ATB: Missed slam at German Open Pairs

[mgoetze]

[hv=pc=n&w=shakj5daqj96c9842&e=skq9hqt7dtcakt653&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1d(Unbalanced)p2c(Natural GF)p3s(Splinter)p3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

A spade was lead to the ace and 3NT+3 brought in 32.5%. Who should have done more?

[Hanoi5]

I'd blame West 75%. 3NT merely states values in spades while West holds Aces and a void with four small cards (the splinter could be made with a singleton).

[ggwhiz]

It's tougher to bypass 3nt at mp's but west should move.

 

Perhaps 4♥ over 3nt? I can still get out in 4nt in my partnership in a pinch.

[kenrexford]

IMO, both observations before mine have an errant analysis due to bot understanding the concept of a balanced 1♦ opening.

 

Without playing an unbalanced 1♦, Opener may feel obligated to make splinters on slightly lesser values than East would expect in this sequence. But, playing an unbalanced diamond approach, a simple raise already announces shortness. Hence,

 

1♦-2♣

3♣

 

This is a sequence where West is known to have club support and shortness. If East wants to know, he can bid 3♦ (presumably) and hear the shortness (whether the partnership bids shortness next or fragment -- either works).

 

when pener instead splinters himself, this shows EXTRAS and shortness. In other words, West shows by his 3♠ call a hand that using less effective methods would splinter and then fret over whether to bypass 3NT. One of the entire points of playing an unbalanced diamond is this very sequence.

 

So, now to East. East can obviously see that the spade K-Q are wasted horribly, but the sixth club and stiff diamond cannot be bad.

 

Therefore, I place the blame 100% with EAST, because of the SYSTEM.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Hardy Style System:

1D - 2C! ( 2/1 GF... does not deny a 4 card Major )

2D ( 1st obligation is to rebid ♦w/5+; still have the 2-level to find a 4-4 Major fit) - 3C

4C - 4D! ( Kickback when suit agreement at the 4-level )

5D! ( 5th step = 2 + void somewhere ) - 6C

[MrAce]

We see a lot of threads in forums, where one side makes splinter and pd has wasted hcps in splinter suit but slam or even grandslam is cold.

 

I believe this problem occurs due to lack of hand judgement rather than the convention itself. Don't get me wrong, i am not a splinter fan at all, but i see them as a MUST bid to define certain type of hands. If we stop seeing them as an "Asking Bid" that asks partner to move forward if he has no wasted hcps, and start using them as a "Picture Bid" that shows pd our shape and values immediately and put responsibility on him, we will encounter less of these problems.

 

Of course it has been and i am afraid always will be more attractive and easy for people to go with formulated judgements instead of looking at he bigger picture .

 

Havind said all of this, one may think i agree with Kenrexford. I disagree with him in this particular hand. Of course styles matter but as far as i know, after 2/1 GF, splinter bids do not promise any extras. Thus opener can be

 

x

Axxx

AKxx

QJxx

 

x

Kxx

AKxxx

QJxx etc etc

 

Then leaving 3 NT heaven behind at pairs can be disaster. If Splinter promised extras by agreement then i am with Ken. But with std agreements and playing pairs, i would have also bid 3 NT with East hand.

[aguahombre]

Hardy Style System:

1D - 2C! ( 2/1 GF... does not deny a 4 card Major )

2D ( 1st obligation is to rebid ♦w/5+; still have the 2-level to find a 4-4 Major fit) - 3C

4C - 4D! ( Kickback when suit agreement at the 4-level )

5D! ( 5th step = 2 + void somewhere ) - 6C

Only a couple of things I disagree with here:

 

Firstly, OP is not using a Hardy system. 1D is guaranteed unbalanced.

Secondly, 1st obligation in Hardy does not apply to unbalanced hands with 4-card club support. The club support is first obligation.

 

Agree with Ken on the idea that the unbalanced 1D style allows opener to bid 3C and partner will still know he has shortness somewhere. It would still be a matter of agreement whether a splinter would be stronger or weaker than a simple raise. I would think in this style splinter should be stronger and perhaps void-showing.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Only a couple of things I disagree with here:

...The club support is first obligation....

Why would you overlook finding a 4-4 major fit ?

... Does Responder's 2C ( GF ) guarantee a 5+ card Cl suit.... No.

... Responder's 2C does NOT deny a 4 card Major.

... Opener's 2D rebid does NOT deny a 4 card Major

... You still have the entire 2-level to find/deny a Major fit.

 

OK, if 1D guarantee's at least 5 cards Diam ( which I don't think it does: eg. 1 4 4 4),

then I would think the 1st obligation for Opener's rebid would be to show a 4 card Major.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

But, playing an unbalanced diamond approach, a simple raise already announces shortness.

 

Isn't this an unbalanced 1D opening ?

