Hand dealt freak, strategy?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakqj65hkqjt975dc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I know some of you have specific ace asks. Responder had [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakqj65hkqjt975dc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv], if you walk me through the mechanism when responder has multiple aces, that would be great.

 

Personally, I thought a 1♠ (round of bidding) 6♥ might show this freak...

[Cascade]

Personally, I thought a 1♠ (round of bidding) 6♥ might show this freak...

Partner might raise or prefer spades at the seven level with a key ace.

 

We use 3NT as a specific ace ask:

 

4♣ = none

4♦/♥/♠ = that ace

4NT = ♣A

5♣ = two same colour

5♦ = two same rank

5♥ = two odd

 

Over 4NT to give you room you might be able to do something with 5♣ none or two and then move with 2.

[Fluffy]

with north's hand it is easy: 2♣-> 3♥->5NT

 

Sadly partner won't colaborate

[jdonn]

2♣ then 6♥ should do the trick. The problem with opening 6♥ immediately is that, in practice, it often turns out to be a hand where opener is taking a chance on slow losers in another suit (say AK KQJT98x AKJx - or so) and having the ace of hearts won't definitely be enough, but if you open 2♣ first then he is more likely to see you aren't taking any chance and he can raise with the ace.

 

There is really no point to trying to play in spades, which would just complicate matters.

[mikeh]

agree with josh

[barryallen]

2♣ then 6♥ should do the trick. The problem with opening 6♥ immediately is that, in practice, it often turns out to be a hand where opener is taking a chance on slow losers in another suit (say AK KQJT98x AKJx - or so) and having the ace of hearts won't definitely be enough, but if you open 2♣ first then he is more likely to see you aren't taking any chance and he can raise with the ace.

 

There is really no point to trying to play in spades, which would just complicate matters.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣?

[pooltuna]

2♣ then 6♥ should do the trick. The problem with opening 6♥ immediately is that, in practice, it often turns out to be a hand where opener is taking a chance on slow losers in another suit (say AK KQJT98x AKJx - or so) and having the ace of hearts won't definitely be enough, but if you open 2♣ first then he is more likely to see you aren't taking any chance and he can raise with the ace.

 

There is really no point to trying to play in spades, which would just complicate matters.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣?

you don't think the Q♦ alone is enough to make 6? The original hand Josh posted was ♠AK ♥KQJT98x ♦AKJx ♣-

The a priori odds of partner holding the Q♦ or A♥ is 55%. That alone is probably enough justification to bid 6♥ altho you still need luck with the ♦ if partner has just the A♥.

[Fluffy]

the hand would be harder if the card missing was spade ace.

 

with a minor suit ace missing, in theory you could stablish the minor as trumos, then use 5NT and bid the appropiate number of hearts, with spade ace missing the trick is a bit more confusing, not recomended.

[jdonn]

2♣ then 6♥ should do the trick. The problem with opening 6♥ immediately is that, in practice, it often turns out to be a hand where opener is taking a chance on slow losers in another suit (say AK KQJT98x AKJx - or so) and having the ace of hearts won't definitely be enough, but if you open 2♣ first then he is more likely to see you aren't taking any chance and he can raise with the ace.

 

There is really no point to trying to play in spades, which would just complicate matters.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣?

Maybe you shouldn't open 6♥ on that or maybe you should, but my point is, in practice (I bet this could even be confirmed with a bridgebrowser search) when people open a slam in a suit they don't have 12 rock solid tricks, they have a hand where they are taking a chance somewhere. If you think you can bid slowly and find either the diamond queen or a doubleton with heart support or Qxx Axx xxx Axxx then more power to you.

[jjbrr]

I feel like jdonn is right. I think a 6M opener is more gambling than a 2♣ hand followed by 6M or whatever. Obv it's hard to quantify this because of the rarity but I feel like jdonn is definitely right on average.

[Phil]

The only issue I have with Josh's strategy is that all too often with a hand like this the bidding goes:

 

2♣ - something to show one or both minors - something else - 5 minor.

 

Now 6♥ sounds like an educated shot, instead of a call asking for a heart honor.

 

If I were playing Namyats, I like 4♣ (which is less likely to get messed with) followed by 5N.

