Lose a Swiss Teams with me #1

[nigel_k]

We lost a Swiss teams last night after leading going into the last round, mainly because of three slam (or not) hands. The first one is below:

 

[hv=d=w&w=saktxhxdakxxckqtx&e=sqxxhxxxdqjtxxcax]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

How would you bid after West opens 1♣? (Obviously a 1♦ opening is also possible but then it would be a different and probably easier problem)

[TimG]

After 1C-1D, what's your splinter raise: 3H? That will fetch 4C and opener should be able to do the rest.

[Cascade]

Tim's auction looks normal and straight forward.

[nigel_k]

Is it normal to splinter with a 4 card major? That's one of the things I wanted to find out. Anyway, what would you do if it starts 1♣-1♦-1♠?

[Fluffy]

Is it normal to splinter with a 4 card major? That's one of the things I wanted to find out. Anyway, what would you do if it starts 1♣-1♦-1♠?

I can't answer the splinter question since I do not open 1♣ with 4-4 minors and never faced this start with a 5440.

 

Playing walsh I think bidding spades is a mistake.

 

after 1♣-1♦-1♠ the auction should procced

 

1♣-1♦

1♠-1NT

4♦-5♣

6♦

 

I can't find any smarter bid than 4♦ to show this. Maybe coliding with a 4045, others more used of these methods might tell.

[olliebol]

proposal one: west east

1cl 1d

1sp 1nt

4d 5cl

6d p

 

proposal two: west east

1cl 1d

2sp 3h

4d 5cl

6d p

 

 

but im not so sure about the 4 diamond bid in one so 2 flows better.

[ONEferBRID]

We lost a Swiss teams last night after leading going into the last round, mainly because of three slam (or not) hands. The first one is below:

 

Dealer: West Vul: ???? Scoring: IMP

♠ AKTx ♥ x ♦ AKxx ♣ KQTx ♠ Qxx ♥ xxx ♦ QJTxx ♣ Ax

How would you bid after West opens 1♣? (Obviously a 1♦ opening is also possible but then it would be a different and probably easier problem)

 

With a strong hand like this, I too would open 1C with 4-4 in the minors.

( With a minimum opener, I would open 1D .

 

Partner "responds 1D for a reason" :

a) He may not have a 4cd Major and may have a good hand ( or minimum ) but not opening values himself. With these lower values and a 4 cd major, he should respond 1M -- even with longer Diam ( Walshish , but not Walsh per se ).

 

b ) With opening values himself, he should respond 1D with 4+ cards even with

a 4cd Major.

 

c) 1C - 1D

     1S = nonforcing is standard and definitely not the hand shown.

 

With a strong hand like this, but different shape than the one shown, Opener would rebid 2S-jump shift ( showing a longer Cl suit than Sp ) or 2NT ( with a checkback or Wolff option for Responder ).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I too like Tim's splinter proposal ( 3H! = splinter for Diam ) and after the 4C cue,

I would hope 4H! = kickback RKC for Diam. Even if it isn't, you get there ( 6D ) anyway with 4NT = RKC.

 

- - Don - -

[Phil]

Is it normal to splinter with a 4 card major? That's one of the things I wanted to find out. Anyway, what would you do if it starts 1♣-1♦-1♠?

Weren't you the guy that 'didn't see the need for Walsh'? :(

 

Easy 3♥ call for me.

 

After 2♠, I can see, 3♥ - 4♦ - 5♣ - 6♦ - but it feels concocted.

[cherdanno]

Is it normal to splinter with a 4 card major? That's one of the things I wanted to find out. Anyway, what would you do if it starts 1♣-1♦-1♠?

I don't understand 1♠, unless you play it forcing, and promising an unbalanced hand. Playing more standard methods, surely this hand has to force to game with 2♠ (assuming you want to bid spades), and show the great diamond support next.

Responder has an awkward bid over 2♠, but whatever he does, after he hears about the diamond support he has a huge hand and will bid slam. E.g.

1C 1D

2S 2N

4D 4N

5D 6D

[Cascade]

Is it normal to splinter with a 4 card major? That's one of the things I wanted to find out. Anyway, what would you do if it starts 1♣-1♦-1♠?

Probably not.

 

However at IMPs it will often not matter if you miss your spade fit and upside of making your slam bidding easier is a big gain.

[andy_h]

Agree with cherdanno except over 4♦ I'd cue 4♥ or 4♠ as 4NT feels natural.

[WesleyC]

Given you're suggesting the auction starts 1C -1D - 1S on this hand, I'm assuming you play 1S as forcing. I've only played that style myself a couple of times but isn't it normal to use 1C - 1D - 2H as a splinter? If so 2H seems like a good choice.

 

If I wasn't sure about the answers to these questions, I'd strongly prefer to simplify the auction with a 3H splinter. There's no easy way to describe the extent of my diamond fit & a heart shortage after a different continuation.

[gnasher]

Playing Walsh, I'd definitely splinter, because the chance of partner's having four spades is remote. If partner responds up-the-line, I think you should bid spades: opposite Qxxx in each suit you gain about 15% by playing in spades.

 

After 1♣-1♦;2♠, doesn't 2NT imply a heart stop? I think it should go:

  1♣-1♦

  2♠-3♥ (FSF)

  4♦-4NT

  5♥-6♦

Responder expects a 4135 (or possibly 4225) shape, but on this occasion it doesn't matter that we lost the fourth diamond.

 

Playing 1♠ as forcing and unbalanced:

  1♣-1♦

  1♠-2♣

  3♦

and responder will drive to slam, similarly to above.

Edited August 27, 2009 by gnasher

[ONEferBRID]

Side issue.....

