Better Auction, Getting to the Grand?

[mtvesuvius]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skqtxhkxdqxxxxcxx&s=sajxxxhaqtxxdcak9]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♣* - 2♣**

2♠ - 4♠

4NT` - 5♣``

5♦" - 5♥""

6♠ - P

 

*16+ HCP; Forcing

**Transfer to ♦; 9+ HCP 5+♦

`1430 for ♠

``1/4 for ♠

"Queen Ask

""Q♠ + K♥[/hv]

 

Is there a better auction to get to the grand, playing 2/1 or precision?

[jdonn]

Did 4♠ have any definition at all? If north just bids 3♠ as I essentially always would, south bids 4♣, north bids 4♥, then keycard solves your problems.

[mikeh]

Did 4♠ have any definition at all? If north just bids 3♠ as I essentially always would, south bids 4♣, north bids 4♥, then keycard solves your problems.

How do you find out that partner has 4 trump? If he is KQx Kx QJxxx xxx, for example, how good is the grand?

 

BTW, I agree that unless 4♠ shows specifically 4+ good trump, it is a waste of bidding space.

 

How about

 

1♠  3♦     bergen, 4+ support, limit

5♦  5♥     5♦ exclusion

5N  6♥     Queen ask, Queen plus heart K

 

Now grand should have some play...almost certainly very good to laydown on 2-2 trump, and excellent plays on 3-1.

 

I am not saying I'd do this, but it does seem to offer a route.

[Fluffy]

if 4♠ showed 4 trumps your auction is flawless, and the only thing left was to bid 7 instead of 6.

[pirate22]

sayc how about 1sp-2d

2ht-3sp

4cl-4ht

5cl-Bingo 7 spades

the key bid is 3 sp(Forcing not a limit bid) 4sp is a sign off,but the k hts is another valuable card

[gnasher]

Moronic post deleted. Hope no one saw it. Edited February 17, 2009 by gnasher

[gnasher]

After 4♠ (assuming that's the systemically correct action with this hand), how about

  5♣-5♥

  5NT-[whatever shows 2 of top 3]

  7♠

 

Edit: Note that I couldn't have this auction, because I play 5NT as RKCB. On the other hand, I wouldn't be playing an ill-defined 4♠ bid, so I wouldn't have had the earlier auction either.

 

Reedit: Not that bidding 5NT RKCB is a problem here, as partner has denied ♦A. Maybe I'd better go to bed.

Edited February 17, 2009 by gnasher

[orlam]

Even I can see that 4NT is a bad bid. I think you should get to grand after 5♣-5♥ if you have an agreement that 4♠ showed good trumps. If you don't have that agreement, maybe you should not bid 4♠.

[inquiry]

It's been a while since I wrote about MisIry, so forgive this leap into the non-standard 2-over-1. I admit this has little use to anyone reading this other than nutcases like me who might be interested in other treatments. It is just that hands like this is why MisIry was invented.

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skqtxhkxdqxxxxcxx&s=sajxxxhaqtxxdcak9]133|200|Scoring: IMP

2N* - 3♣**

3♥ - 4♣

4♥ - 5♣

5♦ - 7♠

 

*Club preempt or strong two suiter with hearts and either spades or diamonds

**Attempt to signoff in clubs if partner has club preempt

3♥=major two suiter, four losers

4♣=slam try, NO CONTROL in clubs

4♥=either two losers in clubs, or any diamond control wasted generally pass/correct

5♣=slam try asking if a "distributional club King useful?

5♦=distributional club king useful, and I am missing one major queen

7♠ = KQ of spade, King of hearts, and distributional club king all covers for yoru 4 losers [/hv]

 

South tries to signoff over 4♣ not because he is off two quick clubs (another reason over the denial bid that he would try to sign off), but because any possible cover card in diamonds would be wasted. North refuses the signoff because he has THREE SURE COVERS, and knows slam is sure, and grand slam if the doubleton heart or doubleton club are useful.

 

Over 4♥, responder could bid 4NT to ask if either or both major queens are missing, or he can do as he did here, and bid 5♣ to ask if a distributional king of clubs is useful. This is different from a singleton, it is a suit where the club can be discarded on one of openers long suits, and then openers club loser ruffed. It also inquires about missing anchor suit queens. The responses are logical, a return to the cheapest anchor suit (hearts) is that a "distributional" king in the bid suit is not useful, if the distibutional king is useful, the cheapest non-signoff shows one missing queen, the second cheapest shows both missing queens.

 

south could have also bid 4NT over 4♥ to ask for missing anchor queens, he would have discovered the spade queen missing, but he knew that, he could then have been 6♣ asking about the distributional club control and grand would still be bid.

