Can you suggest a good bidding seq

[benlessard]

AJ9xx

xx

Jx

AKTx

 

 

Kx

AKQx

Axx

98xx

 

Dealer is north imps

[Fluffy]

I would hate this deal

 

First approach:

 

1♠-2♣

3♣-3NT

pass

 

 

hating the club holding east slows down.

 

Second try:

 

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♥

4♣-4NT

5♦-5♥

6♣

 

 

worried about the diamonds East makes a different move, west doesn't like to bid 4♣, but what else can he do?, this encourages east enough to move towards slam, if partner doens't have 5 clubs he has bad spades, and therefore good clubs.

[Codo]

It is close, but the nice values let me say: Yes, it is good enough for 3 ♣.

 

1♠ 2 ♣

3♣ Now I would understand a 3 NT bid, but it is a little too strong, so

3♦(Cue or control for 3 NT)

3♠ (Spade ace here)

4 ♣ (asking for min/max and KCS)

4♦ (Real min for my bidding so far)

4 NT all pass

 

Oh well big failure after a diamond lead but if the spade finesse loses, I will have company from some pairs in 3 NT.

[Fluffy]

spade ace? I think we should be looking for best game strain at the 3 level, 3♠ looks like 6-4 to me, or 5 good ones

[gnasher]

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♥

3♠-4♠

[whereagles]

I greatly dislike 2/1 systems where 1M-2m-3m can be a bad 12 up to a good 20, so I prefer to use a 2M catch-all to minimum hands:

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ 3NT

 

or

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ 2NT (nat, 16+)

3♣ 3NT

[Codo]

spade ace? I think we should be looking for best game strain at the 3 level, 3♠ looks like 6-4 to me, or 5 good ones

I agree that we should look for the best game.

But my meta agreement is that 3 Spade here shows:

 

No Heart control for NT- else 3 NT as the most likely game.

A Spade control- else 4 club or a higer bid if approb.

 

We believe that 3 Spade to deny a heart control and showing a 6 card suit would overload the other possible bid of 4 club too much.

[Simplicity]

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♥

3♠-4♠

 

Looks rather normal to me.

[phil_20686]

I would have bid this

1♠ 2c♠

2s♠ 2NT*

3♣ 3♠

4♠

 

Probably, although east has a choice when he bids 3s he could just have bid 3n with his hand but it feels kind of suity to me. Partner has 9 black suit cards and no more than 4 red suit cards so there is a chance that 4s has more play than 3N. I would never have looked at the club slam. The 4 low clubs are just too nasty and partner showed a minimum when he bid 2s.

[ONEferBRID]

AJ9xx

xx

Jx

AKTx

 

 

Kx

AKQx

Axx

98xx

 

Dealer is north imps

Boy, I hate 2C! ( 2/1 GF ) with that pathetic Cl suit.

However, I hate 2H! "less" with A K Q x ..... not being afraid to play a Moysian fit with that holding:

 

1S - 2H!

3C - 4C! ( RKC in GF auction; or 4D! kickback if you prefer )

4D ( 0 or 3 ) - 4H ( ♣Q-ask )

5C ( ain't got it ) - 6C

 

Note: the 3C rebid denies 3 cards ♥ and shows 4 cards in the red suits at most.

Responder has all 4 red card losers in dummy covered. Might be trouble ruffing

Responder's red suit losers if trumps not 3-2.

 

Also, playing Minorwood or Kickback, if you were missing a keycard, you would still find out if slam is viable with the 2-Q or 2+Q reply which would be BELOW the 5C-level.

WITH the Q, take a chance; w/o the Q, sign-off in game.

 

Using 4NT as RKC, you are commited to slam with the 2 - Q reply ( 5H ) .

[Vilgan]

Boy, I hate 2C! ( 2/1 GF ) with that pathetic Cl suit.

However, I hate 2H!  "less" with A K Q x ..... not being afraid to play a Moysian fit with that holding:

Huh? 2♣ with that kind of holding (knowing that your likely end is 3 NT) is a awesome imo. Why would we want to discourage a heart lead and encourage a club lead by bidding 2♥?

 

Our auction would probably go

 

1♠ - 2♣

3♣ - 3 NT (partner wouldn't raise clubs with 4 hearts)

all pass

 

although

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 2 NT

3♣ - 3♠

4♠

 

also makes sense. I'd assume the spade fit to be slightly better, but as we would tend to raise the minor with AKTx support I don't know that we'd ever find it.

 

3NT seems fairly normal to me. LHO could lead a heart. Or they could lead a diamond and that doesn't bother me as long as they have 4+. I have 2 spades, 3 hearts, a diamond, and likely 3 clubs on the auction. Chances exist for a 4th club or possibly an extra heart or spade on a squeeze or discarding error. Lots of other hand types might exist where 3NT would easily outscore all the other contracts while duplicating the same bidding.

[TimG]

I like this start:

 

1♠-2N, 3♣-4♣

 

though I understand few would have that available.

[mike777]

1s=2c

3c(not extrax)=3nt

p

 

 

 

2 balanced hands with 29 hcp.....

