Tempting undisciplined action

[bluecalm]

Imps. We play polish ♣. 1♦ is in 11-17range.

 

K7 AJ3 AKJ7432 5

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦* - 5♦

?

 

3D denied spade support.

I was tempted to open 1♣ with this hand. We tend to jump to 3♦ with 14+ and good playing strength so here I am very heavy for my action. I know I am not supposed to bid slams if made non forcing bid earlier and partner bid game but it's really tempting this time.

Anyway, would you bid 6♦ now ?

[akhare]

I would open 1♣ with this hand, but having made that choice, I am hoping to go plus by passing 5♦. Pard would have made some noise with interest in a ♦ slam if 3♦ can have up to 17 HCPs...

[OleBerg]

Tempting, but not tempting enough.

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

Partner could (and should have) bid 4D, if he wanted to investigate slam.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

No.

 

Partner could (and should have) bid 4D, if he wanted to investigate slam.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Yeah, but how was partner supposed to work out that AQJxx, xx, xxx, xxx is enough for a slam, not even close to an invite (doesn't actually even need the 5th spade).

 

I'd have opened 1♣ because this is a hand which will play very well opposite the right high cards and can make a slam opposite some pretty minimal hands, but play badly opposite some hands with much higher point counts (QJxxx, xx, Qxx, KQJ there's no guarantee you can make any game on a heart lead). I'd prefer to have the space to investigate.

[rhm]

Imps. We play polish ♣. 1♦ is in 11-17range.

 

K7 AJ3 AKJ7432 5

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦* - 5♦

?

 

3D denied spade support.

I was tempted to open 1♣ with this hand. We tend to jump to 3♦ with 14+ and good playing strength so here I am very heavy for my action. I know I am not supposed to bid slams if made non forcing bid earlier and partner bid game but it's really tempting this time.

Anyway, would you bid 6♦ now ?

I find these questions hard to answer with so little information about your agreements.

Later sequences in Polish ♣ are not well standardized to my knowledge.

 

After

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦*

 

what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant?

 

Did he have an game invitational raise available?

Did he have a slam invitational raise available?

 

For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game, in which case bidding on is optimistic.

But partner could have AQJxx in ♠ and three little ♦, with which he might bid that way.

If he had no clear slam invitation, for example a good hand without club control denying him the possibility of cue-bidding 4♣ and 4 ♦ would have been non-forcing than the case for bidding 6♦ is strong.

 

All in all my tendency is to bid 6♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

No.

 

Partner could (and should have) bid 4D, if he wanted to investigate slam.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Yeah, but how was partner supposed to work out that AQJxx, xx, xxx, xxx is enough for a slam, not even close to an invite (doesn't actually even need the 5th spade).

 

I'd have opened 1♣ because this is a hand which will play very well opposite the right high cards and can make a slam opposite some pretty minimal hands, but play badly opposite some hands with much higher point counts (QJxxx, xx, Qxx, KQJ there's no guarantee you can make any game on a heart lead). I'd prefer to have the space to investigate.

The hand is probably worth 1♣. But strong ♦ hands are a problem in Polish ♣. because a 2♦ rebid is generally played conventional. That is why Polish ♣ bidders are reluctant to upgrade hands with a strong ♦ suit.

 

So the bidding would likely go

 

1♣ -- 1♠

3♦

 

where 3♦ usually also denies 3 cards in ♠.

Partner would porobably still bid 5♦ with your example hand AQJxx, xx, xxx, xxx, being dead mnimum for bidding 1♠ over 1♣

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

I can see how ♠AQxxx can lead to 12 tricks, also ♥K ♠A and something else, but we have no way to know. I think pass is better, at IMPs, at MPs 6♦ is more tempting.

[bluecalm]

after

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦*

 

what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant?

 

3D is game forcing unbalanced, basically without ♠ support (if balanced you can bid 2NT). This one of the problems in polish club because 3D response is high and it's difficult to bid precisely after it. There are some solutions as multimeaning 2♦ relay but we don't play them and they are not standard.

 

Did he have an game invitational raise available?

Did he have a slam invitational raise available?