[Impact]

1C= 16+ 1H= 8-19HCP, 4+S, 2+ controls (A=2, K=1)

1S= relay 2C= 4+D in hand which is not flat

2D= relay 2H= 4S & 5+D

2S= relay 3C= 4-2-5-2

3D= relay 3H= 8-11HCP exactly 2 controls

3S= relay 3NT= neither DA nor DK (or DAKQ impossible- only 2 cont)

4C= relay 4S= SK, HK no CAK or Q

4NT= relay 5H= DQ, SQ no DJ

7S = I think I know enough...

 

 

In a non-relay framework, assuming you did not set up asking bids, it would be reasonable to use 4S as a picture bid: good trumps and nothing to cue....

regards

[neilkaz]

Did 4♠ have any definition at all? If north just bids 3♠ as I essentially always would, south bids 4♣, north bids 4♥, then keycard solves your problems.

Exactly since the intitial transfer is positive and GF anyhow why waste space ???

[mtvesuvius]

Did 4♠ have any definition at all? If north just bids 3♠ as I essentially always would, south bids 4♣, north bids 4♥, then keycard solves your problems.

Exactly since the intitial transfer is positive and GF anyhow why waste space ???

My partner had just finished discussing the principle of fast arrival with someone, and felt that he wanted to apply it on this hand (LOL). I also felt that 3♠ is much better here, but I was wondering other thoughts, and if there was a good way to still reach the grand. Thanks for all the answers :ph34r:.

[jdonn]

It's been a while since I wrote about MisIry, so forgive this leap into the non-standard 2-over-1.

Lol I feel like you have that phrase saved in some file and paste it to start every post you make. It's been a really really long while since you have written not-about MisIry!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1S (1) - 3S (2)

3NT (3) - 4H (4)

4NT (5) - 5K (5)

5H (6) - 6H (6)

7S (7)

 

(1) 2/1

(2) limit, 4 cards, I am not really happy with the bid

If playing Bergen, than 3D is a whole lot better,

because I can ensure, that we play 4S

(3) Serious 3NT

(4) cue, showing a top honor in hearts, i.e. King

or Ace, denying top honors in clubs and

diamonds

(5) KC, 1 KC

(6) Queen ask, Queen + King of hearts

(7) you can count 12 sure tricks, I am not sure,

that the heart discards + the 2 club tricks are

enough to justify bidding 7S

But I have more problems with 3S than with 7S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

1 ♠ 3♣ (Bergen, 8-10, 4 Spades)

3♦ 3 ♥ (asking, max, heart control)

3 NT 4 ♠ (Serious, no other control)

4 NT 5♣ (1 KC)

5 ♦ 5 NT (Queen of Spade, King of HEart)

6♣ 7♠ (extras? two doubeltons 10 HCPS, trump ten)

 

This hand works extremly well in a scheme where you play Bergen raises and show your cheapest control after the inquiry.

However, when both players had the red suits switched, you could still find the grand slam with exclusion KC.

[Fluffy]

Where is Misho BTW? haven't seen him in ages

[kenrexford]

For me:

 

1♠-3♣(9+ with 4+ support, various possibilities)

 

Two possible continuations:

 

3♦(asking)-4♠(max but poor controls)

5♦(Exclusion 1430)-5♥(1)

5♠(queen?)-6♥(yes, plus this King only)

???

 

3♥(cue of a suit)-3♠(two top trumps)

3NT(serious)-4♥(heart card, no 2st/2nd minor controls)

 

In the second auction, Opener knows about the solid trumps and about the heart King. The partnership also has been able to isolate the fact that Responder has no controls in either minor. This is a very powerful sequence, because so much is already known and because so much can be eliminated as not possible.

 

This allows 4NT by Opener to be simply an ambiguous "tell me more" cue. Responder can then begin to cue tertiary controls. Even if honors take dominance, you could have:

 

4NT(what else?)-5♦(this Queen)

6♣(how about tertiary shortness in clubs?)-7♠(yep)

 

Obviously, the second auction seems better.

[Apollo81]

I also don't understand why North leapt to game when he could have saved space with a 3♠ bid. However grand could still be reached. South shouldn't bid RKC not knowing whether partner has an ace in his void. The auction at that point could go 5♣-5♥-5NT*-7♠ (*grand slam force)

[mikeh]

I also don't understand why North leapt to game when he could have saved space with a 3♠ bid. However grand could still be reached. South shouldn't bid RKC not knowing whether partner has an ace in his void. The auction at that point could go 5♣-5♥-5NT*-7♠ (*grand slam force)

I still don't understand how you can drive to grand, as opener, unless you know that partner has 4 trumps. I raised this issue in response to josh's suggestion that opener keycard at some point, but KQx Kx QJxxx xxx makes grand extremely poor.. and where does your auction distinguish that holding from the actual hand?

