fast or slow?

[bb79]

[hv=d=n&v=a&s=sq95hkq9xxxdxcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPS

Dealer pard opens 1♠ and RHO passes[/hv]

[benlessard]

If i have a way to INV and stop at 2S that is my first choice otherwise i just force to game with 2H. RED at imps it doesnt pay to stop in 3M.

[han]

I am not gameforcing on this hand, sign me up for the invite.

[jdonn]

1NT forcing then 3♠ is perfect.

[mike777]

ditto.

[skjaeran]

I'd raise to 2♠ with my regular, showing a good 3-card raise, a very good 8-count to a bad 12. 1NT isn't forcing in my methods.

[gnasher]

1NT forcing then 3♠ is perfect.

It seems to me that a description that doesn't mention ♥KQ9xxx falls somewhat short of perfection. 4♥ will often be better than 4♠ - give partner almost any hand with five spades and ♥Hx. It might not be convenient to show the hearts, but let's not pretend to be happy about it.

 

This is quite a bad hand for 2/1. Playing something like SAYC, it's an easy 2♥ response. Even better would be an invitational+ transfer.

[benlessard]

It seems to me that a description that doesn't mention KQ9xxx falls somewhat short of perfection. 4H will often be better than 4S - give partner almost any hand with five spades and Hx. It might not be convenient to show the hearts, but let's not pretend to be happy about it.

Agree 100%

 

There is many hands where 4 make and partner is dead minimum. + there is hand where 3 is too high. Hand with long suit like KQxxxx are perverse, facing Ax they might provide 6 easy tricks but facing a stiff they will bring only 1 trick.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1NT followed by 3S.

 

Actually I dont like it, I would prefer to show

an inv. hand with 6 hearts, but since this is not

possible, I would go with 1NT followed by 3S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[dicklont]

1NT first and then 3♠.

But not when partner rebids 2♥, then i'll answer 4♥

[han]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

[skjaeran]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. :)

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

[jdonn]

1NT forcing then 3♠ is perfect.

It seems to me that a description that doesn't mention ♥KQ9xxx falls somewhat short of perfection. 4♥ will often be better than 4♠ - give partner almost any hand with five spades and ♥Hx. It might not be convenient to show the hearts, but let's not pretend to be happy about it.

 

This is quite a bad hand for 2/1. Playing something like SAYC, it's an easy 2♥ response. Even better would be an invitational+ transfer.

Wow that's quite an exageration. 4♠ will almost always be fine. Yes technically I haven't shown a 3613 9 count, that doesn't mean a choice of bids isn't perfect in the given system. Personally I didn't feel the least bit bothered at not showing my hearts, I'm more bothered if anything about the short diamonds I don't get to show.

 

So where would you rather play if partner has AKJTx Ax xxx Jxx?

[han]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. B)

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

No need to wtf Harald :D. It is clear from the poll options that kgr wants to know what you would bid giving the methods he was playing and your 2S bid is not part of it.

[bb79]

I forgot to include that pard would bid 2♠ to your 1NT response.

Thanks for all the responses.

 

This was from Cayne vs Stars match I was kibitzing, and both Souths bid 4♠ directly (hence the title "fast or slow"). [3 boards to go, score is 66-63]. Actually EW had double minor fit with 5♣ and 5♦ (and 6♦) makeable. Indeed Jimmy Cayne (East) balanced with 4NT and Versace made 5♣ (other table 4♠ -1). Comments?

 

 

 

Here is the full hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sajt8732hj3dkqc92&w=sk64h8daj954cat73&e=shat65dt8732ckj64&s=sq95hkq9742d6cq85]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[skjaeran]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. B)

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

No need to wtf Harald :D. It is clear from the poll options that kgr wants to know what you would bid giving the methods he was playing and your 2S bid is not part of it.

Sorry Han, the wtf wasn't serious.

But, honestly, why do you think there's an 'other' option. It's hard to see someone bidding anything else than the first four options playing bb79's methods. Still one out of five votes for something else.

