Tribulations

[nige1]

[hv=pc=e&w=sak75hq3dq964cq74&d=w&v=0&b=9&a=1dp1hp1np2dp2sp3dp3hp3sp?]133|300|

From the Scottish Trials.

If you can spare the time, please give marks out of 10 to the options that you consider, in both problems

Problem 1.

IMPs,

2/1 2♦ = GF checkback.

[/hv][hv=pc=n&w=sk85hat86dj73ct98&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c2hppdp?]133|300|

Problem 2.

IMPS

2/1

RHO's 2♥ = weak.

Your agreement here is that 2N would show ♦ with ♣ tolerance.

[/hv]

[Phil]

1. I'm not giving up on slam yet. I don't like my ♣Q, but everything else about my hand is working. Partner could have ♠Qxx ♥AKxx ♦AKxxx ♣x. I'll try 4♦, which is more forward going than 5♦. 4♦ also doesn't suggest playing 4M, and clarifies a 4♠ call over 4♥.

 

2. El Paso. I also do not like your agreement - I would rather play 2N as Lebensohl to show good / poor hands with clubs / diamonds.

[ahydra]

Not familiar with the methods used on the first one. What are 3D and 3H?

 

Pass on the second one feels like playing with fire, particularly at IMPs. I don't see why partner needs to hold 3 defensive tricks for his X (though I guess it depends on style). Unfortunately that pretty much only leaves 3C, given the description of 2NT - we just have to hope partner will continue if he had 17 semi-balanced, I guess.

 

ahydra

[nige1]

Not familiar with the methods used on the first one. What are 3D and 3H? {SNIP]

I'm told that 3♦ promises 4+ ♦ and 3♥ shows a doubleton ♥ honour (I'd be grateful if 2/1 mavens correct me if I'm wrong).

[Codo]

1 3 NT=1 4 ♦=8 4 ♠=10 But I honestly do not know what this bid shows- I am not familiar with your methods.But whether it is a proposal to play or a cuebid with diamonds as trumps- I have both.

2. pass= 7 2 ♠= 10 3 ♣= 3

At mps I would pass happily, but at teams, I try not to give away -470...

[ahydra]

I wonder what partner is getting at with 3S then. There'd be no point showing 3c support because we can't have five spades, and if he was at all interested in 3NT he would have bid it by now. It sounds to me like he doesn't have a club control and therefore I'm bidding 5D.

 

ahydra

[PhilKing]

1. 4♠, whatever it means.

 

2. 3NT, in a fit of rage for not having a "good" 3♣ available.

[Siegmund]

I'm told that 3♦ promises 4+ ♦ and 3♥ shows a doubleton ♥ honour (I'd be grateful if 2/1 mavens correct me if I'm wrong)

 

In my world, 3D sets trumps, 3H was a cuebid of a card I don't have, and I am quite worried that 3S was a return cuebid of partner's singleton or void. I would have bid 3S over 3D (assuming my 1NT bid was correct, that is.)

 

As it is, I didn't seriously consider anything other than 3NT on the first and pass on the second.

[Zelandakh]

In my world, 3♦ sets trumps, 3♥ showed a bad hand and 3♠ showed serious slam interest and asked for a spade control. That gives me an easy 4♣ bid to show a spade control and no club control. More realistically, partner is 3442 or 3451. That makes NT look like a bad bet. We also have a fairly good hand in context so some forward-going move seems called for. That leaves 4♦ and 4♠. I am worried the latter shows specifically 4♠333 in the given system. If it does not then this feels like the best bid; if it does then 4♦ is better. Overall

 

(if 4♠ suggests 4333) 4♦ 10; 4♠ 4; 5♦ 2; 3NT 1

(if not) 4♠ 10; 4♦ 8; 5♦ 2; 3NT 1

(if I do not know) 4♦ 10; 4♠ 8; 5♦ 2; 3NT 1

 

 

Hand 2 is tricky. Pass could easily be the winner but is really a pure gamble. This might be a good option against much better players but I think I would prefer to avoid it. 3NT is much the same but the upside is bigger. 2♠ might run into a 3-3 fit. 3♣ is probably the best description but completely wimpy. I am quite tempted to pretend a spade or two are diamonds and bid 2NT anyway. Presumably that at least shows a couple of values? An interesting idea would be to combine this with the direct 3NT jump idea and to bid 3NT if partner corrects to diamonds. This gives more information to the defence but as it is misinformation it is probably ok. I think I have talked myself into this, so 2NT = 10; 3♣ = 9; 3NT = 8; P = 7; 2♠ = 5. The choice obviously depends on how aggressively partner doubles and continues and could easily depend on who the opps are too. After the hand I will make a mental note to discuss this sequence with partner. I will also say that this is one of the better bidding problems posted here lately.

