County match slam hand

[VixTD]

This hand was played at twelve tables in an inter-county teams-of-eight match last month, scored by cross-IMPs. Only one bid a grand slam and two a small slam. Can you offer advice on a suitable bidding sequence? This was ours:

[hv=pc=n&s=s752ha97dj6ckqj64&w=skjt96h6dkqt8c932&n=saq4hkqt832da43ca&e=s83hj54d9752ct875&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1hp2cp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

We were playing Benjamin-style Acol, so could have stretched the North hand to a near-game-forcing 2♣. Even though it has something in reserve for the jump rebid, the 4♥ raise didn't sound very encouraging.

[phil_20686]

I think this is the kind of hand where playing better methods would get you their easily, whereas its pretty hard within the context of your system. You have to rebid 3H to set up the GF, but it doesnt show a hand this good. South had no cue to indicate that he had great heart support in the context of a minimum ish hand. If he had the diamond K aswell he would have had an easy 4d cue. I suppose he could bid a last train, but its a bit speculative since 3H doesnt have to be this good. After 4H north has run out of space, south doesnt have to be this helpful. He would bid this way with JTx A QJxx QJxxx and slam is strugging, as it will need a 3-3 heart break always and there is still work to do. I mean, north could do more but its hardly clear cut.

 

If south had showed a limit raise in hearts this would have gone pretty easily to slam. That would probably have happened naturally in a 2/1 system either via a constructive raise first up after or after 1N (planning to show a limit) north could have wheeled out gazilli showing 17+.

 

I realise its really annoying when you post a bidding problem and people say "If only you had been playing X it would have been easy", but this seems like a text book example hands where simple methods run aground and expert methods would just work a lot better. I guess that's why experts play better methods :)

[Cyberyeti]

If I had to bid 3♥ over 1♠/2♣/2♦ so would have used the benji, it's worse over 1♠ where you have the fit there too.

 

Bidding in my methods I have a GF 2N which we don't restrict to balanced hands so it's easy to reach 6. I'd consider bidding 2N (GF if you play weak NT) over 2♣ playing standard UK methods and bid as if I was 3532. I'd expect to reach 6♥ but not 7 as N would enquire and find out about ♥Axx and ♣KQxxx but for the grand to be good needs J♣ which I can't find.

[gszes]

It is a visualizaton problem that seems to have affected N. Looking at the stiff A of clubs must have been viewed as a negative feature (the shortness is the A is not). If opener just tries to imagine how many 10 counts with 2 hearts responder can have where 6 has no play they will see it is a pretty darn small target and to set 5 the target is really hard to see.

Once opener realizes there is virtually no risk at the 5 level launch a rkc sequence for hearts. When p shows 1 your 5n bid (which will promise all key cards and heart Q) should be enough to convince responder 7n is odds on even if opener has Axx KQxxxx Axx A and p probably has more than that to bid 4n over 4h. There is little/no benefit to being in 7h and 7n is potentially safer since when to take the heart A can be better controlled by opener .

[Cyberyeti]

It is a visualizaton problem that seems to have affected N. Looking at the stiff A of clubs must have been viewed as a negative feature (the shortness is the A is not). If opener just tries to imagine how many 10 counts with 2 hearts responder can have where 6 has no play they will see it is a pretty darn small target and to set 5 the target is really hard to see.

Once opener realizes there is virtually no risk at the 5 level launch a rkc sequence for hearts. When p shows 1 your 5n bid (which will promise all key cards and heart Q) should be enough to convince responder 7n is odds on even if opener has Axx KQxxxx Axx A and p probably has more than that to bid 4n over 4h. There is little/no benefit to being in 7h and 7n is potentially safer since when to take the heart A can be better controlled by opener .

 

The benefit to 7♥ is indeed marginal (you don't go -2 on a diamond lead where the clubs fail to split and the spade finesse fails).

 

I agree with your comments about 4N-5?-5N in the 3♥ rebid case where you know partner has 6 hearts, which the way I would bid would not be certain.

[Tramticket]

This is surely a Benji 2C hand. It meets the 8 playing trick test in my opinion (4.5 in trumps, 3.5 outside trumps). Second choice is to rebid 2NT, as suggested by Cyberyeti.

[VixTD]

I play Benjamin Acol in several partnerships (it's probably the most popular system amongst club players in England), and all my partners seem to open 2♣ at the slightest excuse, whenever they can scrape together eight playing tricks. I usually insist on a little more than that, which is probably why I dislike the system so much; I can never agree with my partners what constitutes a 2♣ opener.

 

I chose not to open this one despite the good controls because it doesn't have a brilliant suit, and is only just eight playing tricks. Perhaps I didn't think ahead and anticipate the problems I'd have later in the auction. I wondered if after this start North could have continued with 4♠, after which South could bid 5♣, and whatever happens next South should not stop short of slam. Or perhaps South could have rebid 5♥ to show good trump support, or even 5♣ (to emphasise the good suit) followed by 5♥.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[Tramticket]

Look at it another way - since the "8 playing trick" test shouldn't be your only tool. This is a hand of quality. It has defensive strength and good controls -3 aces as well as KQ in your proposed trump suit. If my suit were a minor suit, I so would want more. But this hand seems an easy 2C to me.