BW Hand of Death comes a'callin'

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa42hj9dakqj72ca9&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=ppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Bridgeworld Hand of Death variant #1743. What is your plan playing a variant of 2/1 that does not have a specific gadget describing this hand type (ie, no multi with a strong diamond option).

 

Bonus - if you open 1♦, what do you plan on doing over a 1♠ response?

[Fluffy]

1♦ + 2NT, but I am used to sound responses and 2NT is not passed out ever (well very hardly at least).

 

But actually I am tempted to rebid 3NT, 2NT has the upside of finding 5-3 spades, but this hand is not looking for that.

[Flem72]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa42hj9dakqj72ca9&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=ppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Bridgeworld Hand of Death variant #1743. What is your plan playing a variant of 2/1 that does not have a specific gadget describing this hand type (ie, no multi with a strong diamond option).

 

Bonus - if you open 1♦, what do you plan on doing over a 1♠ response?

 

I favor a fairly natural treatment, but maybe excluded as a specific gadget: Open 1D, rebid 2 forcing K-S C, treating the 2C rebid as a reverse. Responder is required to rebid 2S with 5 and has a 2D out with any bad hand; opener's continuations can show this kind of monster. I like to play this way in p'ships that have adopted mini-splinters.

[PhilKing]

2NT works reasonably well on a value basis as long as partner does not have a good suit. For instance, opposite a 3433 you need something like:

 

♠Kxx

♥KQxx

♦xxx

♣KJx

 

to make slam cold. 2NT is a slight underbid, though.

 

Opposite:

 

♠KQTxx

♥Axx

♦xx

♣xxx

 

You will languish in game when grand is excellent.

 

Playing my way I can open 1♦ and rebid 2NT forcing (various). Partner bids 3♣ on any non-shaded response, and now I bid 3♠ showing a game-force with long diamonds and three spades. 4♥ (cue confirming spades as trumps) and RKC would follow on my second example hand.

 

Playing standard, you could sell me 1♦ followed by 2♥. If treating as balanced, I would go for 2♣ followed by whatever shows a balanced 22-23 or 23-24.

[ahydra]

Playing standard, you could sell me 1♦ followed by 2♥.

 

With a kick under the table to let partner holding 4-4 or 5-4 majors know that this isn't a real suit? :/ I get the feeling you WILL end up playing hearts on a 4-2 fit because partner will insist on them (at least my partners would).

 

I think 1D followed by 3N should show this kind of hand, though you could also open 2NT.

 

ahydra

[PhilKing]

With a kick under the table to let partner holding 4-4 or 5-4 majors know that this isn't a real suit? :/ I get the feeling you WILL end up playing hearts on a 4-2 fit because partner will insist on them (at least my partners would).

 

I think 1D followed by 3N should show this kind of hand, though you could also open 2NT.

 

ahydra

 

You will play in hearts exactly 0% of the time, unless partner makes an insufficient club bid and corrects to hearts, since you can always return to spades or no trumps.

 

Partner can't have 4-4 in the majors - he would respond One Heart, so when he raises hearts, he guarantees five or more spades. 3♠ now, sets spades as trumps for partnerships who have discussed this position (it's standard theory so I can usually do it undiscussed). A more pure example would be a 3361 hand with 16+ points.

[Finch]

Playing standard, you could sell me 1♦ followed by 2♥. If treating as balanced, I would go for 2♣ followed by whatever shows a balanced 22-23 or 23-24.

 

I really object to these multi-point upgrades for balanced hands. OK, you have some protection because partner's a passed hand, but when you show a balanced hand, partner evaluates based on combined HCP. When you are 4 HCP out you can have a nasty accident. Two hands in the last year that I can think of: 4NT-1 by us when partner upgraded an 18-count to a 2NT opening (which for us is a good 20-bad 22) and I had a void in his 6-card club suit; and 7NTx-1 against Forrester and Gold in the premier league. (Auction 2C-2D-2NT-7NT-P-P-dbl-P- P-P, comment "+100?" from partner to his screenmate before seeing the opening lead)

 

You gave KQ10xx Axx xx xxx. I give you in return KQ10xx Qxx xx Kxx. Opposite 23-24 balanced partner will just bid 6NT and get on with life. (OK, I know it might also make.)

[PhilKing]

Two hands in the last year that I can think of: 4NT-1 by us when partner upgraded an 18-count to a 2NT opening (which for us is a good 20-bad 22) and I had a void in his 6-card club suit;

 

Maybe he forgot he had a method for showing that hand after opening 1♣. Anyway, as we both play, there are solutions to this problem after opening 1♦.

 

I've just generated a few hands, and my conclusion is that for no trumps, you are right - the hand should not be upgraded to 23-24.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Need prior discussion on this one( just made it up ).

after 3 passes :

 

1D - 1S

3C! ( 18+, GF, ♣ may be artificial )

.... - 3D! ( asks )

??

a) 3H! = long ♦, ♣artificial ( can't have 4 cards ♥, would reverse : 2H over 1S )

 

b) 3S = 3 cards ♠

 

c) 3NT = ♣ real

[CSGibson]

Other variant on popular auction choices: If you open 2N, partner shows a 5-5 major suit slam try (sequence 3H-3S, 4H). Remember, though, limited by being a passed hand). You have at your disposal 6 keycard blackwood if you want it.

[Cyberyeti]

<snip>

Opposite:

 

♠KQTxx

♥Axx

♦xx

♣xxx

 

You will languish in game when grand is excellent.

 

 

Only if you play a really poor system, we break the transfer to 4♦ showing 5 good diamonds and 3 decent spades so for example Axx, KQx, AKxxx, Ax is quite likely so visualising a slam is not difficult and it should at least be investigated.

[mikeh]

I'm late to the thread, but given the system constraints (which are in fact the constraints with which I play) I opt for opening 2N.

 

The BW used to (and maybe still does) have a Problem D scenario, in which the criticism was sometimes voiced that the answers often appeared to be impacted by knowledge of partner's problematic action.

 

Thus, were we told that partner would respond to 1♦ via 1♥, I suspect a lot of people would be happy with 1♦, intending to rebid 3N.

 

Indeed, were I to be sure that partner would respond in hearts, I'd be happy with 1♦.

 

However, I still prefer 2N, because I see relatively little downside, and happen to think that this is a fair, tho flawed, assessment of the hand.

 

Most importantly, while I think we can handle just about all responses to 1♦ other than 1♠, a 1

♠ response really does pose a horrific problem. If I did open 1♦, I'd jumpshift into clubs, but with trepidation.

[PhilKing]

The Bridge World panel tends to recommend 2♥ as the rebid on this pattern (eg KQJ A2 A76542 AQ March 1994).

 

On that occasion, 2♥ finished comfortably ahead of 2NT with 3♣ a distant third. There were, more justifiably than here, many complaints over the failure to open 2NT, but that was unthinkable in the Kaplan era.

[rogerclee]

For better or worse everyone I know now just opens these hands 2N and lives with missing the slams, since honestly, they are pretty hard to bid anyway.

 

If i played an artificial method that allowed me to show a very powerful minor 1-suiter (but not quite a 2C opener) over a 1M response, then I would open 1D.

 

Edit: Deleted some nonsense.

[Vampyr]

The Bridge World panel tends to recommend 2♥ as the rebid on this pattern (eg KQJ A2 A76542 AQ March 1994).

 

Really? We bid 2♥ too, but we have a gadget (2♠ asks, 3♦ shows this hand).

[PhilKing]

Really? We bid 2♥ too, but we have a gadget (2♠ asks, 3♦ shows this hand).

 

The database never lies.