[paulg]

I'm told that 3♦ promises 4+ ♦ and 3♥ shows a doubleton ♥ honour (I'd be grateful if 2/1 mavens correct me if I'm wrong).

This has little to do with 2/1 since it is not a 2/1 auction. It is everything to do with checkback agreements which, in my experience, tend to vary depending on how experienced the partnership is and are not very standardised.

 

For example, on this auction you'd really like to know whether opener shows three-card heart support or four spades first? Generally I've found Scotland to be a "hearts always first country", meaning that you'd show three-card heart support on this auction (and you'd show four hearts rather than three-card spade support when responder stated with one spade), but I've no idea if this is the norm elsewhere.

 

Your comment implies that two spades denies but three hearts, but you might also like to know what a three diamonds bid over one notrump shows? Slam, sign-off, 5-card suit?

[PhilKing]

For me, once we "agree a minor" all bids below 3NT are exploring alternative strains. When partner bids 3♠, he could have something like: QJx ♥Axxx ♦AKxx ♣xx where 4♠ is somewhat better than 3NT.

 

As for slam, I very much doubt we have enough. If partner bids 5♣ over 4♠ I will sign off.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=e&w=sak75hq3dq964cq74&d=w&v=0&b=9&a=1dp1hp1np2dp2sp3dp3hp3sp?]133|300|

Problem 1.

 

IMPs,

2/1 2♦ = GF checkback.

[/hv]

 

1♥ and 2♠ were natural 4 card suits . ( ♥ could be 5 but further bidding says no. ).

3♦ was 4+ cards and the established suit.

 

If you use KenRex's style of cuebidding, 3♥ and 3♠ can show any of the top 3 controls in partner's natural bid suit. ( 3♥ wouldn't show 3 cards ... 3 cards would have been shown right after 2♦ ) .

 

The trouble is finding a ♣ Ctrl ( as most everyone has expressed concern ).

 

If 4♦ is next bid, you may have the agreement that it is Minorwood , so I'll by-pass that and bid 4♠.... showing a 2nd Ctrl bid there and denying a ♣ Ctrl or an additional ♥ Ctrl .

[nige1]

I hoped it would be obvious but I should have explained the partnership agreements

• The 1N rebid. shows a flat 12-14. With a flat hand, you suppress four-cards in an unbid major.
• Over 2♦ game-forcing check-back, opener would show 3-card ♥ support before a 4-card ♠ suit.

e.g. 1♣ (Pass) 1♥ (Pass);1♠ would show more shape -- at least 4xy5.

The question is what does 3♠ mean?

1. 1st or 2nd round control for a red-suit slam. The RKC agreement is Kickback - which may create ambiguities here!
2. Patterning out, - looking for an alternative to 5♦. (then, for example with ♠ xxxx ♥ Qx ♦ AJxx ♣AQJ you could try 3N)
3. Ambiguous - (2) is more likely and is the initial interpretation. If partner makes further strong moves, however, then (1) comes into the picture.

[Zelandakh]

The question is what does 3♠ mean?

If 4♦ only shows 4, I think this has to be patterning out.

If it shows 5+ then making control bids over it makes more sense but if we are choosing this route then I think 3♥ should either be a control bid or Frivolous.

Having it as ambiguous seems like a bad idea.

[paulg]

The question is what does 3♠ mean?

I think PhilKing's answer is right.

 

It can be a slam try too, but responder has to be able to make this completely obvious on the next round.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=e&w=sak75hq3dq964cq74&d=w&v=0&b=9&a=1dp1hp1np2dp2sp3dp3hp3sp?]133|300|

From the Scottish Trials.

If you can spare the time, please give marks out of 10 to the options that you consider, in both problems

Problem 1.

IMPs,

2/1

2♦ = GF checkback.

 

Thank you all for your help and advice.

Phil King was right about Partner's actual hand (IMO Phil is also right about the most logical meaning for his bids). 4♠ will play well.

 

[/hv][hv=pc=n&w=sk85hat86dj73ct98&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c2hppdp?]133|300|

Problem 2.

IMPS

2/1

RHO's 2♥ = weak.

Your agreement here is that 2N would show ♦ with ♣ tolerance.

 

Partner balanced on a minimal 4144. The winning bid is pass. Although 2♠ and 3♣ are OK. The experts seem to think that 2N should be Lebensohl or a scramble.

I like the suggestion: 2N = ♣ tolerance with ♦ or weak with ♦, 3♣ = Weak natural, 3♦ = Constructive with ♦

[/hv]

[P_Marlowe]

#1 4H = 10

 

#2 Pass = 10