 

J x

A K

A Q J 9 x

9 x x x

[Flem72]

I'd probably be involved (1D-2C = GF) in something like

 

1D-2C

2D*-2N**

3H***-3N****

4C*****

 

* = 5+

 

** = both Ms stopped (though not usually done with a stiff)

 

*** = 4H. O is 5+D & 4H.

 

**** = "I know, I know, and my hand is good, but only 14 HCP, and you have long Ds, but not much of your hand is in Ss (and if it is, we are severely duplicated)"

 

4C = BAZOOMBA (DEI). Partner is making a slam inv; s/he is 4-5(6)-4(3) in H-D-C and may hold either a stiff or a void in S; I now have a 10 card, 78% trump suit; H values opposite my QTx, probably AK; and a good D suit opposite, along with a combined S holding with at most 1 loser. Man, I REALLY want to take control and get to our REALLY good slam, but now I have to hope we both forget that (rolling) minorwood responses are on (not my fault).

 

So now it goes (not my fault)

 

4C-4S = 2 keys for C, and the auction is completely screwed up (not my fault).

 

The brilliancy: O bids 5S = first round control and, except for the lack of a C honor, and 2nd round D control, nearly as good as I could possibly be. Right info at the wrong time, but take that, opps.

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[aguahombre]

Why would you overlook finding a 4-4 major fit ? (That can come later)

... Does Responder's 2C ( GF ) guarantee a 5+ card Cl suit.... NoYes.... Responder's 2C does NOT deny a 4 card Major. (Responder can bid a major after 3C)

... Opener's 2D rebid does NOT deny a 4 card Major (Irrelevant to this case)

... You still have the entire 2-level to find/deny a Major fit. (counterbalanced by failure to show the club fit early; probably a wash on use of space)

 

OK, if 1D guarantee's at least 5 cards Diam ( which I don't think it does: eg. 1 4 4 4),

then I would think the 1st obligation for Opener's rebid would be to show a 4 card Major.

What you think should be 1st obligation is probably workable, but would recommend calling it your style.

 

A revision might be useful: opener rebids 2H first and supports clubs later when he has Reverse values, but just supports clubs first otherwise.

[whereagles]

We see a lot of threads in forums, where one side makes splinter and pd has wasted hcps in splinter suit but slam or even grandslam is cold.

 

Well, then why not turn East's spades into xxxs and bid accordingly? Actually, now that we're to it, those 6 clubs look a lot like AKQxxx if pard has, as it's expectable, 4 card support.

 

So East's hand of

 

KQx

QTx

x

AKTxxx

 

is actually pretty equivalent to

 

xxx

QTx

x

AKQxxx

 

in which case moving to slam is quite obvious. Of course, you can always find ways to blame West if you want. (Especially if you're playing that ridiculous Hardy style lol.)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

One more point on "my style" for the 1D - 2C! ( GF) auctions.

 

2-level rebids of a Major guarantee 4 cards.

3-level rebids of a Major do not.

[kenrexford]

Isn't this an unbalanced 1D opening ?

 

J x

A K

A Q J 9 x

9 x x x

 

No. 5422 is semi-balanced.

[y66]

Agree with kenrexford's analysis.

[Cyberyeti]

Is E not allowed to bid 1♦-2♣-4♠(voidwood)-5♥(2 with, 6th trump as goosd as Q)-5N(grand slam try, most likely looking for a diamond honour)-6♣ or at pairs maybe 6N

 

OK, it doesn't find 7♣ as there's no time to find the Q/J♥, but it will bid 7 with the K♦ in the hand opposite the AQJ.

[Cascade]

Both hands can imagine slam opposite very little consistent with the bidding. Therefore their needs to be shared blame. First to East who has significant extras opposite a splinter.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

No. 5422 is semi-balanced.

Sooo, what will be OP's opening bid with:

 

x x

A K

A Q J 9 x

9 x x x

 

Can't be 1D if 1D HAS to be "unbalanced" ... ergo has to contain shortness ????

[MrAce]

Well, then why not turn East's spades into xxxs and bid accordingly? Actually, now that we're to it, those 6 clubs look a lot like AKQxxx if pard has, as it's expectable, 4 card support.

 

So East's hand of

 

KQx

QTx

x

AKTxxx

 

is actually pretty equivalent to

 

xxx

QTx

x

AKQxxx

 

in which case moving to slam is quite obvious. Of course, you can always find ways to blame West if you want. (Especially if you're playing that ridiculous Hardy style lol.)

 

What u said doesnt add up as usual because with hands xxx QTx x AK(Q)xxx we do not have an option of bidding 3 NT anyway ;) On this hand he can play 3NT and this is pairs. Missing slam wont hurt you as much as missing a 3 nt most of the time.

 

Although West has more strength than he promised and a void instead of stiff, which can be very tricky to judge a splinter bid by pd, but in which part of my post did i blame West ? I only said i would bid 3NT too by East hand. If u read first part of my post, i am not one of those who blindly dicourage himself with values in splinter suit. I would definetely make a move in imps, i just would not do it at MP, lose-win ratio does not justify it for me at mp.

