Another long suited hand from Mini-Springold

[inquiry]

This is the second eight card suit I had within a few hands in the second quarter of a three-way match. One eight card suit towards the end of one match, the other near the beginning of the other. These hands were all human dealt, so no more complaints about computer bidding... :)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sak7hjdakqj8732c7&d=w&v=n&b=15&a=1hpp?]133|200|Other than being a solid 8 card suit (IMPS), not a lot of clever stuff here. The question is what would you bid with this hand?

 

 

 

[/hv]

[Fluffy]

depends on the kind of blackwood I play, if it is 1430 I double, if partner bids 1♠ I use blackwood.

[broze]

depends on the kind of blackwood I play, if it is 1430 I double, if partner bids 1♠ I use blackwood.

 

1S-4NT-5D-6D is to play?

 

Sorry being dense. I guess 1S-4NT-5C-6D would be to play.

Edited August 11, 2013 by broze

[Fluffy]

5♣-6♦ is to play, over 5♦ you just pass since you are off 2 aces.

[hrothgar]

I'm bidding 5♦

 

I'll give up on slam in the name of preemption and a blind lead

[chasetb]

I voted for 2♥, because specifically in this auction I now play it as either what your usual cuebid means, or a very strong one-suited hand (should be 7+). I'll be unlucky enough to receive a ♣ lead in 3NT if partner has Hearts stopped after 3♥, double gives the opponents too much room, and I see too many hands where partner will pass rather than pull it and we have slam. Two times I have had a hand like this, and both times double worked out very poorly. The first time, 6♣ VUL made while 1♠ X was only -500; the second time 4♥ comes in while 1♣ X was -300.

 

This type of auction came up when I was a Vugraph operator in Orlando, starting 1♦ - (P) - P - (2♦). West asked South if it was the Majors ('Yes'), while North told East "It's undiscussed, I'm taking it as just playing bridge". The auction went off the rails for E-W, but because of the misinformation the director changed the result (North tried saying that he would expect partner to cuebid with this kind of hand). It ended up not mattering in the end, but was interesting nontheless.

[cloa513]

I voted for 2♥, because specifically in this auction I now play it as either what your usual cuebid means, or a very strong one-suited hand (should be 7+). I'll be unlucky enough to receive a ♣ lead in 3NT if partner has Hearts stopped after 3♥, double gives the opponents too much room, and I see too many hands where partner will pass rather than pull it and we have slam. Two times I have had a hand like this, and both times double worked out very poorly. The first time, 6♣ VUL made while 1♠ X was only -500; the second time 4♥ comes in while 1♣ X was -300.

 

This type of auction came up when I was a Vugraph operator in Orlando, starting 1♦ - (P) - P - (2♦). West asked South if it was the Majors ('Yes'), while North told East "It's undiscussed, I'm taking it as just playing bridge". The auction went off the rails for E-W, but because of the misinformation the director changed the result (North tried saying that he would expect partner to cuebid with this kind of hand). It ended up not mattering in the end, but was interesting nontheless.

I can see your point but even that gives too much space- needs to be 3♥- I don't think I'd want to bypass 3NT- give partner a poor hand of ♥Qxx+ and ♣Qjx+ with nothing else of note and 3NT is a shoe in but no higher.

[gszes]

4n

 

do not see the benefit of anything other than 4n regular blackwood. We have

little defense so there is no hurry to consider something like x since p may

convert it when we are making 7.

 

Some number of hearts aims at such a tiny target its almost invisible

(p holding something like xxx QJx xxx QJxx or some such and worse

if asking for a hearty stop p may bid 3n with Qxx Axx xxx xxxx and his

lho leads a club for down some number opposite making 6.

 

There is little reason to worry about naming diamonds then pursuing slam

all p needs to do is cooperate with blackwood knowing we must have a

one suited hand to bid this way.

[PhilKing]

Since when is a 4NT overcall Blackwood? It shows minors for me, particularly since 2NT here would be natural.

[Phil]

3♥ seems kind of obvious - pulling 3N to 4♦.

[inquiry]

3♥ seems kind of obvious - pulling 3N to 4♦.

 

Your partner would not bid 3NT, he would bid 4♣ pass/correct I suspect, or the opponents may well bid something over 3[ci] like 3♠ or 4♣.

[gszes]

Since when is a 4NT overcall Blackwood? It shows minors for me, particularly since 2NT here would be natural.

