looking for the right bidding sequence

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq5ha843dt2caqj5&s=skj83hda64ckt8742]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

I'm looking for a realistic 2/1 or standard american-oriented bidding sequence to 7 clubs on these cards, South to start.

[aguahombre]

2/1 --1c-1H-1S-2D 3C.

 

Not likely from here we could determine that the spade jack was the key to the grand. Probably die in 6C and lose a lot to the 6NT people.

 

Just being honest, since I gave the N hand to my reg partner, and didn't mastermind from the South position.

[cloa513]

How about 3S to emphasize spades support. 4NT then using standard methods 7C should be easy.

[655321]

How about 3S to emphasize spades support. 4NT then using standard methods 7C should be easy.

Um, don't quite understand your auction except that it sounds like the final contract will be spades not clubs.

[Free]

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♦ (2♦ = 4th suit or 2-way, whatever)

3♦ - 4♣ (shows at least 4-0-3-5 ; sets trumps)

4♦ - 4♥ (cue ; cue)

4♠ - 4NT (cue ; Blacky)

5♥ - 5NT (2 ; grand slam try)

7♣

 

5NT is grand slam try (5♠ would ask Kings). South can bid it imo, though he might bid it also with ♦AQx and ♠Kxxx (in which case you still have many chances for success).

[helene_t]

Agree with Aquahombre.

 

To avoid the issue of not being able to identify ♠J, South needs to be captain, and then we would need 6-aces blackwood after having found the double fit. But I don't see how we can establish the double fit. Maybe something like Pavlichek's methods would work so that North has a forcing club raise after 1♣-1♥-1♠. But even so, if South is going to ask for keycards, since he has a void he would need some combination of 6-aces blackwood and exclusion, I don't play that it any partneship :(

[kenrexford]

Just thinking out loud...

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦

3♥???

[gwnn]

Just thinking out loud...

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦

3♥???

One of the few times when I don't agree with Ken at all, not even in an empathetic manner (pun very much intended) :( I think 3H should show a great 4315 ish hand, too strong to bid 2H directly but too weak to bid 2S.

[Fluffy]

if your system allows south to bid 3♦ instead of 3♣ as Frederick suggests you are on the right track. But finding ♠J is impossible to any system anyway so its just a gamble in the end.

[ONEferBRID]

Just thinking out loud...

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦

3♥???

My first thots were the same as Gwnn's .

 

But since all non-jump bids after a 4th Suit GF are forcing ( until game ), then a "jump bid" over a force would be a splinter by definition . But that normally ONLY applies to a jump in the 4th suit ( ♦ here ) by RESPONDER which would agree partner's ( Opener's ) last bid natural suit -- ♠ here ) :

1C - 1H

1S - 3D jump ( = splinter for Sp )

 

Since Opener's 3♥ is a jump in Responder's natural bid suit,  I guess Ken's purpose is to use it as a "self-splinter" for ♣ .   But I would think the ♣ suit should be much better -- say: A K Q x x x .

[ONEferBRID]

Just thinking out loud...

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦

3♥???

My first thots were the same as Gwnn's .

 

But since all non-jump bids after a 4th Suit GF are forcing ( until game ), then a "jump bid" over a force would be a splinter by definition . But that normally ONLY applies to a jump in the 4th suit ( ♦ here ) by RESPONDER which would agree partner's ( Opener's ) last bid natural suit -- ♠ here ) :

1C - 1H

1S - 3D jump ( = splinter for Sp )

 

Since Opener's 3♥ is a jump in Responder's natural bid suit,  I guess Ken's purpose is to use it as a "self-splinter" for ♣ .   But I would think the ♣ suit should be much better -- say: A K Q x x x .

[mikeh]

I don't see any clear route to 7♣.

 

I really don't see any point at all in using a jump in hearts, over FSF, to show a void in hearts. Remember what 2♦ means: it announces 'we are going to game, make a cheap descriptive bid and I will then tell you what denomination I am interested in'. IOW, responder may well love hearts...or spades....or clubs...or be uncertain about 3N due to location of cards or too much strength and so on. Preempting one's own constructive auction to show a shape that is probably bad for our side, while not conveying any meaningful information about hand strength or honour location sounds to me like an extremely bad idea. It's the sort of idea one comes up with when one is more concerned with 'solving' a particular hand than it is about constructing a coherent bidding method.

[whereagles]

me neither. agree with the water man :)

[rogerclee]

1C-1H

1S-2D

3C-4C

4D-4H

4S-4N

5N-?

 

Responder can see opener has something like Kxxx void Axx Kxxxxx now. DK or SJ or a seventh club make it cold, DQ makes it on a hook or 3-3 spades, ST makes the contract a favorite, etc, and if opener has the bare minimum, then it's just on 3-3 spades.

[aguahombre]

Of course, Roger's anaysis is good. I like better odds when I bid a grand, though --something like 14 or 15 tricks, which might turn into only 13 with bad breaks. Stodgy old wus, that I am. Easy David, there is half a smiley face implied.

[Jlall]

I don't like rogers auction, why 5N completely preempting all grand slam tries/queen asks/etc given that our suit is clubs when partner has bid 4H? Showing the void seems really bad, it just endplays partner into a guess, he doesn't even have a bid to tell us that we have all the keycards and we are unlimited.

 

If the auction went 4N-5H-5N(5S)-6C then we know partner has no DK. Of course this "knowledge" means we will never bid 7.

