Bid these hands

[dboxley]

[hv=pc=n&w=sat6543ha4dcaqt52&e=skj97hj87dakt543c]266|100|IMPs, E deals[/hv]

[Hanoi5]

1♦-1♠

3♠-4♣

4♦-4♥

5♣-6♠

 

Also:

1♦-1♠

3♠-5♦(exclusion KC?)

5♠-6♣

7♠

 

But that's a fantasy. I think 6♠ should be good enough.

[rhm]

-----1♦

1♠ 4♣

4♦ 4♠

4NT 5♥

7♠

 

or

 

-----1♦

1♠ 4♣

5♦ 5♠ voidwood --> 1 keycard outside ♦

7♠

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Free]

Immediately voidwooding with opener is a recipe for disaster. You have a possible 3 ♥ losers and you know only about an 8 card fit. The only good thing is that you're way below 4♠.

 

I'd start:

1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)

4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)

5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)

[MrAce]

Interesting you guys suggest voidwood, but what makes the hand a good grand is ♦ A and ♦ K .

 

Anyway, i would start neither with 3♠ nor 4♣ splinter with East hand. I also don't like cueing in pd's suit with stiff or void by west.

 

1♦--1♠

4♠ or 4♦ whichever shows 6-4 shape and decent ♦ suit in your system.

[MrAce]

Immediately voidwooding with opener is a recipe for disaster. You have a possible 3 ♥ losers and you know only about an 8 card fit. The only good thing is that you're way below 4♠.

 

I'd start:

1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)

4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)

5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)

 

What would you bid if response to blacky was 5♥ ? Lets say something like KQJx x AKxxxx xx :P And even when the response is 5 NT, do you really wanna be in grand if he holds KJxx Qxx AQJTxx void. Perhaps we do but it wont be a laydown grand then :) Not likely but possible KJxx void AKJxxx xxx ?

 

I know i sound pessimistic but sometimes when u have a void and when i have a void, i wouldnt be surprised when they have a void somewhere too. So i think ♦K or ♣ K also needed to make this a decent grandslam bid. Even with 2-1 ♠, without ♦K we have a lot of work to do during the play. Heck, even with the ♦ K it is still not a grand where u claim after the lead.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&w=sat6543ha4dcaqt52&e=skj97hj87dakt543c]266|100|IMPs, E deals[/hv]

 

West  East

-          1D

1S       4D! ( 4s/6d, CWNN )

6S

[Free]

What would you bid if response to blacky was 5♥ ? Lets say something like KQJx x AKxxxx xx :P And even when the response is 5 NT, do you really wanna be in grand if he holds KJxx Qxx AQJTxx void. Perhaps we do but it wont be a laydown grand then :) Not likely but possible KJxx void AKJxxx xxx ?

The first example is possible indeed, then at least it's still on finesse so we might get away with it.

 

The second example isn't possible, that hand is not offensive enough for us (both suits contain finesses).

 

Responder looks at ♠A, so opener should have ♦AKxxxx or better to bid 4♠. This means the only danger comes from the ♣ suit, like your first example illustrates. But there's no good way to find that except bidding 6♣ after 5NT. So ok, if we want extra insurrance, we bid 6♣ first before bidding grand. If opener shows a ♥ void we can signoff in 6♠.

[rhm]

Immediately voidwooding with opener is a recipe for disaster. You have a possible 3 ♥ losers and you know only about an 8 card fit. The only good thing is that you're way below 4♠.

 

I'd start:

1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)

4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)

5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)

 

Not opener is voidwooding, responder is, by bidding 5♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Interesting you guys suggest voidwood, but what makes the hand a good grand is ♦ A and ♦ K .

And where do you suggest are opener's values for splintering on the second round?

Once opener admits to the ♠ king, it is almost impossible to construct a 4♣ splinter which will not deliver an excellent play for the grand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mtvesuvius]

Not sure where I'd land, but just blasting RKC with responder after a raise doesn't seem that unreasonable, after something like:

 

As a side note I don't think opener is strong enough for 4♦, so I would probably have something like this:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♠ - 4N

5N - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt]

 

If opener bid 4♦:

1♦ - 1♠

4♦ - 4NT [Overbid; RKC, no reason to exclude diamonds since the ♦A looks useful as well.]

5NT - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt]

 

A lot of variables here, responder could splinter after 2♠, and poor opener would be kinda stuck. Would get to 7 anyway as long as opener shows the void.

[Cyberyeti]

Does everybody consider this a routine splinter ? I'd normally want a bit more than that in the way of high cards.

 

I'd prob bid as follows: (note that in my system, 1x-1M-2N is GF unbalanced often with support so 1x-1M-4M is shape not cards, also 1♦-1♠-4♣ is specifically a void, but better than this)

 

1♦-1♠-4♠-5♣-5♦-5♥-5♠-5N-6♦-?