[jdonn]

This shows why it's important to have two ways to raise the minor suit response, one showing extras and one not. Or more specifically, to have the direct raise either show (my preference) or deny extras.

 

With some partners I couldn't have a particularly amazing auction. Probably the best start I could have with any partner is

 

1♠ 2♣

2♦ 2NT

3♣

 

Where opener has shown a minimum club raise and responder has shown 15+ balanced. It would probably continue 3♥ 3♠ 3NT from there.

[ONEferBRID]

I greatly dislike 2/1 systems where 1M-2m-3m can be a bad 12 up to a good 20, so I prefer to use a 2M catch-all to minimum hands:

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ 3NT

 

or

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ 2NT (nat, 16+)

3♣ 3NT

If playing 2/1 GF, then for the auctions you show:

 

1S - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

2S - 3NT = 15-17 ...picture bid

 

1S - 2C!

2S - 2NT = 12-14 or 18,19 ( if 18,19 ...will bid above 3NT next )

[Cyberyeti]

Not playing 2/1

 

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♥

4♣-4♦(RKCB)

4[♥](0/3)-4♠(Q?)

5♣(no)-? pass or 6♣

 

Basically if partner has the Q♠ you want to be in 6, if he has the J it's a coin toss, if he has neither you probably don't.

[Jlall]

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♥

3♠-4♠

Really 4S? I understand the clubs are bad, but we don't need much for slam. I would consider 4D to be the "right" bid over 3S, as responder has shown nothing extra yet and would bid 4S with Kx AKQx xxx xxxx (add a jack if this is not a GF to you).

 

In my opinion 4red is coming in spades over 3S, and if responder is coming in clubs he bids 4C. This might be more important of a distinction if you would bid 2C with 2443.

[gnasher]

Yes, changing ♠J into ♠Q makes 6♣ reasonable, so my 4♠ bid is rather feeble. I must remember to count my points.

[TimG]

Yes, changing ♠J into ♠Q makes 6♣ reasonable

What odds do you give 6♣ on the actual layout?

[gnasher]

What odds do you give 6♣ on the actual layout?

I think that the right line is approximately: win the diamond lead; draw one trump; throw a diamond on a heart; ruff a spade; cross to a trump; if necessary ruff another spade. If ♠Q falls on the second round, you can draw a second trump before playing another spade.

 

Spades not 5-1 and trumps 3-2 is 84% x 68% = 57%. However, we have to reduce that because of these risks:

- Hearts are 6-1

- Hearts are 5-2 and the heart gets ruffed by the short trumps

- The third spade gets overruffed by the short trumps

- The third spade gets ruffed in front of dummy and we misguess trumps

- The third spade gets overruffed by the long trump, but they play a heart to promote a trump

 

We get a bit back because sometimes we'll make against singleton queen of spades, a stiff trump honour offside, etc.

 

Very roughly, I think we lose about 1/3 of the 4-2 spade breaks, taking it down to about 50%. The bad heart breaks cost at least another 10%, so I'd say it's 40% or a bit less.

[TimG]

I'd say it's 40% or a bit less.

Double dummy, it's about 77%. I wonder if anyone can run this through a single dummy engine to see how often the slam makes.

 

I do not mean to dispute gnasher's numbers, I simply find it an interesting example of the difference between double dummy and single dummy since it is generally considered that slams run pretty close to double dummy results.

[Jlall]

I'd say it's 40% or a bit less.

Double dummy, it's about 77%. I wonder if anyone can run this through a single dummy engine to see how often the slam makes.

 

I do not mean to dispute gnasher's numbers, I simply find it an interesting example of the difference between double dummy and single dummy since it is generally considered that slams run pretty close to double dummy results.

You have guesses in both black suits, so obviously on this type of hand double dummy will play much better than single dummy.

[gnasher]

There's another line that I hadn't considered: win the diamond; throw a diamond on hearts; run ♣9, and then:

 

- If it wins, play three rounds of spades, ruffing. We can cope with ♣QJx and any 4-2 spade break, and also with West having ♣QJxx and 3 or 4 spades. (When West is 4-4 in the blacks, we have a crossruff ending in a trump coup.)

 

- If ♣9 loses and they force me, cash one more trump and then try to set the spades up with one ruff.

 

That's probably a bit worse with my first plan, but they seem fairly close.

[PaulLanier]

I think the issue is letting partner know of extra game-going values in case slam is biddable.

 

Playing SAYC it ought to go: 1♠-3NT. 1♠-2♥ promises five hearts. I wouldn't quarrel with 2♥ though. If opener can rebid 3NT or 4♥ then that shows about 16 pts.

 

Playing 2/1 I would prefer 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♥. This shows extras and opener can take it from there.

 

Regardless I think the final contract ought to be 3NT. I do not think 6♣ is really biddable. But I would not argue too much if it went: 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♥-3♠*-6♣.

 

* extras, suggests 2 diamond losers.

[Winstonm]

1S-2N (natural + GF)

3C-

 

From this point on there a numerous methods that may or may not get to the best contract.