Is this obvious?

[ArtK78]

This hand came up in a 28 board team match last night, and my partner could not get us to the grand. Playing either SAYC or 2/1 with no special methods (except that 2♥ is a negative response to 2♣), how would you handle this hand?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq9872dak964cq2&n=sakqjt7432ht3d8ca&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp]266|200[/hv]

[Hanoi5]

I find it quite hard. North has ten tricks and South has 3 with no fit. IF there is a way in your system for North to open and show those ten tricks then South has to get the pair to the grand (of course after checking all key-cards). Usually it might be 2♣-2♦-4♠-4NT-(3KC)-(asking for the trump queen)-(yes I have it)-7♠.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq9872dak964cq2&n=sakqjt7432ht3d8ca&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp2dp3sp4dp4np5hp5np6dp7sppp]300|400| ArtK78 wrote...

This hand came up in a 28 board team match last night, and my partner could not get us to the grand. Playing either SAYC or 2/1 with no special methods (except that 2♥ is a negative response to 2♣), how would you handle this hand?

 

IMO...

A simple method is to agree that a jump sets the suit and asks responder to cue-bid controls (aces and voids first).

The suit that you set must be playable opposite a void but the set-suit need not be be solid

if you adopt a simple convention that allows you to cue-bid trump honours.

The more expensive of the trump-suit or no-trump is a cue-bid of a trump honour

(the cheaper of the two denies anything convenient to cue-bid).

Effectively, The 2♣ opener can just mark-time to allow responder room to parade his wares.

With no complication about trump honours, you can enjoy a simple auction like that in the diagram :)

4♦ = ♦A

5♥ = ♥A

6♦ = ♦K

but it's hard to reach 7N with confidence :([/hv]

[ArtK78]

Maybe I was not clear in my first post. I stated that the system in use is simple - either SAYC or 2/1 with no special agreements other than 2♥ as a negative response to 2♣.

 

Sure, if you have an agreement that a jump bid sets the trump suit and requires cue bidding you will be able to get to 7♠. But if that were the agreement then this post would be a complete waste of time and effort (it may be anyway, but that is not the point).

 

At the table, I responded 2NT assuming that since 2♥ was negative that 2NT would be a heart positive. My partner did not make the same assumption. She blasted 4♠. After that I cue bid 5♦ and raised her 5♠ bid to 6♠. Not a complete success, but not a total disaster.

 

At the other table the opponents were playing control responses to 2♣. After the 5 control response, opener bid 3♠ and later bid RKCB, arriving at 7♠ without too much trouble. Their methods worked well on this hand, and it certainly beat having essentially no methods as we did (casual partnerships have their drawbacks).

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure what the other bids mean if you play 2♥ negative.

 

We would bid this 2♣-2♥(Nat +ve)-3♠-3N(no fit, max small single)-4♣(my spades are good enough, cue)-4♦-5♣-5♦-5♠-6♥-7♠

[ArtK78]

So far it appears that one needs special methods to diagnose that there are 13 tricks available on this hand. Is that the consensus? Perhaps the 2♥ negative is the root cause of the problem. If responder could make a 2♥ positive, opener could rebid 3♠, which should be a solid suit. After that, clear sailing.

[Bbradley62]

Grandma and Grandpa win this board. Although it's entirely possible that expert-level players have a different meaning for the bid, with most of my partners I would open 4N to ask for aces and upon hearing that partner has two I would ask for kings.

[ArtK78]

Grandma and Grandpa win this board. Although it's entirely possible that expert-level players have a different meaning for the bid, with most of my partners I would open 4N to ask for aces and upon hearing that partner has two I would ask for kings.

So, with 10 tricks in hand, Grandma and Grandpa would commit the hand to an 11 trick contract.

