5-5 minors, 13 hcp; pard opens 22-24 2NT

[TWO4BRIDGE]

IMPs

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s7h72daq764caqjt3&n=saqj2hakjdkjtck65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p2cp2d(waiting%2C%20positve)p2n(22-24)p4c(Gerber)p4s(2%20Aces)p7cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Responder realizes we are missing between 3 and 5 hcp .

Some just bid Gerber and took a flier at the grand slam when no ace was missing.

How would you handle this ?

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

One possibility is the structure from the May 2006 ACBL Bulletin :

 

2NT - 3S! = relay to 3NT

3NT - ?? then:

.......... Pass = to play;

............. ( Needed since direct 3N is major 44 )

.......... 4C = slam try in ♣ ( later versions reverse the 4C/4D attempting to "right-side" )

.......... 4D = slam try in ♦

.......... 4H = ♥ splinter, both minors

.......... 4S = ♠ splinter, both minors

 

After the 4S-splinter, I don't know the follow-ups.

 

My suggestion for ANY of the options above is for Opener to just REPLY as if RKC were "asked" .

 

For example if Responder had bid 4C ( the long minor ) , then 4D ( next step ) = 0/3 ; 4H = 1/4, etc.

 

And for the BOTH minor cases, Opener would reply 6-Ace RKC .

Responder can continue with some additional "asks", if necessary, and then place the final contract in CLUBS for "pass or correct" ... or place it in 6/7NT.

[Phil]

I play the methods mentioned in the Bulletin, so the auction would start 2N - 3♠ - 3N - 4♠.

 

Now, when opener takes preference to 5m, responder answers RKC because it makes little sense to play 5m as NF here. I disagree that opener should reply to RKC, since we need to set trump first, and we also need 4N over 4M to express poor duplication and to slow responder down.

 

In my methods it would continue 5♦....6♣ (2 w/Q). Seemingly we have have run out of room, however, 6N is safe opposite x, xx, AQxxx, Axxxx, which is all responder has advertised. So Opener can make one more try with 6♥, and I think with the club QJ, responder can safely bid 7♣ and opener converts to 7N.

[aguahombre]

deleted Edited October 8, 2011 by aguahombre

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Deleted Edited October 9, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[menggq]

Why South bid 2♦?

[the hog]

Why South bid 2♦?

 

Because Sth had a 2 suiter and decided to make a waiting bid so that she could show both suits in a more comfortable auction .

[Cyberyeti]

Because Sth had a 2 suiter and decided to make a waiting bid so that she could show both suits in a more comfortable auction .

Like 2♣-2♦-2♠-3♦-3♥ ? good luck finding your 5-3 club fit when partner's 5413.

 

If partner rebids 2N it's easy, but it's not always so.

 

2♣-3♦-3N-4♣-4♦-4♥(KC)-4♠(0/3)-5♦(signoff facing 0, but given that it's known to be 3, confirms Q♦ or would have asked)-5♥(3+K♥)-5N(interested in grand tell me more)-6♣(K♣)-7N

 

S knows he's facing A♠, AK♥, Kxx♦ or better, K♣ so provided the diamonds run he has 13 tricks in a fairly simple auction.

[han]

I play 3S as minor suit stayman. Opener bid 3NT and responder bids 4C showing 5+ clubs and 4+ diamonds. Opener cues 4H, showing 3-card club support. Now RKC can be for clubs.

 

We play the same structure after 2NT - 3C - 3D (which denies 4 hearts or 5 spades).

 

Regarding the ACBL-structure, I didn't understand Phil's comment that over 4S it makes no sense for opener's 5D to be NF. If opener cannot show a bad hand in context, what's the point of showing shortness in the first place? In that case it is better to use a cheaper bid to show 5-5 in the minors with slam interest, give up on showing shortness, and at least settle fit at a lower level.

[JLOGIC]

 

Now, when opener takes preference to 5m, responder answers RKC because it makes little sense to play 5m as NF here.

