A dull 9-count

[H_KARLUK]

If you have a layout suitable to given auction I would like to see it.

AKxxx AKx AKQx J for partner. Just a little better than 3 finesses....

Well, if you believe with such a deal 4th round 3NT is quite normal I have no words sorry.

Hmmm. 24 count with 5 spades 4 diamonds and a double heart stopper. Let's take those in order.

 

I open 2♣. 24 count, check.

I bid 2♠, 5 spades, check.

I bid 3♦, 4 diamonds, check.

I bid 3NT when hearts are the unbid suit, double heart stopper, check.

 

Sign me up!

Keep it up please :)

 

3 suits headed by AK in yr sample. Mine 3 finesses are off. So when we count factors they are even.

 

You named "a little better". But life is sometimes merciless. Mostly midgets/freaks in suits. I can't wait to find cards each time control top 2 at each suit or best cards without a small problem.

 

I dislike to give false shape. With 5-3-4-1 I believe still room for 4♥ by your sample while I liked delayed 3♠ support. If th matter is partner may misread my shape as 5-4-4-0 same trouble stands as "balanced" while there were unbalanced maximum. I do not think big deal worrying about a card when our side have powerty. I am cautious about telling length and shapes.

 

:lol: Don't you open 2♣ with unbalanced 20/22+?

 

I open. Tho I do not remember sometimes you and me assigned or not on same rooms for Vugraph events perhaps you also watched such styles by notable experts. I think 24 on partnership cards not so bad. Partner may pass with 4 hcp to any opening except 2♣ artificial GF.

 

I thank you for exchanging ideas. I read your thoughts. Please do not get me wrong like "hey, this guy tries to teach me". In my culture there's an adage : Every brave has a style to eat yoghurt :)

 

p.s.

 

1) 2♣>2♦; 2♠> what's yr 2nd negative pls? --"if" u play so .

2) To me further steps of 2♣ quite different in North America and at least in France and Turkey. Do you have any idea why?

[rogerclee]

If you have a layout suitable to given auction I would like to see it.

AKxxx AKx AKQx J for partner. Just a little better than 3 finesses....

Well, if you believe with such a deal 4th round 3NT is quite normal I have no words sorry.

Hmmm. 24 count with 5 spades 4 diamonds and a double heart stopper. Let's take those in order.

 

I open 2♣. 24 count, check.

I bid 2♠, 5 spades, check.

I bid 3♦, 4 diamonds, check.

I bid 3NT when hearts are the unbid suit, double heart stopper, check.

 

Sign me up!

Keep it up please :)

 

3 suits headed by AK in yr sample. Mine 3 finesses are off. So when we count factors they are even.

 

You named "a little better". But life is sometimes merciless. Mostly midgets/freaks in suits. I can't wait to find cards each time control top 2 at each suit or best cards without a small problem.

 

I dislike to give false shape. With 5-3-4-1 I believe still room for 4♥ by your sample while I liked delayed 3♠ support. If th matter is partner may misread my shape as 5-4-4-0 same trouble stands as "balanced" while there were unbalanced maximum. I do not think big deal worrying about a card when our side have powerty. I am cautious about telling length and shapes.

 

:lol: Don't you open 2♣ with unbalanced 20/22+?

 

I open. Tho I do not remember sometimes you and me assigned or not on same rooms for Vugraph events perhaps you also watched such styles by notable experts. I think 24 on partnership cards not so bad. Partner may pass with 4 hcp to any opening except 2♣ artificial GF.

 

I thank you for exchanging ideas. I read your thoughts. Please do not get me wrong like "hey, this guy tries to teach me". In my culture there's an adage : Every brave has a style to eat yoghurt :)

 

p.s.

 

1) 2♣>2♦; 2♠> what's yr 2nd negative pls? --"if" u play so .

2) To me further steps of 2♣ quite different in North America and at least in France and Turkey. Do you have any idea why?

SKFSDLKMDFSMKLSFFKLMSWEFKLMEFWKLMDFSKLMDFSLKMDSFKLMDFSKLMDFSKLMDSFLKMDFSMKLDFSKLMDFSKLMDSFKLDFLSKDFSKLMDFSKLDFSKMLDFSKLMDFSKLMDSFKLMDFSKLMKLMFSDFLMSKDSFKLMQWKLMDFKLMSFKLM

 

The above paragraph made more sense than what you wrote.

