mgoetze Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=sak843htdkqckjt98]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints, love all. Part 1: Your RHO opens 2♥, are you good enough for 4♣ showing a GF 5-5 hand or do you settle for 2♠? Part 2: After you meekly settle for 2♠, LHO raises to 3♥ and CHO bids 4♦, which RHO passes. Your plan? 5NT should be pick-a-slam if you want that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=sak843htdkqckjt98]133|100|Matchpoints, love all. Part 1: Your RHO opens 2♥, are you good enough for 4♣ showing a GF 5-5 hand or do you settle for 2♠? Part 2: After you meekly settle for 2♠, LHO raises to 3♥ and CHO bids 4♦, which RHO passes. Your plan? 5NT should be pick-a-slam if you want that."[/hv] Part 1. I rank1. 4♣. An overbid, perhaps but might be a timely description if LHO raises to 4♥2. 2♠. Natural but might lose ♣s. 3. Double Exaggerates the ♦s. Part 2. I rank1. 4N. RKC In case we lack 2 key-cards. 2..5♦ Quality should compensate for quantity.3. 6♦. Premature.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gszes Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 part 1 2s Spades is our most likely game after rho opens 2h so I have little problem introducing our very serviceable suit now. Not really happy with the 4c "overbid" since we are well short of ten much less eleven tricks if we happen to have a club fit. Pinpointing distribution is nice but having values helps a lot too.2s=84c=5 x =3 part 2 Our 2s choice has paid huge dividends here. If we had chosen to show the 2 black suits the dia suit might have never appeared. We know p has a long dia suit so I echo nige 1 that we trot out 4n and if it looks reasonable to b in slam i will offer 6c as a choice (I had to have dia support for my original 4n since i originally bid only 2s i could not possibley have a super strong 2 suiter w/o diamonds.4n=105d=76d=55c=46c=3pass=2 (better than 7n) but qualifies for the annual ostrich award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmnka447 Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 2 ♠ It's a 16 HCP and a 5 loser hand. Suit quality leaves a little to be desired. So I don't think it quite fits the requirements of a big 2 suiter over a weak 2 bid. Not sure what I'd do over 4 ♦. With 4 NT, I keep looking at ♣ KJ10xx and wondering if partner shows 2 keys whether slam depends on guessing the play from the ♣ KJ combo. 5 ♦ seems a bit wimpish. 5 ♣ may lose the diamond fit. 4 ♥ might lose a ♣ fit and might not be possible if it means 1st round control. Probably will end up bidding 4 NT and hope partner is a good guesser at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 2♠. The problem with 4♣ is that it is very space-consuming. The wider the range of hands on which you do it, the less effective it becomes: you end up missing some good slams when partner pulls in a little out of fear that you have something like this, instead of, say, AKJxx x KQ KQJxx. Having bid 2♠, on the auction as given, I have a great hand. I am going to bid 4♥ as a general encouragement. I can't, imo, commit to slam all by myself, so I am going to show a good hand and see if partner is encouraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 I think this is clearly good enough for 4♣. Think of it that way - in such auctions, we are supposed to play partner of a moderate fit and one useful card. We are happy to be in 4♠ or 5♣ if that's the case. Meanwhile, if LHO raises to 4♥ (not unlikely), we are much happier having bid 4♣ than having bid 2♠.Obviously I won't cooperate with slam tries from partner (lack of keycards), but I can't imagine him forcing us to a hopeless slam either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Obviously I won't cooperate with slam tries from partner (lack of keycards), but I can't imagine him forcing us to a hopeless slam either.It is not the forcing to a hopeless slam that is the issue. In what follows, please do not take this as me suggesting that you don't understand the process I describe. When we design our methods, we always have choices to make in terms of how wide or how narrow a range we assign to certain actions. Every choice affects other aspects of the method. Thus if one plays that this hand is too weak for LM, then one risks bad results when one overcalls 2♠ and miss game in the minor (or even spades) because partner is unable to bid. If one plays that this is a permissible LM call, then one risks missing slam when partner is afraid that the 5-level may be too high and refrains from trying. Or does try and finds that he was right....the 5 level is one level too high. In addition, but more rarely, we will get to bad slams when we have wide range overcalls, or guess incorrectly when the opps jam the auction. etc, etc. Where one places the parameters of one's agreements will depend on partnership philosophy, formed or at least influenced by experience. I doubt that anyone could ever prove that their approach is 'the best', and indeed my own experience is that my style changes, albeit usually slowly, as my exposure to other perspectives, and experience, alters my views. I am maybe biased in favour of slam bidding rather than game bidding, so I like to have narrow and high strength parameters here. Not because I think slams are more important than games (obviously games are far more frequent) but because I tend to push for games aggressively while for slams (which I love bidding) I like to have more certainty. A vul. game need not be 50% or even close, but a slam ought to be at least 50%. So I will more readily accept soft, wide ranges for weaker bids in order to maximize slam bidding efficiency. Your experience and preference may well differ, without meaning that either of us are 'wrong'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Agree with most of what you wrote Mike - but partner has plenty of space at the 4-level to try for slam. Plus it's not only game bidding that suffers when we are not allowed to bid 4♣ with this - it's also the competitive decisions, e.g. if they bid to 5♥. I agree there is no "right" or "wrong" about agreements on this auction - but there is almost certainly a "better" and "worse". I certainly make my bet on the agreements that are clearly better for games and competition, and perhaps slightly worse for slam bidding. (It's not even clear it's worse for slam bidding - where do you think you'll end up in opposite xx Axx xxxx AQxx after 2♠ versus after 4♣?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogs Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=sak843htdkqckjt98]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints, love all. Part 1: Your RHO opens 2♥, are you good enough for 4♣ showing a GF 5-5 hand or do you settle for 2♠? Part 2: After you meekly settle for 2♠, LHO raises to 3♥ and CHO bids 4♦, which RHO passes. Your plan? 5NT should be pick-a-slam if you want that. 4♣. A minor overbid. Don't want to be bothered with part 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts