A hand from the Victoria Regional

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq7654h9854dc75&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2np2Hp2Sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

I assume that you will transfer to your 7 card suit, what now?

[ahydra]

5D exclusion? Though to be honest, in the absence of some superduper asking methods, you could just punt 6S since that's the most likely contract.

 

ahydra

[mikeh]

I don't generally advocate Ace asking when the answers won't tell us exactly what to bid, nor when we have two fast losers in an unbid suit, let alone 6 fast losers in 2 unbid suits.

 

However, there is virtually no chance that partner lacks a heart control given that his spade control is tenuous at best :P

 

So I transfer and exclusion. For me, that is texas: 4♥ followed by 5♦.

 

Assuming a 2 keycard response, I will bid 6♦ to let him know that we have all the relevant keycards while notionally asking for specific Kings. He is permitted to commit to grand with a solid source of tricks, and if he doesn't then we play 6♠

 

xxx AKQJ Kxx AKx (or reverse the round suits)should be all he needs to bid 7♠

 

 

Others may have elaborate methods that permit a more sophisticated auction, but given 'standard' types of agreements, this is the best I can do.

[aguahombre]

So I transfer and exclusion. For me, that is texas: 4♥ followed by 5♦.

Me, too. Side question: Is 3♥ followed by 5♦ one of those Meckwell "answer bids", or something else?

[jillybean]

duplicate question

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Side question: Is 3♥ followed by 5♦ one of those Meckwell "answer bids", or something else?

I would think the Meckwell "answer bids" apply for the 2NT open as well as for the 1NT open .

[aguahombre]

I would think the Meckwell "answer bids" apply for the 2NT open as well as for the 1NT open .

Me, too. Was just wondering if Mike used them, or something else, or the sequence DNE for him.

[rmnka447]

I'm transferring to ♠ via Texas and then cue bidding 5 ♦. That should focus pard on his rounded suit holdings which is really what you want to know about for slam.

[gszes]

hmmm if we are holding say x AKxxx xx KQxxx we would probably bid 2n 3d 3h 4c to show

the 2 suited nature of our hand and slam interest----I see no reason to not adopt the same

approach here 2n 3d 3h 3s to show 2 suits and slam interest. This will allow p to focus on

how their hand compares to ours for slam purposes. Even if p prefers hearts we can overrule

and bid spades above their preference. We can arrive at some seeing eye grands this way

xxx AKQ AKxx Axx. I am not happy using exclusion because it fails to concentrate on hearts

and it also fails to ask p if their hand is slam oriented or not for ex JT KJx AQJ AKJ

when p shows 1 do you gamble on 6 ewwww yet with JT KQJ AJx AKJ it is a good gamble.

 

bidding this way will also allow us to avoid disaster when opener has something like

JT QJT AQJT AKQx when p reailzes almost 100 % of their power is located outside

our 2 long suits and we stop in game.

 

 

 

 

[jillybean]

This was played in 6S, partners hand was xxx AKx AKxx AQJ

[billw55]

This was played in 6S, partners hand was xxx AKx AKxx AQJ

Sounds like a good contract. If matchpoints, 6NT is better obv.

[neilkaz]

This was played in 6S, partners hand was xxx AKx AKxx AQJ

I presume this was with a regular pd? What was your bidding sequence?

 

I agree with the others that this is worth a slam try. I'd Texas then bid 5♦ either as exclusion if playing that or as a cue bid if not playing exclusion.

 

Hmm.. this gets me thinking. What would Jacoby following by 5♦ be assuming Jacoby/Texas and exclusion? Perhaps this should be a ♦ cue, since all key card asking is proceeded by Texas rather than Jacoby?

[aguahombre]

Hmm.. this gets me thinking. What would Jacoby following by 5♦ be assuming Jacoby/Texas and exclusion? Perhaps this should be a ♦ cue, since all key card asking is proceeded by Texas rather than Jacoby?

Good question. Nobody else has asked that in this thread. :D

[Zelandakh]

Me, too. Side question: Is 3♥ followed by 5♦ one of those Meckwell "answer bids", or something else?

Hmm.. this gets me thinking. What would Jacoby following by 5♦ be assuming Jacoby/Texas and exclusion?

I play the jump in a new suit after transfer as a splinter and thought this was standard.

[aguahombre]

I play the jump in a new suit after transfer as a splinter and thought this was standard.

I didn't think jumps above the 4-level of the concerned major were used as splinters, but that certainly is a thought.

[mikeh]

This was played in 6S, partners hand was xxx AKx AKxx AQJ

I would upgrade this (actually I'm not sure 'upgrading' is the right term....'evaluate' is probably more accurate) as 22.

 

It has 4333 which is a mild negative but, and this is the reason I'd evaluate as 22) it has 8 controls! And the side QJ are combined, which makes them stronger. Compare this to Jxx AKx AKxx AQx: I'd count this as a good 21.

 

 

It won't make any difference: all reasonable paths lead to slam. Playing mps, I can make a case for opener correcting 6♠ to 6N. Playing imps, I can't, since playing in trump generally affords a skilled declarer more tools. There are more squeeze positions available on this kind of auction when one has a trump suit than when playing notrump, and there is no score bonus for notrump at imps.

[jillybean]

I presume this was with a regular pd? What was your bidding sequence?

 

I agree with the others that this is worth a slam try. I'd Texas then bid 5♦ either as exclusion if playing that or as a cue bid if not playing exclusion.

 

Hmm.. this gets me thinking. What would Jacoby following by 5♦ be assuming Jacoby/Texas and exclusion? Perhaps this should be a ♦ cue, since all key card asking is proceeded by Texas rather than Jacoby?

 

Unfortunately I am not at this Regional, the hand was sent to me by a friend. The auction they had was 2N 3♥ 3♠ 6♠

 

I agree with Mike and would be happy to hear a 2♣ opening.