Proper bidding for the 7D debacle in the Vandy

[dcohio]

What would the correct sequence be using Berkowitz/Manley precision?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq94dkq873ckq63&n=sakq75hk5dj654cat&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1cp2dp]266|200[/hv]

 

1C-2D is the right start... what now?

 

Should north bid 3D (TAB)?

[straube]

What would the correct sequence be using Berkowitz/Manley precision?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq94dkq873ckq63&n=sakq75hk5dj654cat&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1cp2dp]266|200[/hv]

 

1C-2D is the right start... what now?

 

Should north bid 3D (TAB)?

 

Sorry I can't help answer that question, but what did their bids mean and how did they get fouled?

I think their sequence was 1S-2D, 3D-3H, 4C-4H, 5D-5H, 7D

 

It sounded like 4H was RKC and opener took 5H as confirmation of all the key cards. Was that right?

[dcohio]

Yep, that was what happened, 5♥ asked for kings which usually means all keys are there, so North jumped to 7 with AKQ spades as extra tricks.

 

At the other table, North bid 4D keycard and south bid 5NT showing a void and even number. North bid 6C asking about KC and south bid 7D.

 

However, both partnerships were 2/1. I think with a TAB playing precision, you'll know you only have 2/3 top honors in diamonds, and when north bids keycard and get an answer of 2+Q, you are 100% sure either ♦A or ♦K is missing, and you can avoid this mess.

[aguahombre]

Exactly. In a close match neither player who asked further after the original RKC bid was willing to give up the 2 IMPS by failing to reach 6NT. And each player's partner made the assumption that all the five keys were present.

 

We dummies would not have had the accident, because we know that further probes are looking for a grand. Sometimes it pays to be simple.

[dcohio]

Exactly. In a close match neither player who asked further after the original RKC bid was willing to give up the 2 IMPS by failing to reach 6NT. And each player's partner made the assumption that all the five keys were present.

 

We dummies would not have had the accident, because we know that further probes are looking for a grand. Sometimes it pays to be simple.

 

I understand the wanting to squeeze every imp possible out of the hand, but if partner assumes you have all 5 and bids the grand you are risking 14 to gain 2???

 

Not +EV in my book. This hand was the match if either side stops in 6D.

[straube]

I'm wondering if I really want to be searching for 6N. Seems like I need to ruff something(s).

[aguahombre]

No disagreement from me on that point, dcohio. I was relating the commentators' discussion. Strangely it DID turn out to be a 2-IMP swing, when one defender on lead with the trump ace chose to pass instead of double.

 

His logic was that the extra 50 points is Zero IMP's (since obviously :rolleyes: the contract would be different at the other table); and it was just barely possible that lefty would convert to 7NT with 13 tricks possible outside of diamonds.

 

The other West was not bashful.

[dcohio]

The other west would have been on lead vs 7NT also, south bid 5NT (even + void) in a RKCB sequence. I can forgive the west who didn't double. There is a slight chance North would convert to 7NT putting your aceless partner on lead.

[wyman]

As I understood it, the issue at the 4D-5N table was that 5N showed 2KC and a *useful* (i.e., not in partner's suit) void. The implication is that the bidder then has the diamond AK and a heart void, and all they needed for the grand was the CK. So N asked, and the grand was bid.

 

I was not as sure about L-W's bidding. If 4H was kickback, what was 5D (shouldn't it be 2+Q, which BL doesn't have)?

[Free]

What would 1♣-2♦-3♦-4♠ mean? I would think this is voidwood, which will easily avoid bidding the grand...

[bluecalm]

Should be easy in popular version of precision where 1H is 8-11 any hand.

After 1♣ - 2♦ (natural, 12+) N has basically slam force and can bypass spades and bid 3♦. S will bid 3♥ as cuebid/values and then follows RKCB and 6 or 7♦ depending no how many of A♥, AKQ♦ S possess.

I am pretty sure Cheek-Grue would be avoid this grand easily if they played NS on this hand.

[Zelandakh]

It looks easy playing relay too...

 

1S = 10-17, 5+ spades, unbal

... - 1N = INV+ relay

3C = 5 spades, 4 diamonds (5431/5422)

... - 3D = relay

3S = 5242

... - 4C = relay

4N = 6 controls

... - 5C = relay

5H = spade control, no diamond control

... - 6NT (2 + 3 + 4 + 3 = 12)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

As I understood it, the issue at the 4D-5N table was that 5N showed 2KC and a *useful* (i.e., not in partner's suit) void. The implication is that the bidder then has the diamond AK and a heart void, and all they needed for the grand was the CK. So N asked, and the grand was bid.

 

I was not as sure about L-W's bidding. If 4H was kickback, what was 5D (shouldn't it be 2+Q, which BL doesn't have)?

As stated in the other thread, 4D was RKC for Diam ( ie Minorwood ).

 

As such 5NT is NOT a reply to the first Minorwood call.

4D - 5D! = 5th step = even + void somewhere.

 

This is analogous to regular RKC:

4NT - 5NT = 5th step = even + void somewhere.

 

If he had replied as if NO void:

4D - 5C = 4th step = 2 + dQ ,

 

then surely partner would have known there was a missing key card .