 

Yes, they win this one. But try explaining the 5♠ contract to your teammates opposite partner's xx QJxx QJx QJxx

[Cyberyeti]

So far it appears that one needs special methods to diagnose that there are 13 tricks available on this hand. Is that the consensus? Perhaps the 2♥ negative is the root cause of the problem. If responder could make a 2♥ positive, opener could rebid 3♠, which should be a solid suit. After that, clear sailing.

If 2♦ is "any full positive" the same auction works, I just wasn't sure how you were playing the other bids (what does partner do with a ♥ positive, 2♦, 2N, 3♥ ?). The jump setting the suit (or showing a solid suit) is just bridge and not a special agreement as far as I'm concerned. If your positives are defined as "ace and a king" in old acol style, you also won't have much of a problem on this board as you can commit to 11 tricks, so simple keycard sorts you out, but if partner has one ace it's less than ideal.

[jonottawa]

... my partner could not get us to the grand.

Your partner opened 2♣, you had the S hand, and it's pard's fault that you didn't get to the grand?

[nige1]

Maybe I was not clear in my first post. I stated that the system in use is simple - either SAYC or 2/1 with no special agreements other than 2♥ as a negative response to 2♣. Sure, if you have an agreement that a jump bid sets the trump suit and requires cue bidding you will be able to get to 7♠. But if that were the agreement then this post would be a complete waste of time and effort (it may be anyway, but that is not the point). and it certainly beat having essentially no methods as we did (casual partnerships have their drawbacks).

Sorry to waste your time, ArtK78,. FWIW, suit-setting jumps after 2♣ openers are fairly standard and main-stream. They date back many decades.

[Bbradley62]

So, with 10 tricks in hand, Grandma and Grandpa would commit the hand to an 11 trick contract.

 

Yes, they win this one. But try explaining the 5♠ contract to your teammates opposite partner's xx QJxx QJx QJxx

Sometimes you just have to say...

[ArtK78]

Your partner opened 2♣, you had the S hand, and it's pard's fault that you didn't get to the grand?

 

I believe that the answer to that was "YES."

 

How am I supposed to be able to tell if partner has a loser? Suppose she had AKJT9xxxx Kx --- AK? Quite frankly, this is a better hand than the one she actually had. If you held that hand, wouldn't you treat AKJT9xxxx as a solid suit? Do you want to raise to a grand holding my hand? 7♥ would be a better contract than 7♠ on that hand.

 

How about AKQJTxxxxxx -- -- Ax? 12 tricks in hand and no play for 13 tricks on a spade lead.

 

I don't like the idea of raising to a grand on speculation. And the auction gave me no assurance that I would be doing anything but raising on speculation.

[blackshoe]

If you open 2♣ and rebid 4♠ on the kind of crap many people do today (♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦ - ♣Jx), then stopping in 6 is not, imo, unreasonable (perhaps N, hearing south bid 6 and having 2 "extra" tricks, ought to take the plunge). Playing more disciplined 2♣ openings, you can expect partner to have 3 losers, and you have 3 covers, so once you verify all the key cards, 7 seems fairly routine. At least if your methods allow you to show void(s) in response to a keycard ask.

 

The way I learned "2♥ double negative", the 2♦ response shows at least a couple of Queens and is GF, 2♥ shows less than that, and 2NT shows hearts. My expert partner who explained this to me told me about the 2NT response just as I was opening my mouth to ask how we showed a positive with hearts. ;)

[ArtK78]

If you open 2♣ and rebid 4♠ on the kind of crap many people do today (♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦ - ♣Jx), then stopping in 6 is not, imo, unreasonable (perhaps N, hearing south bid 6 and having 2 "extra" tricks, ought to take the plunge). Playing more disciplined 2♣ openings, you can expect partner to have 3 losers, and you have 3 covers, so once you verify all the key cards, 7 seems fairly routine. At least if your methods allow you to show void(s) in response to a keycard ask.