 

I think you, and several others, have fallen into the trap of creating an auction that only makes sense because you 'know' the real hand. Have I missed something? It wouldn't be the first time :)

[jdonn]

I also don't understand why North leapt to game when he could have saved space with a 3♠ bid.  However grand could still be reached.  South shouldn't bid RKC not knowing whether partner has an ace in his void.  The auction at that point could go 5♣-5♥-5NT*-7♠ (*grand slam force)

I still don't understand how you can drive to grand, as opener, unless you know that partner has 4 trumps. I raised this issue in response to josh's suggestion that opener keycard at some point, but KQx Kx QJxxx xxx makes grand extremely poor.. and where does your auction distinguish that holding from the actual hand?

 

I think you, and several others, have fallen into the trap of creating an auction that only makes sense because you 'know' the real hand. Have I missed something? It wouldn't be the first time :)

I think what you have missed is that most of us don't require 100% knowledge of a grand making in order to bid it. Just a strong likelihood. :) So if partner has one particular bad shape with no extra useful strength I'm in a 30% grand, what else is new?

[Apollo81]

grand could still be reached

I still don't understand how you can drive to grand, as opener, unless you know that partner has 4 trumps. I raised this issue in response to josh's suggestion that opener keycard at some point, but KQx Kx QJxxx xxx makes grand extremely poor.. and where does your auction distinguish that holding from the actual hand?

It's much more likely that partner has 4252 for the 4♠ bid than other shapes, as he might have splintered with a round-suit singleton and might have tried to get to 3NT with only 3-card support. I admit that there's a significant chance that partner won't have that (maybe he has singleton ♥K for instance), but it's too likely to ignore.

 

Also I agree with Josh (I should CTL-C this, feels like ive been saying this in every post today)

[Apollo81]

I think you, and several others, have fallen into the trap of creating an auction that only makes sense because you 'know' the real hand. Have I missed something? It wouldn't be the first time :)

To play devil's advocate on myself for a minute, I'll admit that maybe I shouldn't be making so many assumptions about a bid that I would (almost) never make.

[mikeh]

I also don't understand why North leapt to game when he could have saved space with a 3♠ bid.  However grand could still be reached.  South shouldn't bid RKC not knowing whether partner has an ace in his void.  The auction at that point could go 5♣-5♥-5NT*-7♠ (*grand slam force)

I still don't understand how you can drive to grand, as opener, unless you know that partner has 4 trumps. I raised this issue in response to josh's suggestion that opener keycard at some point, but KQx Kx QJxxx xxx makes grand extremely poor.. and where does your auction distinguish that holding from the actual hand?

 

I think you, and several others, have fallen into the trap of creating an auction that only makes sense because you 'know' the real hand. Have I missed something? It wouldn't be the first time :(

I think what you have missed is that most of us don't require 100% knowledge of a grand making in order to bid it. Just a strong likelihood. :) So if partner has one particular bad shape with no extra useful strength I'm in a 30% grand, what else is new?

It's significantly less than 30%, but that is a quibble.

 

What is more to the point is the frequency. You argue that most of the time the grand will be good.

 

I can accept that the grand will be reasonable more often than not, but only by the slimmest of margins.

 

4=2=5=2 is far less common than 3=2=5=3... we hold 5 spades and 3 clubs, so partner will more commonly hold longish clubs than longish spades.

 

3=3=5=2 is also less common, for the same reason. We hold too many hearts to make it equivalent in frequency.

 

I have not done the work, but I am pretty sure that the most common hand type will be 3=2=5=3... on which grand is about 23% on a diamond lead.

 

3=2=6=2 is another possibility.. and this also is not a good grand, although it isn't terrible.. on a diamond lead, we need something good to happen in a major: either 3-2 trumps or the heart Jack coming down doubleton or tripleton.

 

I find it odd that a good player will so cavalierly dismiss the single most likely layout as not worth worrying about. Especially when grand is not frigid opposite the actual hand (altho it is very, very good).

[jdonn]

I have not done the work, but I am pretty sure that the most common hand type will be 3=2=5=3... on which grand is about 23% on a diamond lead.

I double (based purely on my gut - I haven't even calculated!) 3-3 hearts and either 4-3 clubs or 5-2 onside, keeping in mind that one good break makes the other more likely. I think you also forgot to include LHO 2-2 in the majors with Jx of hearts...

 

Anyway take all your times partner has 3 clubs and the grand is down, and decrease it by 30% or so. Partner is allowed to have the club queen (or Jxx allows for luck too!)

 

I find it odd that a good player will so cavalierly dismiss the single most likely layout as not worth worrying about.

I found this comment curious. I didn't say it's not worth worrying about, I just don't feel the combination of times a grand goes down is near enough to how often it makes (partner four spades, partner club queen, partner doubleton club, partner queen of clubs, partner ace of diamonds, partner king of diamonds opponents lead ace just in case...). That doesn't mean I discount the chance of it going down. You were fully right to point it out though.

[skjaeran]

1♠ - 3♦ (Bergen)

3♥ - 4♥ (natural, honor cue)

4NT - 5♣

5♦ - 6♠

7♠