[wyman]

As stated in the other thread, 4D was RKC for Diam ( ie Minorwood ).

 

As such 5NT is NOT a reply to the first Minorwood call.

4D - 5D! = 5th step = even + void somewhere.

 

This is analogous to regular RKC:

4NT - 5NT = 5th step = even + void somewhere.

 

If he had replied as if NO void:

4D - 5C = 4th step = 2 + dQ ,

 

then surely partner would have known there was a missing key card .

 

Ok. What was 5N then?

 

Keeping with counting steps, was 5N showing an odd number of keycards and a heart void? (a la 4N-6H) This would be strange.

Are you saying that 5N was anti-systemic?

[kenrexford]

Not sure what happened, but I cannot imagine how 2/1 is at fault. I have tried several permutations of 2/1 sequences in my head and I never run into any problem. Bad bidding in any system will often result in ridiculous results.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm sure it'll be in Under Further Review within the next week.

[655321]

I have tried several permutations of 2/1 sequences in my head and I never run into any problem. Bad bidding in any system will often result in ridiculous results.

 

Yes, and probably each of the four players involved can also think of many sequences to avoid 7♦. The thing about bridge though, bad auctions are more likely to occur when two people, each seeing just their own hand, are bidding. When one person looking at both hands creates a bidding sequence, it is amazing how rarely he has a stuffup!

[kenrexford]

Yes, and probably each of the four players involved can also think of many sequences to avoid 7♦. The thing about bridge though, bad auctions are more likely to occur when two people, each seeing just their own hand, are bidding. When one person looking at both hands creates a bidding sequence, it is amazing how rarely he has a stuffup!

 

At the actual table, I find that bidding a grand slam off the Ace of trumps does not occur too often, even when I am looking at just one hand, unless one of us makes a systemic mistake. System is not something subject to the whims of judgment, and thus it cannot be coached by unfair advantage like seeing both hands. If your "system" is heavily governed by "judgment," then obviously the results could be different. For instance, "a useful void" is a systemic concept that is governed by judgment and reading the auction. However, if you do not show a "useful void" unless partner has denied a control in that suit, for instance, or ever for that matter, then that judgment call error is not part of the analysis and "peeking" has no impact.

 

Granted, some auctions always rely on judgment, and peeking can influence this. However, if definition tells you that you are missing a necessary key card, neither judgment nor peeking has any particular advantage in the challenge to avoid a grand.

[Fluffy]

what's TAB?

[gwnn]

A button between caps lock and the ~ sign.

 

or Trump Asking Bid, with responses like 012123 or some such, as follows:

0/3 honours

1/3 honours and 5 cards

2/3 honours and 5 cards

3/3 honours and 5 cards (or also 6?)

1/3 honours and 6 cards

2/3 honours and 6 cards

[bluecalm]

Btw, to original question:

 

1♣ 2♦

2♠ 2NT

3♦ 4♣

4NT - w/e

6 or 7D depending on how many aces we have.

 

In Berkowitz/Manley precision you have to bid 2♠ after 2♦ because we are still no in SI+ zone so we can't afford losing spade suit. After that it's natural and N can count 13 tricks if aces are not missing.

This is very simple hand. I suspect the players were tired and mindslipped somewhere in their system.

[dcohio]

A button between caps lock and the ~ sign.

 

or Trump Asking Bid, with responses like 012123 or some such, as follows:

0/3 honours

1/3 honours and 5 cards

2/3 honours and 5 cards

3/3 honours and 5 cards (or also 6?)

1/3 honours and 6 cards

2/3 honours and 6 cards

 

Close

 

5(6) card suit 0/3 top honors

5 card suit 1/3

5 card suit 2/3

6 card suit 1/3

6 card suit 2/3

5(6) card suit 3/3

[bluecalm]

In Delmonte - Bakhshi sequence:

 

1♠ 2♦

4♦ 5NT

6♣ 7♦

 

(4d was keycard)

I guess 5NT shows even number of keycard and a void. Then Delmonte wanted to ask about Qd but partner though it's about kings or grand invite. That's my guess about their sequence.

 

In Levin-Weinstein sequence I am very curious what went wrong but I suppose they didn't discuss kickback enough (another argument that kickback is not worth it at all, they will have to play 50 more years to make up this misunderstanding by applying kickback).

[gwnn]

Close

 

5(6) card suit 0/3 top honors

5 card suit 1/3

5 card suit 2/3

6 card suit 1/3

6 card suit 2/3

5(6) card suit 3/3

oh yes. I wrote 012123 but then wrote a wrong explanation :)

[Phil]

Weinstein published his email exchange with Levin on bridgewinners this morning. It gives you a lot of perspective on how top partnerships handle these disasters at the table and later.

 

My take is that the 1st five calls in Levin's Weisntein's are automatic and the skip of 3♠ does not deny the ♠A. Over 4♣, I think 5♠ is now unambiguously EKCB.

 

It appears Ish/Bahkshi had a misunderstanding about the meaning of 5N and what constitutes a useful void (if they even spoke about it). I also hate 4♦ here; why is this hand needing to take control?