 

The way I learned "2♥ double negative", the 2♦ response shows at least a couple of Queens and is GF, 2♥ shows less than that, and 2NT shows hearts. My expert partner who explained this to me told me about the 2NT response just as I was opening my mouth to ask how we showed a positive with hearts. ;)

 

I agree with everything you wrote. While I have played a number of sessions with this partner, I cannot say that our partnership is anything but unpracticed. And while I would not expect her to open 2C on ♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦ - ♣Jx, I would not be surprised if she had ♠AKQJxxxx ♥J ♦ - ♣KJTx. At least that hand has 10 tricks. So raising to 7♠ is far from clear.

 

I was surprised to learn in the post mortem that she had never heard of 2NT being used as the substitute for the 2♥ positive when using 2♥ as a negative. While I know that this is not universal, it is common, and I would not expect any experienced tournament player to show surprise at this possibility.

[Cyberyeti]

Sure, if you have an agreement that a jump bid sets the trump suit and requires cue bidding you will be able to get to 7♠. But if that were the agreement then this post would be a complete waste of time and effort (it may be anyway, but that is not the point).

 

At the table, I responded 2NT assuming that since 2♥ was negative that 2NT would be a heart positive. My partner did not make the same assumption. She blasted 4♠. After that I cue bid 5♦ and raised her 5♠ bid to 6♠. Not a complete success, but not a total disaster.

Off topic somewhat, but you have UI here if partner doesn't alert 2N. I suspect you might be lucky not to play kickback as that might be a LA as to what 2♣-2N(hearts)-4♠ means rather than the solid suit, now you'd be careering off the rails.

 

4♠ should still be solid suit here unambiguously if you don't play kickback, you're in a GF auction so why not bid 3♠ with anything else.

 

The 5♦ bid is fine, over 5♠, you should bid 6♦, it looks like partner might be afraid of 2 heart losers, 6♦ must guarantee a first round heart control to go with the ♦AK (you're making a grand slam try rather than just bidding 6♠). It's now trivial to bid 7N.

[bluecalm]

Why not just ask for aces and then for kings with N hand ?

 

If it starts 2c - 2d then 3s and we are home

if it stars 2c - 3h then agani, just ask for aces at one point or the other.

[benlessard]

once south show 2A any king will make 7nt cold so i dont see how you can miss 7 here. The only thing you must not do is keycard in H.

[Cyberyeti]

once south show 2A any king will make 7nt cold so i dont see how you can miss 7 here. The only thing you must not do is keycard in H.

Yes it's fine on this hand, BUT:

 

If partner has ♦KQ/♣KQ you're going off in 5

If partner has a red ace and the K♣ you can't make 6 if the ace is knocked out before you unblock the clubs

If partner has ♦AK you have 2 losers, if he has ♥AK you have 1

 

So it's not safe to simply ask for aces and you don't know what to do if partner doesn't show 2

[han]

I like partner's 4S "blast", this should show a solid suit. Playing with cherdano against Meckwell a couple of years ago, I remember Meckstroth "blasting" to 4H in a competitive strong club auction. Rodwell bid slam with heart shortness and afterwards complimented Meck on his "blast". Meck raised his shoulders and said he was just bidding his hand.

 

How about AKQJTxxxxxx -- -- Ax? 12 tricks in hand and no play for 13 tricks on a spade lead.

 

Thank you partner, nice hand for 4S bid.

[ArtK78]

How about AKQJTxxxxxx -- -- Ax? 12 tricks in hand and no play for 13 tricks on a spade lead.

 

Thank you partner, nice hand for 4S bid.

 

I did not mean to imply that this hand was a 4♠ call. I was merely giving another example of a hand that partner would open 2♣ and my AK - AQ in the red suits will not produce a grand slam. There are a lot of very strong hands with 12 or 13 cards in the black suits which partner could have that fit the auction and are missing a trick. Another example: AKQxxxxx x -- AKJT.

 

As I stated in a previous post, I did raise partner to slam in spades. Another poster suggested that I cue bid diamonds again over partner's 5♠ bid, implying first round heart control. That might have worked, but I don't believe that partner would have worked it out.