Wesley:

1C - 1D

2H/2S are strong jump shifts, usually GF although some treat it as forcing 1 Rnd

      similar to a reverse with Lebensohl protection for Responder.

[rd6789]

 

proposal two: west  east

                      1cl    1d

                      2sp    3h

                      4d    5cl

                      6d    p

 

 

this seems good to me - I don't play 1S as forcing, and 3H asking for more info (why do I want to bid 2NT with xxx in H?) seems best and when W bids 4D the shape is becoming clear

[awm]

It seems like there are constructions like ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦QJxxx ♣A where you definitely need to play in diamonds rather than spades. Bidding spades might not work out so well here.

 

While I nominally bid "up the line", I would often bid 1♠ if I held 4♠+4♦ unless my diamonds were substantially stronger. I don't see much point to bid 1♦ with Qxxx in both diamonds and spades. So opposite me anyway, it would be normal to assume that one of these holds:

 

(1) The diamonds are 5+ in length

(2) There is no four-card major

(3) The four-card major is headed by at best the jack (since 4-card ♦ are at best QJxx).

 

In all of these cases, raising diamonds rates to be better than bidding spades. I'd bid 3♥ splinter.

[mike777]

We lost a Swiss teams last night after leading going into the last round, mainly because of three slam (or not) hands. The first one is below:

 

[hv=d=w&w=saktxhxdakxxckqtx&e=sqxxhxxxdqjtxxcax]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

How would you bid after West opens 1♣? (Obviously a 1♦ opening is also possible but then it would be a different and probably easier problem)

As a nonexpert now this one seems like a really easy one....hmm something is happening here with this partnership, what it is not exactly clear.....

[OleBerg]

Natural;

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - 1NT/2♦

3♥ - A walk in the park.

 

In my own system I could get into trouble;

 

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)

2♠ - 2NT = GF

3♦ - 3♥ = FSF

4♦ - 6♦

 

 

I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

 

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

 

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

[Winstonm]

I see this as one of those hands where you simply have to pick your poison and live with the results of your choice. The best start to reach slam is to splinter over 1D - but that eliminates spades as a contract for all practical purposes so you are left with game contracts of 3N, 5D or slam.

 

If you start with 1S (if you play it forcing) or 2S (if 1S is passable) then it will be more cumbersome to reach 6D, though not impossible.

 

Of the two, I always place the quest for the best game ahead of any abstract search for slam, so I would take the spade bid route. This keeps a spade game alive but does detract from best bidding of diamond contracts.

[gwnn]

Natural;

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - 1NT/2♦

3♥ - A walk in the park.

 

In my own system I could get into trouble;

 

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)

2♠ - 2NT = GF

3♦ - 3♥ = FSF

4♦ - 6♦

 

 

I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

 

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

 

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

You don't you spades first if you have 5♦, 4♠ and less than GF values? If you did, trumps could be set quite low.

[cherdanno]

In my own system I could get into trouble;

 

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)

2♠ - 2NT = GF

3♦ - 3♥ = FSF

4♦ - 6♦

 

 

I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

 

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

 

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have?

[OleBerg]

Natural;

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - 1NT/2♦

3♥ - A walk in the park.

 

In my own system I could get into trouble;

 

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)

2♠ - 2NT = GF

3♦ - 3♥ = FSF

4♦ - 6♦

 

 

I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

 

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

 

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

You don't you spades first if you have 5♦, 4♠ and less than GF values? If you did, trumps could be set quite low.

I don't quite follow.

 

In my system, the 2♠ bid is mandatory, as lower bids are reserved for other hands.

 

This is the scheme:

 

1NT = 15-17 bal

2♣ = Clubs, non-forcing.

2♦ = 3-card diamonds, or 4 card diamonds and a real bad hand. Non-forcing.

2♥ = 3-way: Natural reverse, 18-19 bal. or various strong club-hands. (2♠ = Relay.)

2♠ = Natural reverse.

2NT = Strong diamond support, forcing.

 

Doesn't seem that insensible, but it does force us high on this hand.

 

I play that 1♠ denies four card majors unless 10+. Not so hot on this hand, but even if played "unless GF" it is not without problems to support diamonds immediately. The pro's and con's of immediate support in a T-Walsh-structure would merit its own thread. I like for responder to be able to show 10 hcp by bidding 1♠ followed by 2M. Problems rarely occur, but when opener is Marmic or 4-0-4-5/0-4-4-5, things can get a little muddy.

 

(Supporting diamonds immediately, would make it impossible to get back to spades, as all subsequent 3♠-bids will be used to prompt for 3NT.)

[OleBerg]

In my own system I could get into trouble;

 

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)

2♠ - 2NT = GF

3♦ - 3♥ = FSF

4♦ - 6♦

 

 

I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

 

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

 

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have?

Indeed an option.

 

I find it borderline whether to bid 3♦ or 4♦. As opener I would respect a 3NT bid from responder, but maybe that's to chickenish (is that a word???).

 

I play, that after 4♦, it is not an option to declare 4NT (or 5NT ;) ), but it might still be the right bid.

 

Anyway, it wouldn't have solved my ace-checking problem.

 

 

Edit: If I felt certain that 3♦ promised 4-card-support (and maybe it is obvious???), the ace-problem would be solved, as opener could bid 4♣ instead of 4♦, freeing the necessary space.

[cherdanno]

In your sequence, I would find it obvious that 3♦ can be bid with 4135 hands - one of the reasons I prefer 4♦ over 3♦.

[mike777]

If I open one club I would respond 1d...now I just rkc with 4h...

granted as a nonexpert I overuse rkc but this deal seems really easy.

 

1c=1d(walsh)

4h(rkc for d)