-splinter? Now in your auction, it would start: 1D-1S-4C*Seems to me that with a powerful hand this use would have more frequency than either specifically splinter or same suit jump solid with support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.