Assign the blame

[kenrexford]

Strange set of hands:

 

Opener: ♠Qxxxx ♥Axxx ♦-- ♣AKQx

Responder: ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣x

 

The auction starts a tad weird, but nonetheless...

 

Opener: 1♠

Responder: 2♣ (trust that this is possible with this hand, but comments are allowed)

[2♦ overcall at this point]

Opener: 2♥ (shows some extras, because could have opened 2♦ with 9-12 and 5♠, 4-5♥)

Responder: 2♠ (sets trumps, denies a hand pure for Jacoby 2NT or a splinter)

Opener: 3♣ (ostensibly shows two of the top trump honors, but Opener made a mistake not critical to the sequence; 3♣ shows Ace or King or queen of clubs)

Responder: 3♠ (shows one of the top three spades; denies a diamond control shortness or honor; denies any of the top three hearts)

Opener: 3NT (serious)

Responder: 4♥ (denies two of the top three clubs or the club Ace, denies a positionally dangerous control in diamonds (King without Queen), shows stiff or void in hearts

Opener: 6♠ (practical, because the grand seems remote in context, and Responder did not take control of the sequence)

 

Comments?

[cherdanno]

Lol.

[gwnn]

it's always nice to see pure natural bidding in action :)

[Hanoi5]

We bid:

 

1♠-2♦-(X)

2♥-3♠

4♣-4♥

7♠

 

Not scientific at all but I figured that since partner held nothing in Diamonds he should have good trumps and something in hearts.

 

5NT over 4♥ in my case would have worked perfectly. In your case I don't like 2♣ and don't understand much of the sequence that followed, but I guess someone had to ask for aces...

[Phil]

I'm at a loss why responder isn't allowed to bid 2N with this hand type.

 

I admit I do not understand the nuances of 2♣, but it seems the opener's 'practical' jump to 6♠ could not differentiate between responder holding ♠AKxx ♥x ♦KQxx ♣xxxx and the actual hand. And why couldn't opener cue 5♣/5♦? Responder OTOH could not take control since Opener has never shown a diamond card. Why couldn't opener have ♠Qxxxx ♥Axxx ♦xx ♣AK?

 

Ken, a long time ago I was critical of your 1M - 2♣ style, without really understanding a lot of the continuations. I play some of the things you advocate, such as the 'out-of-focus' 4M as RKC (we call it 'deadwood') but I have to point out that two players with a basic knowledge of Jacoby 2N and RKC (with void showing responses) could reach this grand in eight calls.

[MFA]

Very hard to comment on this star wars sequence when we don't know what other options were available underway.

[awm]

Well, I don't like the methods, but we will ignore that for now.

 

Responder has a hand with a ridiculous degree of trump support, which opener will never be able to visualize because the same sequence will often show substantially fewer trumps. This is going to make it very hard for opener to evaluate the correct level, since even with sufficient controls (as in the actual hand), opener may worry that he will be unable to ruff all his losing hearts (or clubs) in the dummy.

 

For this reason, I think that responder needs to take control of the auction as soon as he is certain that opener has diamonds controlled. This would be when opener bids 3NT (serious) despite responder's denying a diamond control of any sort. Rather than bid 4♥ (trying to get partner to take control and showing the heart shortage), responder should bid RKC over this.

 

Assuming the partnership has void-showing responses to RKC (which seems likely, given that they have all these complicated cuebidding agreements) they should easily reach the grand.

[ONEferBRID]

Phil writes:

...but I have to point out that two players with a basic knowledge of Jacoby 2N and RKC (with void showing responses) could reach this grand in eight calls.

No need for Void replies with this 12 call sequence after 1S - Jac2NT!:

 

Opener: ♠Qxxxx ♥Axxx ♦-- ♣AKQx

Responder: ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦Qxxxx ♣x

 

1S - Jac2NT!

3D! (Diam shortness) - 3H

3S ( waiting ) - 4C ( Opener realizes this must be shortness )

4D ( void ) - 4NT ( no need for void replies now )

5S ( 2 + sQ ) - 5NT

6C ( cK ) - 6D ( 2nd K-ask )

7C ( no hK, but cQ ) - 7S

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

Edit: Accidently edited this instead of a new post ( forgot coffee first ) .

I originally said 4 calls after Void showing replies; the above shows no need for Void showing reply.

[Phil]

Phil writes:

...but I have to point out that two players with a basic knowledge of Jacoby 2N and RKC (with void showing responses) could reach this grand in eight calls.

 

I think after 2NT! ( Jacoby, you would reach 7S in just 4 calls ).

Would you want to be in a grand opposite just Qxxxx Axxx void Axxx?

[ONEferBRID]

Ok, 6 calls.... finding 1 King .

[ggwhiz]

After jacoby 2nt, the grand is a piece of cake with or without a ♦ overcall, with or without RKC. Sometimes simple is better.

[kenrexford]

Jacoby 2NT gets a lot of support, and it works wonders with Opener's actual hand. However, what precisely would be the unwind after such magical bids as when Opener maybe doesn't have a diamond void and primes?