[mgoetze]

2254s are opened 1♦ in our system. However, rebidding 2♦ is certainly not the right move for us, 3♠ also shows 5 diamonds (because the only shape without 5 diamonds in 1♦ is 4441, which has no club support).

 

We haven't discussed whether 3♠ should show extras. It's something I'll think about. But 1♦-2♣-3♣ could also show just the 2254 shape.

[kenrexford]

2254s are opened 1♦ in our system. However, rebidding 2♦ is certainly not the right move for us, 3♠ also shows 5 diamonds (because the only shape without 5 diamonds in 1♦ is 4441, which has no club support).

 

We haven't discussed whether 3♠ should show extras. It's something I'll think about. But 1♦-2♣-3♣ could also show just the 2254 shape.

 

Well, that seems RATHER important to the analysis. LOL Something perhaps that you should have mentioned.

 

But, even if you do include 2254 into the 1♦ opening (a style I have also played), then raising clubs seems wrong. By definition (I think now), your hand must have shortness with the sole exceptions being perhaps 2254 and 6+ diamonds. If your partner bids 2♣, you will often have a major when you do not have a club fit (and sometimes even when you do) to bid. If you do not have a major and do not have a club fit with shortness, you often have rebiddable diamonds. The sole exception is 2254. With that hand, you might bid 2NT or 3NT, or even rebid diamonds.

 

The ability to have 3♣ already show extras and shape seems hugely important when you have a pattern-limited opening like even an impurely unbalanced diamond.

[whereagles]

What u said doesnt add up as usual (...)

 

If it doesn't add up "as usual", why do you bother to reply?

[hotShot]

[hv=pc=n&w=shakj5daqj96c9842&e=skq9hqt7dtcakt653&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1d(Unbalanced)p2c(Natural GF)p3s(Splinter)p3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

A spade was lead to the ace and 3NT+3 brought in 32.5%. Who should have done more?

 

West could have 12 HCP and up to 8 loser, and opposite the possibility of this kind of junk, East has a GF. West should hear the slam bells ringing after that.

I'm not a 2/1 expert, but if 2♣ was GF why does West waste bidding space with a splinter? Both opponents have passed already, it's unlikely that they will reenter the auction again.

Actually the splinter tells opps that they (most likely) have a ♠ fit.

Would a 2♥ bid by West show ♥? East won't pass (he has forced to game), and his ♥ QT7 look much better than.

Isn't going slow after a GF a hint for extra strength?

1♦ (unbalanced) 2♣ (GF)

2♥ 2NT (♠ values)

leaving you with all of the 3 and 4 level to find out about slam.

[cloa513]

IMO, both observations before mine have an errant analysis due to bot understanding the concept of a balanced 1♦ opening.

 

Without playing an unbalanced 1♦, Opener may feel obligated to make splinters on slightly lesser values than East would expect in this sequence. But, playing an unbalanced diamond approach, a simple raise already announces shortness. Hence,

 

1♦-2♣

3♣

 

This is a sequence where West is known to have club support and shortness. If East wants to know, he can bid 3♦ (presumably) and hear the shortness (whether the partnership bids shortness next or fragment -- either works).

 

when pener instead splinters himself, this shows EXTRAS and shortness. In other words, West shows by his 3♠ call a hand that using less effective methods would splinter and then fret over whether to bypass 3NT. One of the entire points of playing an unbalanced diamond is this very sequence.

 

So, now to East. East can obviously see that the spade K-Q are wasted horribly, but the sixth club and stiff diamond cannot be bad.

 

Therefore, I place the blame 100% with EAST, because of the SYSTEM.

Indeed, why can't 4NT be for such a hand- blackwood for minors makes no sense- good top clubs incl. ace and double cover on spades. If opener has only a singleton spade and is missing an ace then 5C can escaped to.

[mikeh]

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that responder's problem here may have arisen in part because he placed opener with a stiff spade....thus he needed to have zero side losers to justify a slam.

 

I can see an argument that it can't cost to move over 3♠, but what does he bid, and how does the auction unfold? And it isn't always going to be possible (from responder's p.o.v.) to stop safely in 4N while 5♣ rates to fare poorly at mps.

 

As for West moving on......just how good a hand/suit does 2♣ promise? AQJ xxx xxx AKJx looks like 2♣ then 3N, doesn't it?

 

So I have sympathy for both players. I do think that raising 2♣ to 3♣ gets the partnership to slam, but by accident rather than by design....responder presumably bids 3♠ and opener doesn't bid 3N.

 

The fact that the OP got more than 30% suggests that most of the field had similar difficulties. If I had to blame anyone, it would be responder, but I think this is just one of those hands.....if you're 'on', you move over 3♠ and buy a great dummy.....if you're 'off', you bid 3N (and on different layouts, you do the reverse and regret it)

 

 

I understand why both hands are given.....when doing ATB, you have to post both, but it always brings out the same response from a small group of posters, who find blame so easy to assign. Give them both hands, and they bid like geniuses. Too bad for them that bridge isn't played that way :P