 

Not sure if 6 or 7 would be bid now. It seems likely partner has ♠K?xx, ♦AK?xxx(x) and 2-3 random smallish cards in the other suits. Grand may well be good but not certain.

[cherdano]

Forcing to game with opener's hand is an overbid. If partner has ♠A and ♦Q, he should already accept a game invitation, and game is still bad! It doesn't help our slam exploration either if we bid 4♣ both with a 4360 12-count and a 4351 20-count.

[Phil]

Agree with Cherdano. 3♠ is plenty with the 4360.

[mohitz]

I played this hand! Was playing with a beginner friend who judged extremely well to bid 3♠ over which i bid a boring 6♠. :)

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with Cherdano. 3♠ is plenty with the 4360.

Why, Q10xxx, xx, xx, xxxx is probably enough for game to have a decent chance.

[dboxley]

Why, Q10xxx, xx, xx, xxxx is probably enough for game to have a decent chance.

I also agree with Cherdano, especially his point that you have to have a way to differentiate between 'gambling, preemptive' splinters and real ones. With the given hand repeated club leads would make it depend on a trump split and a diamond split.

[cherdano]

Why, Q10xxx, xx, xx, xxxx is probably enough for game to have a decent chance.

There are two points in reply to that. First of all, as dboxley said, against good defense you actually need a 2-2 spade split and a 3-2 diamond split. (Club lead or heart lead and club switch.)

The second point is that obviously game will be excellent opposite most responding hands with 5 spades. But most hands with 5 spades will bid 4♠ over 3♠ anyway. And if partner has only 4 spades, he needs a couple of fitting honors for game to be good; if he passes 3♠ and has only 4 spades, then game will almost always be terrible.

[Cyberyeti]

There are two points in reply to that. First of all, as dboxley said, against good defense you actually need a 2-2 spade split and a 3-2 diamond split. (Club lead or heart lead and club switch.)

The second point is that obviously game will be excellent opposite most responding hands with 5 spades. But most hands with 5 spades will bid 4♠ over 3♠ anyway. And if partner has only 4 spades, he needs a couple of fitting honors for game to be good; if he passes 3♠ and has only 4 spades, then game will almost always be terrible.

Yes but that was a 2 count and partner will have more than that, do you expect partner to bid 4S on Axxxx, xx, xx, xxxx ? I know I don't.

 

I was fully aware of what 4♠ required on the repeated club leads, but showing it still had play.

 

Even Q10xx, xx, Qx, xxxxx is a decent game. There are to my mind just too many hands where partner will not bid 4 when it's right and will bid it when it's wrong with a load of wasted club honours. 3♠ doesn't tell partner what he needs to know to make a sensible decision.

[Fluffy]

my first though was to reproduce Free's auction, maybe not showing the void on the way since it will be undisclosed, but it is hard to be unbiased when you knwo both hands.

[cherdano]

Yes but that was a 2 count and partner will have more than that, do you expect partner to bid 4S on Axxxx, xx, xx, xxxx ? I know I don't.

This looks like an obvious game bid. Imagine some 18 hcp balanced hands opposite this hand, or a 4252 hand with 15-16 hcp.

 

Even Q10xx, xx, Qx, xxxxx is a decent game. There are to my mind just too many hands where partner will not bid 4 when it's right and will bid it when it's wrong with a load of wasted club honours. 3♠ doesn't tell partner what he needs to know to make a sensible decision.

This is irrelevant, the only question is whether on hands where partner passes 3S we are better off in 4S or 3S. A typical such hand is a hand with 4 trumps and 6-7 hcp. Opposite such a hand game will typically be terrible.

[rhm]

This looks like an obvious game bid. Imagine some 18 hcp balanced hands opposite this hand, or a 4252 hand with 15-16 hcp.

 

 

This is irrelevant, the only question is whether on hands where partner passes 3S we are better off in 4S or 3S. A typical such hand is a hand with 4 trumps and 6-7 hcp. Opposite such a hand game will typically be terrible.

 

This shows a lack of understanding about the dynamics at the Bridge table.

When you have a strong distributional hand with a low point count like here and a fit, and opponents pass throughout, you can bet that your partner will not have a minimum one level response. Your partner will never pass 3S, apart from the fact that he would not know when pass would be right. The question is not whether to bid game but when to stop in game.

When most of your strength is distributional and ♠Axxxxx,♥x,♦Qx,♣xxxx will give you excellent play not for game but slam, it is imperative that you tell your partner what is needed for slam and what is useless.

 

Those who want to be able to stop in 3♠ are in the wrong forum. There is another forum for bright beginners and intermediate Bridge players.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

This shows a lack of understanding about the dynamics at the Bridge table.

When you have a strong distributional hand with a low point count like here and a fit, and opponents pass throughout, you can bet that your partner will not have a minimum one level response. Your partner will never pass 3S, apart from the fact that he would not know when pass would be right. The question is not whether to bid game but when to stop in game.