 

NO/YES. 4♦ is slammish. He can also bid 3♥ as values to NT or cuebid in ♦.

 

For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game

 

In polish club if you open 1♣ with strong hand (18+) and hear anything else than 1♦ you are forced to game. Partner can't pass 3♦.

If you mean :

1♦ 1♠

3♦ 4♦ we play it as invitational to game. Partner can bid 3♥ or 4♣ if he wishes to investigate slam in diamonds.

[effervesce]

after

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦*

 

what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant?

 

3D is game forcing unbalanced, basically without ♠ support (if balanced you can bid 2NT). This one of the problems in polish club because 3D response is high and it's difficult to bid precisely after it. There are some solutions as multimeaning 2♦ relay but we don't play them and they are not standard.

 

Did he have an game invitational raise available?

Did he have a slam invitational raise available?

 

NO/YES. 4♦ is slammish. He can also bid 3♥ as values to NT or cuebid in ♦.

 

For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game

 

In polish club if you open 1♣ with strong hand (18+) and hear anything else than 1♦ you are forced to game. Partner can't pass 3♦.

If you mean :

1♦ 1♠

3♦ 4♦ we play it as invitational to game. Partner can bid 3♥ or 4♣ if he wishes to investigate slam in diamonds.

1♦-1♠

3♦-4♦ as invitational?? Are you sure??

I think 4♦ here as slammish is much more useful than an invite to 5♦.

3♦ is already limited in strength in polish club making it even more preferable to have 4♦ as slammish compared to standard.

[bluecalm]

3♦-4♦ as invitational?? Are you sure??

I think 4♦ here as slammish is much more useful than an invite to 5♦.

 

What I am sure of is that we play it as invitational. I am not sure at all if that's standard or better :o

[pooltuna]

Imps. We play polish ♣. 1♦ is in 11-17range.

 

K7 AJ3 AKJ7432 5

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦* - 5♦

?

 

3D denied spade support.

I was tempted to open 1♣ with this hand. We tend to jump to 3♦ with 14+ and good playing strength so here I am very heavy for my action. I know I am not supposed to bid slams if made non forcing bid earlier and partner bid game but it's really tempting this time.

Anyway, would you bid 6♦ now ?

I find these questions hard to answer with so little information about your agreements.

Later sequences in Polish ♣ are not well standardized to my knowledge.

 

After

 

1♦ - 1♠

3♦*

 

what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant?

 

Did he have an game invitational raise available?

Did he have a slam invitational raise available?

 

For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game, in which case bidding on is optimistic.

But partner could have AQJxx in ♠ and three little ♦, with which he might bid that way.

If he had no clear slam invitation, for example a good hand without club control denying him the possibility of cue-bidding 4♣ and 4 ♦ would have been non-forcing than the case for bidding 6♦ is strong.

 

All in all my tendency is to bid 6♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

Your normal sound commentary. I would also note that partner made no effort to get to 3NT. I too would risk 6♦.

[whereagles]

not easy. If pard has an ace, 6 should be a lay down. but would he have bid this way with an ace?

 

I dunno. I'll pass if pard is a good player and lean towards 6 otherwise.

[jdonn]

I don't remember learning that an ace covers 4 out of 5 losers. :)

[aguahombre]

I don't remember learning that an ace covers 4 out of 5 losers. :)

that is why we read these fora --to learn new things :)

[Siegmund]

Looks a) good enough to open 1♣ to me, but b ) as bid, we have to pass 5♦. No reason to be expecting 4 cover cards here.

 

If you really do play 1♦-1♠-3♦-4♦ as invitational, and 1♦-1♠-3♦-3♥ as a cuebid, I think you are going to have quite a few system problems. I feel very strongly that responder's 4♦ has to be slammish asking for a cuebid here. Somewhat less strongly that 3♥ needs to be available to help us find 4♠ or 3NT.

 

Incidentally, if we're looking for systemic solutions, there was a post by Frances Hinden advocating 1m-1M-4m as promising 3 cards in the major and 7 in the minor just a day or so ago. I've never seen that treatment anywhere else, but gee, it suddenly looks more appealing.