 

Maybe ♠9xxxx ♥Axx ♦Kx ♣Axx or ♠QJxxx ♥KQJ ♦Jx ♣KQx?

 

Deciding that a grand happens to be easily bid if 2NT is the response because of what Opener happens to have is really the worst case of post-mortem I have seen. And yet so many responses like this.

 

The point, though, was that BOTH PARTNERS were OK with the 2♣ start. How to finish was the question. This is especially the case for this partnership because 2NT is NOT AVAILABLE as JACOBY (for various reasons).

[Phil]

Jacoby 2NT gets a lot of support, and it works wonders with Opener's actual hand. However, what precisely would be the unwind after such magical bids as when Opener maybe doesn't have a diamond void and primes?

 

Maybe ♠9xxxx ♥Axx ♦Kx ♣Axx or ♠QJxxx ♥KQJ ♦Jx ♣KQx?

 

Deciding that a grand happens to be easily bid if 2NT is the response because of what Opener happens to have is really the worst case of post-mortem I have seen. And yet so many responses like this.

 

The point, though, was that BOTH PARTNERS were OK with the 2♣ start. How to finish was the question. This is especially the case for this partnership because 2NT is NOT AVAILABLE as JACOBY (for various reasons).

LOL.

 

And I'm VERY stingy with the LOL's.

[gwnn]

Suppose you get elected as a martial judge in China and you should judge this submarine commander who accidentally torpedoed a city and you got the logs of his commands in Chinese and in some exotic Asian set of coordinates. Wouldn't you reply with "I don't speak Chinese and I don't know your coordinate system but the American system with English would have been clear and this would not have happened" and would you not ask for a new judge who would maybe speak Chinese?

[655321]

Opener: 3♣ (ostensibly shows two of the top trump honors, but Opener made a mistake not critical to the sequence; 3♣ shows Ace or King or queen of clubs)

Just to pick something I can follow from the OP, isn't this a problem? Responder can deduce that opener doesn't have 2 top trumps, how does he know where opener's bidding left the tracks and took a detour?

[aguahombre]

Trying to stick with Ken's system, at the point of the 2S bid which established trump, how strong did responder have to be?

 

If, at that point 3S, instead of 2S, would have suggested more trumps and/or playing strength, then the rest would be easy, I think.

 

1S (P) 2c* (2D)

2H (P) 3S (P)

5D*(P) 5NT* (P)

6C* (P) 7S

 

5d= exclusion

5NT=2

6C=whatever it means, it would show all the KC's and interest in a Grand.

[cherdanno]

Opener: 3♣ (ostensibly shows two of the top trump honors, but Opener made a mistake not critical to the sequence; 3♣ shows Ace or King or queen of clubs)

Just to pick something I can follow from the OP, isn't this a problem? Responder can deduce that opener doesn't have 2 top trumps, how does he know where opener's bidding left the tracks and took a detour?

Also, maybe opener realized his mistake and thus preferred not to try for a grand slam with the trump ace off-side? 6♠ sounds very practical indeed under the circumstances...

[quiddity]

Responder has a game-force (2♣ was gf, wasn't it?) with at most QJ in diamonds, at most J in clubs, and a stiff/void in hearts. Doesn't he rate to have massive trump support?

[kenrexford]

My partner was the one who asked for a take on the sequence from the BBF family.

 

Here's the full analysis, for those who want it:

 

Opener: 1♠. Nothing tricky here.

 

Responder: 2♣. 2NT was "an option," but it seems to create problems when Opener shows some sort of balanced hand. Plus, the partnership tends to avoid 2NT unless primed-out (aces and spaces externally). With this hand, no choice is "right." 2♣, humorously enough, was explained to some up-and-coming players earlier in the day as "could be a stiff with a wild hand." So, this was tantalizingly obvious, in the context of the day and a sense of humor. Plus, focusing diamonds without the Ace or King is often a bad idea. So, 2♣ was endorsed as reasonable.

 

Also, Responder might have (on certain hands) bid 3♣ to show a weak splinter game call, or a 9-12 HCP "limit" hand, with which he could force game anyway. This has "some" impact.

 

Opponent: 2♦

 

Opener: 2♥. Showed extras, again, because a 2♦ opening would have shown 5♠, 4-5♥, and about 9-12 HCP.

 

Responder: 2♠ set trumps. A 3♠ call would not have been available, as it has another meaning. 4♠ is possible, but wrong on this hand. So, 2♠ is relatively non-committal as to strength or intentions.

 

Opener: 3♣. This was an admitted mistake. However, it seemed clear that this was the only mistake. Nonetheless, it showed a club card, type unknown (could be the Queen).

 

Responder: 3♠. This was a "trump cue," showing the missing top trump. However, the known "oops" meant that this was known to be contextually unclear as to whether one or two honors. However, the bypass of 3♦ meant no positional diamond control (stiff, void, Ace, or protected KQ). The bypass of 3♥ meant no heart card (no Ace, King, or Queen). The failure to sign off at 4♠ at this point meant some values, but not much on that issue. Also, the failure to splinter restricted the hand in non-relevant ways.

 

Opener: 3NT (serious). Any number of reasons. But, it promises control of diamonds (at least second-round).