[H_KARLUK]

For folks who self-enjoy :

 

I am afraid exaggerated laugh to everything may indicate bi polar disorders. Try to avoid paying high bills for therapists :lol: But no worries, it is scientifically classified as temporary cases. Lithium pills/tablets with reasonable dose is th solution mostly. Let's not live in edges and instead present stronger objective evidences for counter hypothesis with bridge cards.

 

I hope I am at correct address to read technical views about bridge issues. No to hypocrite rants. Yes to fairplay with politeness !

[JLOL]

Nice auction by gnasher and his pard imo.

[jdonn]

Nice auction by gnasher and his pard imo.

I think it was mostly good but I don't like the 6♠ bid. I think north has emphasized spades enough at that point and once his partner has suggested something else then north should choose 6NT because he has heart help.

[Winstonm]

That's not to say I'd do it with A8654 AJ AKJ6 KQ, which is a long way from being a game-force.

 

Some, including me, would say this is not a 2C opener, either.

[Winstonm]

Nice auction by gnasher and his pard imo.

Justin,

 

To me the auction had a little bit of feeling of stumbling about and landing on one's feet to it. I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings.

 

I believe the world level competition should have a better understanding/agreement/system.

 

Perhaps you disagree.

[jdonn]

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings.

Why do you sense that?

 

3NT: I have no significant unshown extras and hearts are well (enough) stopped.

5♠: I have a slam invitation with a very good doubleton spade.

6♣: I accept your invitation and, to the extent it can be consistent with my previous bidding, believe this might be the best slam.

6♠: I don't like 6♣ but I believe this might be the best slam.

6NT: I prefer this contract to 6♠.

 

I slightly disagree with the judgment to bid 6♠ (and 5♠ but that pertains to style of 2♣ openings), but there seems to have been no confusion about the meaning of any bid and overall it seems like quite a fine auction.

[Winstonm]

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings.

Why do you sense that?

 

3NT: I have no significant unshown extras and hearts are well (enough) stopped.

5♠: I have a slam invitation with a very good doubleton spade.

6♣: I accept your invitation and, to the extent it can be consistent with my previous bidding, believe this might be the best slam.

6♠: I don't like 6♣ but I believe this might be the best slam.

6NT: I prefer this contract to 6♠.

 

I slightly disagree with the judgment to bid 6♠ (and 5♠ but that pertains to style of 2♣ openings), but there seems to have been no confusion about the meaning of any bid and overall it seems like quite a fine auction.

I doubt seriously if it was known when it was bid if 3N could have held singleton club.

I doubt if opener knew if over 5S he needed AKxxx, AK10xx, or 3 of the top 5 to bid a spade slam.

I doubt responder knew that 6C was a choice of slams with doubleton honor support and not Kx, or KQ and poorish spades, or if its was a Kx and grand slam try.

I doubt opener knew about doubleton QJ else he would not have bid 6N with only AJ in the unbid.

 

overall it seems like quite a fine auction.

 

I didn't say it was horrible or bad - I said it seemed slightly (or somewhat) muddled. Yes, under the circumtances of the constraints of the auction it was fine.

I do not think this is the maximum method for 2C auctions is all.

 

I believe part of the problem stems from the initial 3C bid, as I said in an earlier post.

 

You are free to believe otherwise.

[gnasher]

This [6NT] may have been a bit awkward on a diamond lead, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't the lead, as the play didn't take very long.

You can play 6NT quite quickly as long as you cash one club before doing any serious thinking. East's club was the 10, so you overtake the second club and set up four clubs, then test the spades before deciding whether to take a heart finesse.

[gnasher]

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. So far as I can recall, I've never discussed this particular 3NT bid or the subsequent auction with anyone. However, I don't regard that as a problem, particularly. In such a sequence one relies on logic, judgment, general agreements, shared experience and general bridge knowledge. I know what I thought each bid meant, and I'd be surprised if my partner's opinion differed significantly.

 

I doubt seriously if it was known when it was bid if 3N could have held singleton club.

