move this collection

[Fluffy]

1♠-2♥

2♠-4♣

4♥-

 

 

♠AQ10

♥QJ86543

♦A104

♣-

 

 

do you agree with the start so far?

how do you contiue now?

[Hanoi5]

5♣?

 

You got to a lucky contract there, congrats!

[shyams]

6♥.

 

Partner needs too many correct cards for a grand, and if he has a 3-card ♥ fit we should have 12 tricks much more often than not.

[mikeh]

No: Unless 2♠ promised 6+ spades, I strongly disagree with the auction. Even if it did, I still disagree, but not quite as strongly.

 

In both cases, I prefer 3♠, especially if playing any gadgets around the meaning of a subsequent 3N by partner.

 

I'd also like to know what 3♥ over 2♠ would mean...obviously this is not a possible call if it is non-forcing, but it is worth considering if it is forcing...although since I wouldn't know what to bid if partner raised, I wouldn't choose it....I use as a rule the adage that if the worst thing that you can imagine is partner raising...don't make the bid.

 

And I don't like splintering in voids when the call will usually deliver a stiff.

 

While I feel it is clear that his 4♥ delivers the A or the K, I can't tell which and I am uncertain about how best to move...this may be cold for 7; maybe just a small slam and may be a 5 or 7 hand, depending on his heart suit and, to a lesser degree, his diamonds.

 

Having got this far, with no idea how to move forward, I will bid 5♦, and raise 5♥ to 7♥; 5♠ to 6♠ etc. But I am guessing and surely we ought to have been able to avoid that? (Of course, maybe others will show that this auction need'nt lead to that much uncertainty)

[kfay]

7♥

 

ONE TIME!!!!

[jdonn]

7♥

 

ONE TIME!!!!

LOL (at 7♥ not at "one time")? Are you serious?

[kfay]

Not serious. Inside joke w/ Fluffy

[Fluffy]

they know the hand josh, I played this in vugraph

 

 

partner has

 

♠KJ9xx

♥Axx

♦xx

♣Axx

 

 

3♥ would had been forcing but I had not interest on playin hearts opposite singleton even honnor really, wanted partner to cue his honnor by himself, and only way to show the void is that I start with 4♣ right now.if partner has singleton heart, how do you plan on having a decent bidding towards slam if he bids 3NT next?

 

3♠ would be good alternative though, we play 4♠ minimum, 3NT no shortness and anything else is shortness over it.

 

I tried 5♦ but I wonder if 5♣ is a better move, at least most descriptive. I like to see mike picking 5♦ also.

 

After 5♦ partner bid 6♥ and I had no idea what he was really doing, but I wasn't gonna play 6♥ to go one off on a diamond lead when I could play 7 on a finese, or maybe totally cold. I felt this was a 5-7 hand, and kinda right I was, but obviously 6♥ even on a diamond lead offers some good chances around and partner of course could just as well have ♦Q making 6♥ excellent (and 6♠ poor).

 

Also partner could have ♥Kxx and -500 it is :S.

 

When I bid 7♥ I was very anxious to see if anyone doubles or not, both opponents actually made a little pause before passing, my heart was pounding hard :)

[Fluffy]

EDIT: nonsense

[jdonn]

Why did partner rebid 2♠ instead of 3♥?

[peachy]

I don't know your system but I think any system where one cannot support partner's major [first heart support hidden, then spade support hidden], ends up being poor methods much of the time. Of course I don't know your system or what inferences there might have been available, but since nothing was said, I assumed standard'ish . 5C now.

[Fluffy]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

[peachy]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

Five controls (A, A, K) with real support for partner and not a ridiculous main suit (KJxxx) are factors that make me not consider this hand ultra minimum even if I had the agreement that 3H cannot be bid except with more extras than this hand has. Anyway, ignore my posts. I don't know your partnership methods.

[mikeh]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I agree with this approach over a minor, but think it is not so playable after 2♥.

 

For one thing, I think most experts would play that 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3minor 3♥ would be typically Hx, which means that opener may have trouble showing Hxx in time for responder to evaluate correctly.

 

For another, once we start 1♠ 2♥ 3♥, we can usually forget 3N as a destination, thus freeing up 3N as serious or frivilous and creating more bidding space for ourselves. This is one of the two main factors that suggest treating a raise to 3♥ differently than a raise to 3minor: we will often want to bid 3N naturally after the latter, and not the former.

 

The other main reason is that we need more values, in aggregate, for 5minor than we do for 4Major.

 

Anyway...it's your method, not mine but I thought I'd proffer these thoughts for what they may be worth.

[whereagles]

I would bid 6♥ over 4. I think I can make that.

[jdonn]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I don't think any of us know this. :)

[gwnn]

I think he's right but he didn't have a balanced ultra minimum!

 

Anyway the vugraph commentators said 'lucky' at least 3 times, it was annoying, single dummy it's often a 5 or 7 hand and combine everything and 7H will be %.

[Codo]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I don't think any of us know this. :)

All who knows the french style knows this....

What I did not know so far that your Dad is a bean (aka HCPS) counter. ;)

[the hog]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I don't think any of us know this. :)

Pszkola and Kwiecken, (spelling?), played that 3H showed 4 card support not 3. They would certainly rebid 2S with this hand in their system, Strefa. They were not a bad pair, just one of the best in the world....

[655321]

Pszkola and Kwiecken, (spelling?), played that 3H showed 4 card support not 3. They would certainly rebid 2S with this hand in their system, Strefa. They were not a bad pair, just one of the best in the world....

I have reread the original post very carefully, but I haven't been able to find any reference to Pepsi's and Quicksand's system Strefa, is there any reason to suppose that Fluffy and Mr Fluffy are playing it?

[gnasher]

All who knows the french style knows this....

Though we may not admire it.

[hanp]

I'm pretty sure that Schollaardt-Wortel would bid 2S with opener's hand in a 2/1 GF context. I don't know about the pairs that play for the Dutch team.

[jdonn]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I don't think any of us know this. :blink:

Pszkola and Kwiecken, (spelling?), played that 3H showed 4 card support not 3. They would certainly rebid 2S with this hand in their system, Strefa. They were not a bad pair, just one of the best in the world....

So "a particular good pair playing a different system only raises with 4 card support" is a counter-example to "I don't think any of us knew opener needs more than a bare minimum to raise"? Interesting.

[the hog]

I am asking him right now, and he says 3♥ should be a better hand, not a balanced ultra minimum. I didn't know this yet.

I don't think any of us know this. :)

Pszkola and Kwiecken, (spelling?), played that 3H showed 4 card support not 3. They would certainly rebid 2S with this hand in their system, Strefa. They were not a bad pair, just one of the best in the world....

So "a particular good pair playing a different system only raises with 4 card support" is a counter-example to "I don't think any of us knew opener needs more than a bare minimum to raise"? Interesting.

Well, you learned something again Josh. Stay on these forums for a while and wh knows what will happen to you.