 

Huh? Why?

[Phil]

Huh? Why?

 

The idea is that we have another way to show a 5-5 hand that just wants to play game (4N over 3N) and requests opener to choose a minor. so 3♠-->4M tends to be pretty strong and once opener says he doesn't have a lot of wastage opposite responder's shortness, that we aren't playing 5m.

 

@Han - how do you show a single suited minor over 2N? I can see playing 4♣ as a diamond transfer, but how do you show clubs?

[Free]

@Han - how do you show a single suited minor over 2N? I can see playing 4♣ as a diamond transfer, but how do you show clubs?

I also play 3♠ as minor suit stayman, and the entire 4-level is for transfers: 4m is a transfer in the respective Major, 4♥ = trf ♣, 4♠ = trf ♦. Opener has 2 ways of accepting the minor transfer, and 4NT to deny interest.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Like 2♣-2♦-2♠-3♦-3♥ ? good luck finding your 5-3 club fit when partner's 5413.

 

If partner rebids 2N it's easy, but it's not always so.

 

2♣-3♦-3N-4♣-4♦-4♥(KC)-4♠(0/3)-5♦(signoff facing 0, but given that it's known to be 3, confirms Q♦ or would have asked)-5♥(3+K♥)-5N(interested in grand tell me more)-6♣(K♣)-7N

 

S knows he's facing A♠, AK♥, Kxx♦ or better, K♣ so provided the diamonds run he has 13 tricks in a fairly simple auction.

Cyber... makes a pretty good point.

 

It might be easier to unravel the suits [ EDIT: especially if Opener doesn't have the 2NT rebid after a waiting response ], when Responder bids 3D ( over 2C ) showing a 5+cards w/2 of the top 3 honors.

Edited October 10, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[Zelandakh]

I am not sure if you want how others would bid these hands or specifically how over a 2NT-type bid, so I will give both. My system opens the North hand with a strong club which makes life simpler, eg

 

1C = 15+ bal/nat or 18+ any

... - 1S = no major, GF

1N = relay, usually 18+

... - 2S = 5+clubs, 5+ diamonds

2N = relay

... - 3C = 0-1 spades

3D = relay

... - 4D = extras, 4 controls

5N = Q ask

... - 6H = CQ, DQ, no HQ

7N

 

If playing a system that opens 2NT then I also use 3S as a minor-suit slam hand but move the single-suited diamonds hand to 4C allowisng 3S to guarantee 5+ clubs.

 

2N = 22-24 (yuck!)

... - 3S = 5+ clubs, SI

4C = 3+ clubs, would decline a slam try

... - 4D = RKCB

4S = 0 or 3

... - 5D = K ask

5H = HK

... - 5N = DK?

6N = yes, but not DQ, HQ or SK

... - 7C

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I am not sure if you want how others would bid these hands or specifically how over a 2NT-type bid, so I will give both. My system opens the North hand with a strong club which makes life simpler, eg

 

1C = 15+ bal/nat or 18+ any

... - 1S = no major, GF

1N = relay, usually 18+

... - 2S = 5+clubs, 5+ diamonds

2N = relay

... - 3C = 0-1 spades

3D = relay

... - 4D = extras, 4 controls

5N = Q ask

... - 6H = CQ, DQ, no HQ

7N

 

 

Someday I'll have to buy your book on your relay system ... you always make it look so easy ... :blink:

[Zelandakh]

Someday I'll have to by your book on your relay system ... you always make it look so easy ... :blink:

Sadly the book will have to wait until I win a Bermuda Bowl - ie never. In a way it is easy for strong clubbers when set a problem like this - this is why the opps get into the auction whenever possible. There are other strong club systems out there much better than mine on these slam hands - mine tries to first find the right game and devotes few relay breaks to slamming.