 

Responder: 4♥. This showed a heart control. Having already denied a heart card, this must mean shortness. It denied a club Ace or King-Queen, by bypassing 4♣. It also denied a positionally-trouble diamond control (the King without the Queen).

 

Opener had options, including RKCB. 5♦ as "Exclusion" would not be available, as this would be redundant (because Responder already denied a diamond control). Because of this, 5♦ would likely be a simple cue (first-round diamond control) and somewhat "last train" for failure to cue something else.

 

My take was that Opener should bid 4NT. After hearing of "two without," Responder's hand almost has to have length in spades, suggesting that a grand is in play, and this would clear up that the mistake has been cured. A 5NT call, then, will make sense, almost as a contextual grand last train, as Responder has fairly well described almost everything anyway. But, Respondfer would clearly accept the grand try.

 

Opener's take was that Responder should have seized control at the 3NT call and asked for Aces. Having not done that, the grand seemed too remote to care.

 

Responder's retort was that he could have taken control, in theory, but that 4♥ cannot hurt unless Opener blasts 6♠, which seemed wrong.

[Phil]

... 2♣. 2NT was "an option," but it seems to create problems when Opener shows some sort of balanced hand. Plus, the partnership tends to avoid 2NT unless primed-out (aces and spaces externally).

It seems to me the more balanced, even if 'primed out' hands should start with 2♣.

 

However, I'm confused since earlier you said:

 

because 2NT is NOT AVAILABLE as JACOBY (for various reasons).

[kenrexford]

... 2♣.  2NT was "an option," but it seems to create problems when Opener shows some sort of balanced hand.  Plus, the partnership tends to avoid 2NT unless primed-out (aces and spaces externally).

It seems to me the more balanced, even if 'primed out' hands should start with 2♣.

 

However, I'm confused since earlier you said:

 

because 2NT is NOT AVAILABLE as JACOBY (for various reasons).

The way we play, 2♣ often caters to oddball hands.

 

Also, 2NT was unavailable because I hate 2NT as Jacoby. Therefore, it was not "available" to me because I hate it. If I ever bid it, I have a hand where a straightforward auction will be easy to handle.

 

Surely everyone would agree that this Responder's hand is sick and not capable of description. Well, we bid 2♣ with any insane hands. Partner, looking at AKQ in clubs, knew I had a doozy from my first bid.

[awm]

How does opener know that responder doesn't have a hand like AKJx Q QJxx xxxx? This seems like an obvious game force, and the appropriate controls (heart shortage, trump honors, nothing in the minors) seem to be present. How is 7♠ on a trump lead? It seems like you need spades 2-2 (since you are ruffing three hearts in dummy, two of which must be with top trumps) and clubs 3-2. A pretty lousy grand slam, and a hand like this seems more likely than six card trump support? Maybe this hand is a splinter, but maybe we don't particularly love to splinter with a stiff honor and four dead in a side suit.

 

From responder's viewpoint, opener has "serious" extras and a diamond control; it is tough to visualize a hand that doesn't have five-level safety, or a hand with the requisite controls that doesn't at least offer play for slam (seeing as ♠Qxxxx ♥Axxx ♦- ♣Axxx would open 2♦ in this style).

 

I agree with the comment that responder should take control over 3NT (serious).

[kenrexford]

How does opener know that responder doesn't have a hand like AKJx Q QJxx xxxx? This seems like an obvious game force, and the appropriate controls (heart shortage, trump honors, nothing in the minors) seem to be present. How is 7♠ on a trump lead? It seems like you need spades 2-2 (since you are ruffing three hearts in dummy, two of which must be with top trumps) and clubs 3-2. A pretty lousy grand slam, and a hand like this seems more likely than six card trump support? Maybe this hand is a splinter, but maybe we don't particularly love to splinter with a stiff honor and four dead in a side suit.

 

From responder's viewpoint, opener has "serious" extras and a diamond control; it is tough to visualize a hand that doesn't have five-level safety, or a hand with the requisite controls that doesn't at least offer play for slam (seeing as ♠Qxxxx ♥Axxx ♦- ♣Axxx would open 2♦ in this style).

 

I agree with the comment that responder should take control over 3NT (serious).

That's a classic light splinter hand. The auction would go:

 

1S-3C

3D(asking)-3H(stiff somewhere, minimum GF)

3S(where?)-4H(hearts, poor external controls)

 

So, that can be ruled out.

 

Could have the same general hand with a fifth spade, though.

[pirate22]

well getting near to the rub 1sp--p--3cl (but im not happy with that)

 

Why have we not proceeded down the path 1sp--p---4cl!Splinter

4d!--p-- 5cl

5h --p-- 7 sp

[kenrexford]

well getting near to the rub 1sp--p--3cl (but im not happy with that)

 

Why have we not proceeded down the path 1sp--p---4cl!Splinter

4d!--p-- 5cl

5h --p-- 7 sp

This was a possible sequence that I considered. I actually also considered showing the "light splinter" and then bidding past 4♠. There is no unreasonable start, IMO, as this qualifies as a freak hand.