 

 

hmm interesting point of view---what possible reason would I have for a 2n natural (I assume around 20 hcp?

I would find a double much easier to use there in the hope against hope p would want to leave it in.

IMO 2n serves a much better purpose there showing the minors rather than going out on a limb and forcing p

to choose at the 5 level. If I use 2n I let p choose at the 3 level and I can jump to 5 if I wish especially at

unfavorable.

 

4n ace asking allows 2n to work in an effective manner (as minors) and allows for ace asking when odd hands appear.

[broze]

hmm interesting point of view---what possible reason would I have for a 2n natural (I assume around 20 hcp?

 

I think this is pretty standard rather than being a "point of view". 2NT in the balancing chair showing 18-19; a difficult hand to show if you start with double.

[bigbenvic]

I bid 3♥ which asks for a stopper and shows a hand with a long solid suit looking for 3nt if hearts are stopped. I promise no more than a hand like Ax x AKQxxxx Jxx.

 

If partner bids 3nt and opponents are silent I will bid 4♦, the over-rule of 3NT shows slam interest in diamonds, partner is forced to cue or bid 5♦ without a first round control.

 

if partner bids 3♠ (the usual denial of a stopper) I will bid 5d suggesting I am expecting to make or go very close. the usual bid for hands similar to my minimum above is 4♦ so I show extras.

 

With one partner, with a good hand but no stop in hearts they can cue a suit at the 4 level however this must be a hand prepared to play in game in my suit no matter which suit it is!

 

If they bid again in some way I just bid 5♦ (if I'm able too!)

[MrAce]

I am in the same camp with 3♥ bidders

[aguahombre]

I will keep Hrothgar company at his campsite.

[the hog]

4n

 

do not see the benefit of anything other than 4n regular blackwood. We have

little defense so there is no hurry to consider something like x since p may

convert it when we are making 7.

 

Some number of hearts aims at such a tiny target its almost invisible

(p holding something like xxx QJx xxx QJxx or some such and worse

if asking for a hearty stop p may bid 3n with Qxx Axx xxx xxxx and his

lho leads a club for down some number opposite making 6.

 

There is little reason to worry about naming diamonds then pursuing slam

all p needs to do is cooperate with blackwood knowing we must have a

one suited hand to bid this way.

I am camping with Richard and agh as well.

 

Uh...you don't have both minors, which is what 4NT shows for 99% of the bridge playing world.

[Siegmund]

Blasting 5D is practical, but my matchpoint instincts force me to choose 3H and try for the extra 30/40/60 points anyway.

[cherdano]

I'm bidding 5♦

 

I'll give up on slam in the name of preemption and a blind lead

 

We have 18hcp, LHO has 11+, RHO 0-5. That leaves a lot of hcp unaccounted for, and we don't need many from partner to make slam ice cold. Meanwhile, I don't see many hands where the lead matters (except for the overtrick in 6♦).

[akhare]

3♥, pulling 3N to 4 or 5♦s.

[rogerclee]

I don't understand the need to be clever, I will bid 3♥ and pull 3N to 4♦ to describe my hand, a monster 1-suiter in diamonds with slam interest. Passing 3N could be right but I don't think it is percentage.

[jdeegan]

I don't understand the need to be clever, I will bid 3♥ and pull 3N to 4♦ to describe my hand, a monster 1-suiter in diamonds with slam interest. Passing 3N could be right but I don't think it is percentage.

:P I love your style, but after pard responds to 3♥, I don't think in a thousand years playing for money, marbles or chalk, I could resist bidding 5♦. Put another way, I don't think it is fair to ask pard to properly evaluate his hand over a 4♦ rebid. Consider that from our viewpoint, in principle, there are about one-quarter of the high cards that might conceivably be in partner's hand. We are only needing, specifically, the ♠ queen, an ace, six small spades and some luck (or other spade situations), some other small chances, or a defensive lapse for a made game.

[cherdano]

:P I love your style, but after pard responds to 3♥, I don't think in a thousand years playing for money, marbles or chalk, I could resist bidding 5♦. Put another way, I don't think it is fair to ask pard to properly evaluate his hand over a 4♦ rebid. Consider that from our viewpoint, in principle, there are about one-quarter of the high cards that might conceivably be in partner's hand. We are only needing, specifically, the ♠ queen, an ace, six small spades and some luck (or other spade situations), some other small chances, or a defensive lapse for a made game.

 

3♥ is forcing to game.