4cM question

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&e=sa974ha973da76c98&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c(4%2B%20clubs)p1hp4hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Favourable. Interested in the bidding at both MPs and IMPs. Do you try for slam?

[eagles123]

sure I make a try partners shown a good hand and we have three aces

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&e=sa974ha973da76c98&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c(4%2B%20clubs)p1hp4hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Favourable. Interested in the bidding at both MPs and IMPs. Do you try for slam?

 

Couple questions

 

1. What would partner open with a 3=4=2=4 shape?

2. What does a 2NT opener show?

[Jinksy]

1. Good question! This came via email from a friend, so I don't actually know. They're fairly old school, so I would guess 1m, but will get back to you if he replies. Does it affect your decision? I'm in two minds. With 5 clubs we have a better chance of setting one up with a ruff, but P presumably will have taken account of that in his bidding - for eg, xx KQxx xx AKQJx looks almost a 4♥ bid to me, but xx KQJx xxx AKQJ is nowhere near.

 

2. Probably 20-22. If not, 20-21.

[gszes]

No matter what kind of reasonable 4h bid P has we are close to slam. We might need to also consider opener did not splinter. If we are to go to slam it is up to us. That means pretty much anything other than 4n key card (hopefully) will get a negative reply from p since they are missing at least 3 aces (not to mention maybe lacking in side suit controls QJ KQJx xx AKQJx). You will probably not be able to ever reach 7 but it would be tough for partner also because that 4h bid takes up a ton of space.

[rmnka447]

I agree that the hand is enough for slam exploration. But I don't think that with this hand you can get enough key card information to know if slam is right. It seems like it will be easier to describe this hand holding to partner than vice versa. So, I'll start with a 4 ♠ cue and let partner decide how to continue.

[Jinksy]

I find it about equally easy to construct hands where slam is good (eg xx KQTx xx AKQJx) as where we don't have five-level safety (KQx Qxxx KJ AKJx), and can't see any intuitive way to decide which is more likely.

[Cyberyeti]

I find it about equally easy to construct hands where slam is good (eg xx KQTx xx AKQJx) as where we don't have five-level safety (KQx Qxxx KJ AKJx), and can't see any intuitive way to decide which is more likely.

 

That's a pretty horrible 19 if you subscribe to the "invite conservatively, accept aggressively" school I'd consider bidding only 3♥, partner can have a more than decent hand and game can still be against the odds.

 

Also what do they play 1♣-1♥-4♣ as, some people play it as a good 2425.

[Jinksy]

That's a pretty horrible 19 if you subscribe to the "invite conservatively, accept aggressively" school I'd consider bidding only 3♥, partner can have a more than decent hand and game can still be against the odds.

 

You can shove in the JS, QD and QD to the same effect - the point is there's plenty of room for P to have poor trumps (or average trumps and other holes outside).

 

This is part of Acol's problem - if you bid 3♥ on this, what do you do on a similar balanced 16 count? Even bidding 2♥ on balanced 15 counts, though probably best, can cost you when you might also raise P's suit on a distributional 11-count, potentially with 3 card support.

 

 

Also what do they play 1♣-1♥-4♣ as, some people play it as a good 2425.

 

Natural, I assume.

[Cyberyeti]

(1♣-1♥-4♣)

 

Natural, I assume.

 

Nobody goes past 3N with a club stack particularly at MPs

[Tramticket]

Partner presumably doesn't have a singleton or void (no splinter), so I would expect 5 clubs, 4 hearts and 2 cards each in spades and diamonds. And presumably 19 or a good 18 points for this semi-balanced shape.

 

Do we have enough trick-taking potential for slam. I'm guessing probably not, but maybe worth one try with four spades.

[Tramticket]

I would play the sequence 1C, 1H; 4C as a very strong suit orientated hand with exactly three-card heart support.

[Jinksy]

Nobody goes past 3N with a club stack particularly at MPs

 

Then it's a natural bid that won't get used very much. Not sure what point you're making - this isn't my system, like I said.

[gordontd]

I would play the sequence 1C, 1H; 4C as a very strong suit orientated hand with exactly three-card heart support.

The "standard" meaning for it is to show a good six-card suit with four-card heart support.

[Cyberyeti]

Then it's a natural bid that won't get used very much. Not sure what point you're making - this isn't my system, like I said.

 

The point I was making was that it wasn't natural, but different people have different meanings for it, therefore this affects the hands that are possible for 4♥.

[gwnn]

I find it about equally easy to construct hands where slam is good (eg xx KQTx xx AKQJx) as where we don't have five-level safety (KQx Qxxx KJ AKJx), and can't see any intuitive way to decide which is more likely.

Neither of those hands are 4H bids so I think you have answered your own question.

[Jinksy]

Neither of those hands are 4H bids so I think you have answered your own question.

 

Well ok, but you can add some semi-random honour to each to turn it into a 4♥ bid without making it much better for grand/small.

[gwnn]

Well ok, but you can add some semi-random honour to each to turn it into a 4♥ bid without making it much better for grand/small.

Good luck with that. I tried.

[MickyB]

They're fairly old school, so I would guess 1m

 

Is that more old school than opening 1M? Suit below the doubleton FTW!

 

PS I don't pass

[gordontd]

Is that more old school than opening 1M?

I've seen a few people say that recently and it's surprised me. I thought opening the major was more old-school and that many players have moved towards opening the minor as a sort of half-way house influenced by those who play 5cM. Or perhaps those people are now old-school and there's an even newer tendency back to opening the major that I haven't caught up with yet!

[Cyberyeti]

I've seen a few people say that recently and it's surprised me. I thought opening the major was more old-school and that many players have moved towards opening the minor as a sort of half-way house influenced by those who play 5cM. Or perhaps those people are now old-school and there's an even newer tendency back to opening the major that I haven't caught up with yet!

 

I tend to refer back to a couple of old Norfolk players I've partnered (one no longer with us) as to what old school Acol is. They open the major with strong NT hands. There was a vogue when Crowhurst released "Precision bidding in Acol" to open the minor (to accommodate a wide range 1N rebid), and some weak players open whichever gives a more convenient rebid which mangles the rest of their system.

[kuhchung]

Just curious. What do we hope to accomplish with a 4S cue? What kind of hand is partner supposed to keycard (or god forbid, cue back), and what hand shouldn't?

[Tramticket]

'Old School' Acol used to fudge the question of which suit to open. The idea was that you selected your opening bid with your rebid in mind to allow you to show both suits, without reversing.

 

Most would now accept that the objective is to show the balanced shape - by opening 1NT (12-14 if playing a weak NT) or opening a suit and rebidding NT. (And as a collorally, bidding a second suit suggests an unbalanced hand with 5 cards in the first suit).

 

Given that the rebid will be no trumps, most modern Acol players in the UK will choose to open the major. I know that this isn't universal, particularly outside the UK, but I think it makes far more sense to open the major:

- opening the minor and rebidding NT hides the major. Why would you want to do that?

- you are playing four-card majors because you believe that this allows you to find 4-4 fits earlier. Shouldn't you take as many opportunities as you can to bid the major? Otherwise, why not play 5-card majors?

- Opening the major makes it more difficult for the opponents to overcall.