 

The basis of my system though is simply symmetric relay. It may look different sometimes but it is just that the bids are rearranged a little in a way that I find more logical. Thus 1-suiters show fragments rather than shortages (which sometimes are not really shortages!). These methods have their own problem hands - nothing is perfect after all and I would not like to mislead into thinking that my system is. In this mikeh is right. I fear posts like this may make others believe I am one of those he is referring to (perhaps I am) although I do genuinely look to provide proper auctions for my methods. There is a real skill in being able to predict how a relay auction might go and thus decide how far to relay and when to break for RKCB or a Q ask. This is obviously much simpler when I have lots of time rather than under presure to bid in tempo (or at least (when I played it on bbo) a pace fast enough not to make the opps leave!).

[han]

I also play 3♠ as minor suit stayman, and the entire 4-level is for transfers: 4m is a transfer in the respective Major, 4♥ = trf ♣, 4♠ = trf ♦. Opener has 2 ways of accepting the minor transfer, and 4NT to deny interest.

 

I also play these transfers, but then we just give optional keycard responses (first step is negative, then next step can re-ask).

[Zelandakh]

Hmmmm, I wonder if this is an example for Mike's "annoying posts" thread. The combination of the timing, the wording and the type of smiley led me to believe this was an ironic post whereas Don and I have never had any negative feeling between us that I am aware of in the past so perhaps this was mistaken. In case this was genuine it is quite easy for me to construct hands where my system is at a disadvantage over standard. Take an opening hand of 18-20hcp with 5 hearts and 4 spades, and a responding hand of a good 7hcp with long clubs. In standard the bidding might start 1H - 1NT; 2S - 3C. A GF is established and both hands are described. In my system the bidding would start 1C - 1D; 1H - 1S; 2H - 3C. Now Opener does not have enough space to fully describe the hand so has to bid 3NT with some hands having 4 spades. This in turn forces 3C to deny 4 spades to avoid burying the spade fit. All compromises forced by the system preempting itself on a not desperately uncommon hand type.

 

The point is that none would ever bring such a hand to the forums and descrbe it as a problem. Hence you never get to see these awkward sequences. I think the positives I get outweigh the negatives from such hands - another player might disagree. What is clear is that relaying has some obvious advantages over natural bidding on some hands. On these my system shines, just as symmetric relay (et al) would.

 

Moving onto the relays, I can highlight the differences between my system and SR with a single example. Let us say that Opener has 18+ and Responder has 9+ with single-suited spades. This is shown by the sequence 1C - 1H; 1S - 2D. Now, after a 2H relay, 2S in SR would be high shortage and so in, whereas for me 2S shows precisely 3 hearts and 6-7 spades. Similarly 2NT would show 3 clubs, 6-7 spades and 0-2 hearts; and 3C would show 3 diamonds, 6-7 spades and 0-2 spades/clubs. Thus 6322 hands are always resolved at the 3H level but 6331 hands are assymmetric, that is not all resolved at the same level. You can think of this scheme more like natural bidding with the suits re-ordered than completely artificial. In essence it works out the same though, there are X hand types to fit in Y bidding space.

 

The last part of my scheme is what makes it more suited for "normal hands" than some other methods which will shine more on "forum hands". My relay breaks are always aimed primarily at finding the best game meaning that I cannot use a relay break to ask for controls below 3NT. The method is to count how many fragment (2-3 card) suits partner holds and order them in order longest first, highest to lowest. Then count the number of relay breaks available and assign them according to some simple rules. If there are more relay breaks than fragment suits then the remainder are natural and agree the suit. It is perhaps not 100% optimal but it is quite simple and handles hand types that are otherwise difficult in relay systems. The relay breaks above 3NT are assigned to slamming, in particular RKCB. This is effectively the same as the popular 4D end signal approach but allows the final contract to be bid directly most of the time which I find advantageous.

 

The rest is generally natural with a few gadgets thrown in to make life simpler. In short, there is really nothing of substance in my system that is not played by at least 1 expert pair around the world. I find it (much) better than standard systems like 2/1 simply because the type of judgement required for it suits my thought processes better than natural bidding. Another player might hate it for the same reason. I make no claim that the system is any better than other systems. I personally do find it much easier though once you get past the (fairly considerable) amount that you have to memorise to play it.