3NT could clearly contain a singleton club. Anything else is unplayable.

 

I doubt if opener knew if over 5S he needed AKxxx, AK10xx, or 3 of the top 5 to bid a spade slam.

3♣ denied three spades. 5♠ showed a slam invitation with good enough spades to make 5♠ playable opposite a moderate five-card suit. Given that opener had ♠AK, responder's spade holding was likely to be QJ, Q10, J10 or perhaps Qx, depending on how good and how suit-oriented the rest of the hand was.

 

I doubt responder knew that 6C was a choice of slams with doubleton honor support and not Kx,  or KQ and poorish spades,  or if its was a Kx and grand slam try.

5NT would have offered a choice of slams, and would have included hands with ♣Kx. 6♣, as a stronger suggestion to play in clubs, implies something better than that.

Each player has just made a non-forcing game bid, so there is no question of treating 6♣ as a grand slam try.

 

I doubt opener knew about doubleton QJ else he would not have bid 6N with only AJ in the unbid.

6♠, as a further suggestion to play in the known 5-2 spade fit, can hardly be on a worse holding than QJ. I expect my partner bid 6NT because he thought that, in addition to ♠QJ and ♣A, I must have one of ♥Q and ♣J (♦Q would probably make responder too good for 5♠). Opposite either of these hands, 6NT is unlikely to be worse than 6♠, and would be better if spades were 5-1.

 

I agree that responder (me) might have bid 6NT himself, following a similar reasoning. On the other hand, that would be wrong opposite something like AK10xx Ax AKQx KJ.

[Winstonm]

I'm not quite sure what your point is. So far as I can recall, I've never discussed this particular 3NT bid or the subsequent auction with anyone. However, I don't regard that as a problem, particularly.

 

This is not a condemnation of you or your partner's bidding. I thought I made it clear that 1) I think 2C bidding in general is a weakness in all stong 2C systems and 2) increasing the preciseness of the system would only be of real interest to someone interested in world class competition. (It is a lot of hard work with not a great deal of benefit-to-reward ratio, so it may even be useless at world levels.)

 

But my only real contention is that there is a looseness in the framework of standard approaches to 2C bidding that is taken for granted (it seems) as non-solvable. I believe better methods should be able to be constructed, but may be too complex for casual or even fairly serious competition.

 

Anecdotal evidence of what I mean is that when the Dallas Aces formed Bobby Wolff partnered Jim Jacoby and played an extremely simple "seat of your pants" standard system - but were forced by Ira Corn to adopt a more structured system (a big club system) for team play as the goal was to win world team championships and he beleived more precise bidding was required.

 

That's all I am saying about all 2C systems - they seem imprecise, especially for high-level bridge.

[maggieb]

Gnasher recently represented England internationally, just so you know.

[Winstonm]

Gnasher recently represented England internationally, just so you know.

Congratulations and well done.

 

I would think that the partnership for that level of competition didn't sit down and simply agree on 2/1 (or whatever system) without some pretty tight agreements.

 

That's all I have said about the 2C structure - as it is played it does not have real tight agreements.

[Winstonm]

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings. 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

 

Actually, I left out a word that changes the meaning. What I intended to say was that I sense from 3S on there wasn't a tight definition of meanings. (One of the strongest reasons I come to this conclusion is because of the final choice to bid 6N with only AJ doubleton instead of playing 6S.

 

I may be all wet in the assumption, but it looks to me as if opener was not 100% clear he was looking at QJ of spades and that was the reason for the correction to 6N. It was more expecting or anticipating a heart card or heart values than real knowledge of the QJ of spades and the heart Q.

 

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

[jdonn]

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

6♠ would clearly not be a good bid with that. 6♦ is probably best.

[benlessard]

4H cannot be natural none of the players bid H as a 2nd suits. Its the only artificial bid that is below game. So for me its a clear multi purpose slam bid. It deosnt help partner focus on the right value but it manage to included partner in the process without busting the safety level.

[H_KARLUK]

Pass-2♣

2♦-2♠

(3♣)-3♦

3♠-3NT

 

http://dannykleinman.com/Documents/BRIDGE%...TWO%20CLUBS.pdf

 

Gnasher, which one you use ?