[peachy]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. B)

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

No need to wtf Harald :D. It is clear from the poll options that kgr wants to know what you would bid giving the methods he was playing and your 2S bid is not part of it.

Sorry Han, the wtf wasn't serious.

But, honestly, why do you think there's an 'other' option. It's hard to see someone bidding anything else than the first four options playing bb79's methods. Still one out of five votes for something else.

Maybe the "something else" simply means that AFTER opting for 1NT[forcing] the followup depends on what opener's rebid is. Also, 2/1 and SAYC are not the same so the responses would be different in SAYC and 2/1 so the poster specifying "2/1 or SAYC" is not conducive to meaningful poll. IMO.

[gnasher]

So where would you rather play if partner has AKJTx Ax xxx Jxx?

In 4♠, of course. Hands like this are the reason that I used the word "often" rather than "always", and qualified "any hand" with "almost".

 

In what contract will you play this hand, after 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♠ ?

[mike777]

Are good opp any less likely to not bid 4nt after:1s=1nt=2s=3s=4s?

 

In other words does a very very slow auction make them more likely to defend 4s?

[jdonn]

So where would you rather play if partner has AKJTx Ax xxx Jxx?

In 4♠, of course. Hands like this are the reason that I used the word "often" rather than "always", and qualified "any hand" with "almost".

 

In what contract will you play this hand, after 1♠-1NT; 2♣-3♠ ?

The same place you will after any type of invitation. I realize you qualified your answer, yet still "almost always" seems far too strong a statement to make.

 

I'm glad to see you seem to agree with the meat of what I posted since you only replied to my hasty example.

[gnasher]

The same place you will after any type of invitation.

So presumably you're going to play 4♠ with

 

   AKJ10x Ax xxx Jxx  opposite  Qxx KQ9xxx x Qxx

 

and also with

 

   AKJ10x Ax xxx Jxx  opposite  Qxx x Qxx KQ9xxx

 

I'm glad you redefined the word "perfect" earlier - if we do a bit more work on it we can use it to describe the final contract on the second pair of hands.

 

I'm glad to see you seem to agree with the meat of what I posted since you only replied to my hasty example.

I can't imagine why you think that. The fact that I have nothing to add to my original opinion doesn't mean that this opinion has changed. If something that someone has said persuades me to change my mind about something, I usually say so.

 

I do, in fact, agree with part of what you said: it is true that bidding notrumps followed by spades doesn't show a 3613 9-count. I also have no reason to doubt your assertions about which aspects of your "perfect" sequence bother you and which do not.

[kgr]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. :(

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

No need to wtf Harald :D. It is clear from the poll options that kgr wants to know what you would bid giving the methods he was playing and your 2S bid is not part of it.

where do you get that from :)

[ArtK78]

It seems to me that in SAYC you can bid 2♥ followed by 3♠ invitational if you are so inclined.

 

That happens to be a part of my methods, which are not SAYC. I haven't decided yet whether I want to aim for such a small target.

 

I am surprised, however, that both players holding this hand just blasted 4♠. Were they playing strong club systems? Slam is certainly not out of the question. Slam is likely to make opposite AKxxxx Ax xx Axx or any similar hand with good spades and the rounded suit aces.

[gwnn]

It seems to me that in SAYC you can bid 2♥ followed by 3♠ invitational if you are so inclined.

2♥ then 3♠ is GF and not invitational in SAYC. The only bid which looks like a raise but is not GF after a 2/1 is 1M-2x; 2y-2M, which is a doubleton preference and is not forcing.

[han]

Come one guys, this is the SAYC and 2/1 forum and the methods were specified in the poll. It is useless to state the perfect methods for this hand, even if you happen to play them.

Well, there's an 'other' option in the poll. And I'm playing 2/1. :)

Thus I voted 'other' and explained why. WTF?

No need to wtf Harald :D. It is clear from the poll options that kgr wants to know what you would bid giving the methods he was playing and your 2S bid is not part of it.

where do you get that from :)

Hmm, seems I confused you with bb79. My apologies or congratulations depending on the skill levels of both of you.