 

Just to finish, please accept my apology if I initially misinterpreted your post Don.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

@ Zel ... my post was positive toward you. I admire your system "from afar" ... not knowing the many alternative bids in the system ( hence my "blinking" smiley face in wonderment ) which would take up too much space in a thread... but not in a book, or booklet.

 

EDIT: You might look at mikeh's profile. There you will see that he returned to posting in September after a hiatus of about 6 months because of "personal attacks" . He apparently was bothered by his own impatience as well.

Edited October 12, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[Zelandakh]

Thanks Don. :)

 

The truth is that everyone knows that Mike is one of the best players on these forums and I find his input very valuable. Not long ago I praised one of his posts as one of the very best I had read here. Therefore I guess I would really like his input on any auctions, perhapswhen he finds something unrealistic or dishonest (whether from me or others) or best of all any differences in judgement or evaluation he would have given the information available. This is a good reason for posting the precise meanings of bids in an auction to allow others to clearly follow what is going on, even if they do not necessarily know the alternatives. In this, your scheme of posting is sometimes much more helpful as it gives all of the available responses too rather than only the one that applies to the given auction.

 

I do not know what happened before but I think there is a clear difference between "personal attacks" and "constructive criticism" even if not everyone would see it. Sometimes I cannot in the moment either but nonetheless I do welcome such input. It seems silly to come to such forums if you do not really unless you are a genuine expert that wants to help others. I would like to think that Mike falls into this category and I can understand frustration when an expert player does try to help and the recipient is unreceptive or, worse, rude because they wanted to hear a different answer.

[Trinidad]

You can make bridge as easy or complicated as you want to. The key is to recognize that 37 points make a grand (lesson 5 from the beginners course). Partner promised 22, you have 15 (13 + 2). That adds up to 37. Check that you don't miss an ace. (Use G..... or -more advanced- set clubs as trumps and ask for keys.) Bid 7NT. At the very worst it depends on a finesse for a minor suit king. Usually you will be able to claim at trick 1.

 

The complicated structure that I play:

2NT-3♠ ...-forces 3NT (To play or ST in one or both minors)

3NT-

    4♣ Both minors

        4♦ Diamonds are trump

            4♥ Kickback for 6 keys and the ♦Q

 

        4♥ Clubs are trump 0/3/6 key cards

        4♠ Clubs are trump 1/4 key cards

        4NT Clubs are trump 2/5 key cards, no ♣Q

        5♣ Clubs are trump 2/5 key cards, with ♣Q

 

    4♦ Single suiter in diamonds, sets trump

    4♥ Single suiter in clubs, sets trump: 0/3 key cards

    4♠ Single suiter in clubs, sets trump: 1/4 key cards

    4NT Single suiter in clubs, sets trump: 2/5 key cards, no ♣Q

    5♣ Single suiter in clubs, sets trump: 2/5 key cards, with ♣Q

 

Rik

[JLOGIC]

I do not know what happened before but I think there is a clear difference between "personal attacks" and "constructive criticism" even if not everyone would see it. Sometimes I cannot in the moment either but nonetheless I do welcome such input. It seems silly to come to such forums if you do not really unless you are a genuine expert that wants to help others. I would like to think that Mike falls into this category and I can understand frustration when an expert player does try to help and the recipient is unreceptive or, worse, rude because they wanted to hear a different answer.

 

I don't think this is what happened in the case of Mikeh since his main problems seemed to be with han and often me, and I think sometimes kenrexford. Luckily that's all in the past (ok, I see han and mikeh going at it a bit still sometimes, too bad :)).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

@ Trinidad ....

Thanks for your "science". I don't find it all that complicated.

I like the idea for the both-minors case to ONLY include the Q of the agreed suit for the 6 Ace-RKC.

I would suppose the Q of the other-minor could be included in the specific K-ask.