 

2♣:2♦:2♠:2NT as a "second negative" or 3♣ ?

 

Check out the book "Aces Scientific" by Goldman.

(copyright 1978) starting on p. 43 it gives 2C:2D:2S:3C as the second negative without discussion. Goldman gives 3C as a second negative (except over opener's 3C then he uses 3D). This has the advantage of not getting into NT with the weak hand as responder.

 

I hope no smart alecks interfere anymore and i receive an answer abt yr system card by you. I am bored to read "hey, we are ordinarius bridge professors (blah blah), no need to reply such novice (?) questions" alphabet soups.

 

Thanks

Hamdi

[Finch]

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

ummm.... if partner has Qx xxx Qxx AJxxx then 6NT seems like a perfectly good spot to me, certainly better than 6S. We can debate quite a good a spot 7C is opposite that hand, but I think probably not quite good enough if the other table is not going to be in a slam at all.

[gnasher]

Regarding various comments and questions:

 

- I don't think that a slightly offbeat decision by the England selectors means that I have any special insight into the best way to conduct this sort of auction.

 

- My partner on this occasion was someone I play with only a few times a year, and with whom I had no relevant agreements beyond the meanings of 2C and 2D. It may well be that auctions after 2♣ tend to lack definition, but I don't think that was so here: notwithstanding the lack of space and limited agreements, opener was close to being able to write down responder's hand.

 

- I don't have a strong opinion about the best second negative after 2♣-2♦; 2♠. I do think it important to know which one you're playing.

[gnasher]

What I intended to say was that I sense from 3S on there wasn't a tight definition of meanings.  (One of the strongest reasons I come to this conclusion is because of the final choice to bid 6N with only AJ doubleton instead of playing 6S. 

 

I may be all wet in the assumption, but it looks to me as if opener was not 100% clear he was looking at QJ of spades and that was the reason for the correction to 6N.  It was more expecting or anticipating a heart card or heart values than real knowledge of the QJ of spades and the heart Q.

So your belief is that if opener thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser?

Can you provide examples of:

(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

The actual responding hand was very close to a slam drive. This hand, with the queens of both of opener's suits, is surely worth slam.

[Finch]

Regarding various comments and questions:

 

- I don't think that a slightly offbeat decision by the England selectors means that I have any special insight into the best way to conduct this sort of auction.

 

- My partner on this occasion was someone I play with only a few times a year, and with whom I had no relevant agreements beyond the meanings of 2C and 2D. It may well be that auctions after 2♣ tend to lack definition, but I don't think that was so here: notwithstanding the lack of space and limited agreements, opener was close to being able to write down responder's hand.

 

- I don't have a strong opinion about the best second negative after 2♣-2♦; 2♠. I do think it important to know which one you're playing.

I think you also knew that 3C was not a second negative.

 

At the other table, after the start 2C - 2D - 2S - 3C, opener alerted 3C and said he thought it was a second negative. After the auction continued ...3NT - 5S he changed his mind. I agree that knowing which you play is a good idea.

[Winstonm]

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

6♠ would clearly not be a good bid with that. 6♦ is probably best.

Josh,

 

Back to my point. Without a "tight" understanding, how does responder know that opener holds AKxxx and not AKJxx?

 

If opener held AKJxx, then bidding 6S with Qx would not be bad.

 

There are other questions about the auction:

 

If opener had 6241 shape, would he bid 2S followed by 3D? If so, wouldn't he want partner to offer support with xx? If such is the case, then 3S cannot show more than xx, no?

 

What was the agreement?

 

With the above question in mind, does 3N show AKxxx or simply a hand that does not want to play 4S opposite xx (which would include AKJxx, I would think.)?

 

All I am saying is that most of us play 2C without much formal structure to it. (In the hand given all I said was I sense that this was the case here - meaning that my sense could also be wrong.)

 

Why is that so controversial?

[Winstonm]

Can you provide examples of:

(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

I think so.

1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx

2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

[gnasher]

Can you provide examples of:

(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

I think so.

1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx

2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

 

If so, you should be able to provide examples of responding hands, consistent with responder's bidding so far, where:

 

(1) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠QJ, it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and

(2) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠Qx where it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

 

Can you?