When most of your strength is distributional and ♠Axxxxx,♥x,♦Qx,♣xxxx will give you excellent play not for game but slam, it is imperative that you tell your partner what is needed for slam and what is useless.

 

Those who want to be able to stop in 3♠ are in the wrong forum. There is another forum for bright beginners and intermediate Bridge players.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I agree with everything u say about 3♠ but splinter is almost as interesting as 3♠ bid to me. Axxx Axx xxx Axx will also love his hand after splinter, there is a good chance u may go down at 5 level. But with the original hand, 5 NT response will get u to 6 level anyway. AQxx Axx xxx Axx will you bid grand ? I think you should because u are not gonna make this 6. this makes either 5 or 7. AQTxxx Qx Jx Axx or AQTxx Qx Jx xxxx will he be able to stop b4 slam vs a splinter ? Because if u stop or get into control cue with these there are other deals that can screw u...Splinter in this hand works ok, but splinter with an AK 6th + void + 3 losers in obvious lead suit is beyond my taste. But i am probably a non bright beginner :P

 

It seems to me that your suggested auctions are totally a result of seeing both hands. Why do i think that ? You ask keycards with 4 NT and knowing that partner has ♣ ace u dont even let the guy show his ♣ void, where it could have mattered in a different hand if pd didnt hold it.

[rhm]

I agree with everything u say about 3♠ but splinter is almost as interesting as 3♠ bid to me. Axxx Axx xxx Axx will also love his hand after splinter, there is a good chance u may go down at 5 level.

After the sequence 1♦ -- 1♠ -- 4♣ in 9 out of ten cases opener longest suit will be ♦ and your ♦ holding is the worst one you can have. I admit I will probably still end up in 6♠, a bad contract but only if the defense finds the ♥ lead.

 

But with the original hand, 5 NT response will get u to 6 level anyway.

Where are we here? In an "expert" (?) forum, where suddenly everybody is happy to reach the six level? I would feel embarrassed stopping in six.

 

AQxx Axx xxx Axx will you bid grand ? I think you should because u are not gonna make this 6. this makes either 5 or 7.

No, I would be in 6♠. These 5 or 7 issues are nice in print but rarely detectable with any confidence in the bidding.

 

AQTxxx Qx Jx Axx or AQTxx Qx Jx xxxx will he be able to stop b4 slam vs a splinter ?

I think on the first one responder should bid 5♠, which conventionally asks for a control in the unbid suit, ♥. Opener passes. So I do not stop in 4♠, but I play a good contract anyway. On the second one responder should simply bid 4♠, he is simply too weak to go beyond 4♠.

 

Because if u stop or get into control cue with these there are other deals that can screw u...Splinter in this hand works ok, but splinter with an AK 6th + void + 3 losers in obvious lead suit is beyond my taste. But i am probably a non bright beginner :P

When opener splinters in response to partner's new suit bid, he does not promise a three suiter. Far more likely opener has a good ♦ suit as source of tricks. In fact if opener has the worst possible holding 4=4=4=1, he must be substantially stronger to splinter than when he has a good suit he opened in. This is not the same as splintering directly over an opening bid. In response to an opening bid, if responder has a good side suit, he first shows this, before he splinters. But splinters remain by far the best way to judge whether 2 hands fit or not. If responder holds ♠AQTx, ♥x,♦QJx, ♣Jxxxx slam is lay-down barring a first round ruff or a 5-0 trump break. No way to find this unless opener splinters.

 

It seems to me that your suggested auctions are totally a result of seeing both hands. Why do i think that ? You ask keycards with 4 NT and knowing that partner has ♣ ace u dont even let the guy show his ♣ void, where it could have mattered in a different hand if pd didnt hold it.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You need to improve your hand evaluation. I gave two possible sequences and I think you are referring to

 

1♦ 1♠

4♣ 4♥

4♠ 4NT

5♥ 7♠

 

4♣: Splinter

4♥: Control bid, interested in slam.

4♠: After the splinter I have nothing extra which justifies bypassing 4♠

4NT (RKB by responder, who holds the ♣ ace): What is wrong with that?

If you have some way to show 2 key-cards and the void in clubs over 4NT, that is fine with me.

5♥: 2 key cards.

Now if responder would hold the same hand but without the ♣ace, he would not bid 6♠ he would continue with 5NT, asking for additional features and opener would bid 6♣ showing the void and responder would then bid 7♠.

 

What is hindsight here?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Rhm's post disqualifies itself from serious discussion, but I do want to reply to a particular point: if partner always never passes our 3S bid, then it's even more obviously right to bid 3S rather than to splinter. Bidding slams does not become more accurate if you make a splinter both with a 4351 20-count and a 4360 12-count. Play a shortness asking bid over the 3S raise if you want to show shortness with hands like the one we have here, or splinter over partner's 3NT slam try, but don't overload the splinter.