[bluecalm]

1♦-1♠-3♦-3♥ as a cuebi

 

Well, we have some general principles according to which :

a)4d is invitational as a simple raise

B)3♥ is two way:

-natural suit/values to 3nt

-cuebid in ♦ (then you bid 4♣/4♦ after 3♠/3NT

 

The problem with this is that if responder ir 5-5 in majors we have problems.

Note that 5-3 spade fit is not a problem because 3♦ deny 3♠. We have 2NT rebid for invitational hands with 3♠ and 6+♦. One of the good things about polish ♣ (or systems with Gazilli and Mexican 2D as played by Italians) is that 2NT rebid is free for other purposes.

Also 3♠ is forcing after 3♦ so 6-2♠ is possible to find.

 

Now : I see the problem. I see that it's impossible to three things simultaneous :

-find 5-3♥

-find 6-2♠

-check for stoppers in 3NT

 

Maybe there is a solution like reversing the meanings of 3♦/2NT. I really didn't thought about it. We try to have some meta rules and many agreements but we decided not to add conventional solutions to our systems. This is simply not where the majors leaks are for us <_<

 

Anyway, thanks for interesting discussion. I passed, my partner had:

 

AQTxx x Q9xx Txx and slam was a laydown.

[nigel_k]

What's the 2NT rebid?

[bluecalm]

What's the 2NT rebid?

 

2NT = 6+♦-3 in responder suit. 3♦ denies 3♠.

[P_Marlowe]

3♦-4♦ as invitational?? Are you sure??

I think 4♦ here as slammish is much more useful than an invite to 5♦.

 

What I am sure of is that we play it as invitational. I am not sure at all if that's standard or better :)

But than your partner would have been able to make another bid, say 4C,

as a move toward 6D. Jumping from 3D to 5D kills a lot of space, i.e. the bid

should have a very tight definition range, and assuming 5D is to play, your

partner should be pretty sure, that 5D is the limit.

Otherwise: Why bother playing a artifical system, if you are forced to guess

at the 5 level, ... without intervening opponents.

 

On a side note: I doubt, that you will win a lot, being able to stop in 4D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Anyway, thanks for interesting discussion. I passed, my partner had:

 

AQTxx x Q9xx Txx and slam was a laydown.

An alternative bid to 5D would have been a 4H splinter, of course partner

needs dream cards for slam to be good, but similar you needed dream cards.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bluecalm]

But than your partner would have been able to make another bid, say 4C,

as a move toward 6D

 

3D is limited. If he has slammish hand he always have a cuebid ♥ or ♣.

 

Jumping from 3D to 5D kills a lot of space, i.e. the bid

should have a very tight definition range, and assuming 5D is to play, your

partner should be pretty sure, that 5D is the limit.

 

That's why maybe I should've open 1♣. I have too much for 1♦ probably.

 

Otherwise: playing a artifical system, if you are forced to guess

at the 5 level

 

I don't understand this. How it is artificial system ?

1D = diamonds, 5+

1S = spades 4+

3D = invitational to game

5D = to play ?

 

I don't see how you would be any better off in 2/1 or sayc or whatever you consider "natural".

 

If you mean polish ♣ as whole it's more natural to me than any other system the same way better minor is natural to Americans and Acol is natural to English players... For me playing 2/1 or sayc or SEF is "bothering". Just keep that in mind that "natural" is very subjective thing.

 

On a side note: I doubt, that you will win a lot, being able to stop in 4D.

 

Yeah I agree. I don't defend this agreement. The problem is we try to play simple natural system and only introduce special treatments when it's really needed.

Raising partner's suit after he made limited bid is invitatinal, it's basic principle of natural bidding which applies almost everywhere and we didn't find it necessary to change it here.

Maybe (probably) you are right about 4♦ being better as slammish but then again, it's another thing to remember and we didnt' have this treatment at the time the hand was played.

[jdonn]

Your partner should have rebid 4♦, what's his rush!

[pooltuna]

Your partner should have rebid 4♦, what's his rush!

If I read the post right, he didn't want to invite. :)