[jdonn]

And if not playing namyats? So what if they preempt you aren't worse off unless they sac in 7. I'll pay off, they don't know we have 12 tricks or two voids so it's not like they immediately know to go nuts. Really my one point is don't open 6 expecting partner to bid 7 with the ace. Anything slower is likely to work either equal or better to just opening 6 IMO.

[barryallen]

2♣ then 6♥ should do the trick. The problem with opening 6♥ immediately is that, in practice, it often turns out to be a hand where opener is taking a chance on slow losers in another suit (say AK KQJT98x AKJx - or so) and having the ace of hearts won't definitely be enough, but if you open 2♣ first then he is more likely to see you aren't taking any chance and he can raise with the ace.

 

There is really no point to trying to play in spades, which would just complicate matters.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣?

you don't think the Q♦ alone is enough to make 6? The original hand Josh posted was ♠AK ♥KQJT98x ♦AKJx ♣-

The a priori odds of partner holding the Q♦ or A♥ is 55%. That alone is probably enough justification to bid 6♥ altho you still need luck with the ♦ if partner has just the A♥.

What I think is that it is enough of a risk opening 6♥ with ♠AK ♥KQJT98x ♦AKJx ♣- if you know partner has the ♥A. To do so without knowing the position of the ♥A and ability to restrict your losers in ♦ to one, seems very brave! Especially when you have the ability to identify whether partner holds the ♥A.

 

There may well be situations where you are forced to take a punt, but you are no where near that position, so why create that position?

 

Let's assume you know partner does not have the ♥A, do you now take a punt on restricting the ♦ losers to 1 and bid on? If you have to take a blind guess on 6♥ I won't argue that point. But we are not in that position, so why deliberately create that position when it is unnecessary? You have shown the odds for one position, over looking all other positions.

[cherdanno]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

[MFA]

Is 4NT asking for specific aces not standard anymore?

[cherdanno]

Is 4NT asking for specific aces not standard anymore?

Of course it is, but there are different standards for how to reply with two aces B)

 

More seriously - I don't think it is.

[jdonn]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

I thought I said all that! But if you said it more clearly, thank you B)

 

I wouldn't risk opening 4NT undiscussed ever, but at gunpoint I think it's standard that it asks for specific aces.

[barryallen]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ?

 

What interests me is the structure you can place upon such a bid without being handled by 2♣-6♥

[cherdanno]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ?

ITS A PREEMPT TOO!

 

void KQJT-8th AK-5th void

 

Many would open 6H with that. That doesn't mean they want to be in 7 opposite the ♥A.

[gnasher]

I think it's standard for a 4NT opening to ask for specific aces. I think it's almost standard for a 5NT reply to show two aces (though some people play 5NT as ♣A and 6♣ as two aces). I've never heard of any scheme that lets you find out which two aces partner has.

[MFA]

I think it's standard for a 4NT opening to ask for specific aces.  I think it's almost standard for a 5NT reply to show two aces (though some people play 5NT as ♣A and 6♣ as two aces).  I've never heard of any scheme that lets you find out which two aces partner has.

5NT = ♣A

6♣ = colour, ♠+♣ or ♥+♦

6♦ = rank, ♠+♥ or ♦+♣

6♥ = odd, ♠+♦ or ♥+♣

[jdonn]

Pay off to - AKQJ - KQJTxxxxx when partner has spades and diamonds? Bah maybe it's worth it. :)

[barryallen]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ?

ITS A PREEMPT TOO!

 

void KQJT-8th AK-5th void

 

Many would open 6H with that. That doesn't mean they want to be in 7 opposite the ♥A.

That is workable. But why would anyone want to incorporate all the other bids mentioned into that, just does not stand up.

[gnasher]

I think it's standard for a 4NT opening to ask for specific aces.  I think it's almost standard for a 5NT reply to show two aces (though some people play 5NT as ♣A and 6♣ as two aces).  I've never heard of any scheme that lets you find out which two aces partner has.

5NT = ♣A

6♣ = colour, ♠+♣ or ♥+♦

6♦ = rank, ♠+♥ or ♦+♣

6♥ = odd, ♠+♦ or ♥+♣

Ok. now I've heard of one. :)

[jdonn]

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S.

 

So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ?

ITS A PREEMPT TOO!

 

void KQJT-8th AK-5th void

 

Many would open 6H with that. That doesn't mean they want to be in 7 opposite the ♥A.

That is workable. But why would anyone want to incorporate all the other bids mentioned into that, just does not stand up.

I don't even know what you are saying.