[rogerclee]

...

[dwunn1]

Use Walsh to begin with. 1!C, 1!D

[peachy]

Use Walsh to begin with. 1!C, 1!D

If this is what Walsh requires (bypass a major suit in favor of bidding a doubleton diamond), I will have to swear off Walsh forever. I am pretty sure there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what Walsh is.

[mikeh]

Use Walsh to begin with.  1!C, 1!D

If this is what Walsh requires (bypass a major suit in favor of bidding a doubleton diamond), I will have to swear off Walsh forever. I am pretty sure there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what Walsh is.

I suspect he meant transfer walsh, but even if he did, his post makes no sense (to me). After a t-walsh start, opener bids 1♠ and the auction reverts to a normal walsh sequence.....it is thereafer precisely the same as 1♣ 1♥ 1♠...at least, according to every version of T-walsh that I've seen.

[aguahombre]

Use Walsh to begin with.  1!C, 1!D

If this is what Walsh requires (bypass a major suit in favor of bidding a doubleton diamond), I will have to swear off Walsh forever. I am pretty sure there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what Walsh is.

I suspect he meant transfer walsh, but even if he did, his post makes no sense (to me). After a t-walsh start, opener bids 1♠ and the auction reverts to a normal walsh sequence.....it is thereafer precisely the same as 1♣ 1♥ 1♠...at least, according to every version of T-walsh that I've seen.

Yes, but now we know what system he likes. So the post has some value :D

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq5ha843dt2caqj5&s=skj83hda64ckt8742]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

I'm looking for a realistic 2/1 or standard american-oriented bidding sequence to 7 clubs on these cards, South to start.

1C 1H

1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf)

2N(D stopper) 3C( C support)

3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H)

3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest)

4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0)

5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ)

7C

[mikeh]

 

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AQ5 ♥ A843 ♦ T2 ♣ AQJ5 ♠ KJ83 ♥ [space] ♦ A64 ♣ KT8742

 

I'm looking for a realistic 2/1 or standard american-oriented bidding sequence to 7 clubs on these cards, South to start.

1C 1H

1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf)

2N(D stopper) 3C( C support)

3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H)

3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest)

4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0)

5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ)

7C

I would be interested in seeing how many expert players would opt for 2N at their third call with 4=0=3=6! Surely this shows either 4=2=2=5 or 4=1=3=5?

 

I would have thought that shape was a critical piece of information over 4th suit.

 

A point on which I am less clear is whether, after opener asks if responder has extras, responder shouldn't show Ax in spades as extras, since Ax with 4 chunky trumps may be all opener needs: KQxx x AKx K1098x opposite say Ax Axxxx xx AQJx

 

You may well be correct in your assumption that the 5♠ shows the Q, but I still don't call this a realistic sequence due to what I see as an oddball 2N.

[junyi_zhu]

 

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AQ5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A843 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> T2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJ5 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJ83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> A64 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KT8742 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

 

I'm looking for a realistic 2/1 or standard american-oriented bidding sequence to 7 clubs on these cards, South to start.

1C 1H

1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf)

2N(D stopper) 3C( C support)

3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H)

3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest)

4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0)

5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ)

7C

I would be interested in seeing how many expert players would opt for 2N at their third call with 4=0=3=6! Surely this shows either 4=2=2=5 or 4=1=3=5?

 

I would have thought that shape was a critical piece of information over 4th suit.

 

A point on which I am less clear is whether, after opener asks if responder has extras, responder shouldn't show Ax in spades as extras, since Ax with 4 chunky trumps may be all opener needs: KQxx x AKx K1098x opposite say Ax Axxxx xx AQJx

 

You may well be correct in your assumption that the 5♠ shows the Q, but I still don't call this a realistic sequence due to what I see as an oddball 2N.

In my regular partnership, we don't play typical 4th suit forcing. However, it makes a lot of sense to bid 2NT to show the stopper situation because it saves a lot of bidding space and make latter decisions of 3NT easier. Basically you lose nothing by bidding 2NT with a stopper, cause you have pretty much shown 9 cards of your hand. 2NT may look ugly to some, but it is a very practical bid which both shows your stopper and keep the bidding level rather low and you may still have a chance to show your shape later. This is also a good example showing that standard 4th suit gameforcing treatment isn't very effective, because you can't show both your shape and your stopper situation at low level.

[kenrexford]

Just to toss this out again, as a glutton...

 

I'm not sure why 3♥ as a self-splinter is not more attractive. Sure, it often sends a negative message, but is that a bad thing? Must all messages be positive and happy?

 

I mean, 3♥ was not intended as a "slef-splinter" in the sense of showing a slammish hand with wonderous values and a fabulous suit. That would be the positive message.

 

Rather, 3♥ as a simple shortness bid can send a due warning to partner, and it seems rather descriptive. Not a fifth spade, not a club suit that is rebiddable for some flaw reason, not a diamond suit that can be introduced, but shortness in hearts -- beware!

 

In fact, it probably would come up quite often. Any old 4-0-3-6 or 4-1-3-5 hand would probably qualify.

 

Not so much a bid to solve a problem hand. Instead, a bid never thought of but suggested by a problem hand. Problem hands do this. They suggest holes. And, 3♥ seems like a hole. It has no meaning, and no one has ever bid 3♥, so perhaps it should, and perhaps this is what it should show.