What's the worst hand?

[billw55]

6♦ just showed a desire to play that contract, partner is expect to just pass. Anything else about the hand is only an inference. If partner has the ♥A, he can figure out that you must have heart shortness, but he doesn't have to tell the opponents that because it's based on his hand, not an agreement. If he doesn't have that card, the bid could be based on heart shortness or stiff A.

But Ken's argument seems to be that 6♦ should in fact show a fairly specific hand type. And if his partner knows this, then it should be disclosed if asked. OK, the first time it happens, there is no agreement and nothing to disclose. But subsequent times?

 

No one asked. The lead was a heart.

Well if they won't ask, I suppose you will get some surprise value from many bids.

[barmar]

But Ken's argument seems to be that 6♦ should in fact show a fairly specific hand type. And if his partner knows this, then it should be disclosed if asked. OK, the first time it happens, there is no agreement and nothing to disclose. But subsequent times?

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

 

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

[billw55]

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

 

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

Yes, for sure very rare, probably never relevant.

[Kaitlyn S]

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

 

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

It's funny that you would say that in light of a hand I held yesterday on BBO. I opened 1C and partner, who had just entered the room and answered no system questions, bid 6D.

 

I held: AKxx, Axxx, K, KJxx. Am I supposed to "just pass"?

[Kaitlyn S]

No one asked. The lead was a heart.

In my experience, nobody asks because they do ask, the answer is in a snarky or condescending tone, "Just bridge".

 

Also, it would be incredible to think the opponents have an agreement on this auction.

 

In several hundred hands, I've only asked a question about an auction once. A pair that seemed to have their stuff together had a 2/1 auction that started 1D (P) 2C (P) 3H (several cue bids to 6C.) On lead, I asked if the 3H bid showed shortness. "It's supposed to!" was the answer. I led and dummy hits with H-AQJxx. So, even if a pair has an agreement about an unusual situation, they might not both have remembered it.

[billw55]

It's funny that you would say that in light of a hand I held yesterday on BBO. I opened 1C and partner, who had just entered the room and answered no system questions, bid 6D.

 

I held: AKxx, Axxx, K, KJxx. Am I supposed to "just pass"?

I would bid 7♦. If it isn't cold, partner is a lunatic.

[kenrexford]

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

 

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

Thank you for pointing this out. I mean, what partnership would discuss this without it coming up? For that matter, are there a lot of options to consider, like a Hardy 6D quadruple jump raise vs a Lawrence quadruple jump raise?

[barmar]

I would bid 7♦. If it isn't cold, partner is a lunatic.

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

 

Well, you'll remember this implicit agreement for the next time this random happens to drop in across from you. :)

[billw55]

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

Pretty sure I covered that option http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[Kaitlyn S]

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

 

Well, you'll remember this implicit agreement for the next time this random happens to drop in across from you. :)

I don't think this random will ever drop in across from me again. His chat when he saw dummy makes me think that there is now a lunatic out there who has commented in my profile "Don't play with this one again!"

[Zelandakh]

A pair that seemed to have their stuff together had a 2/1 auction that started 1D (P) 2C (P) 3H (several cue bids to 6C.) On lead, I asked if the 3H bid showed shortness. "It's supposed to!" was the answer. I led and dummy hits with H-AQJxx. So, even if a pair has an agreement about an unusual situation, they might not both have remembered it.

Is it certain that Dummy misbid rather than Declarer giving the wrong explanation? If you were damaged by this then it would have been quite legitimate to ask the TD to look into the matter as Dummy has a duty to correct the explanation in the latter case.

[Kaitlyn S]

Is it certain that Dummy misbid rather than Declarer giving the wrong explanation? If you were damaged by this then it would have been quite legitimate to ask the TD to look into the matter as Dummy has a duty to correct the explanation in the latter case.

I was not damaged as 6C was cold but even if I was, this deal was in the Main Bridge Club so there is no redress.

[Zelandakh]

I was not damaged as 6C was cold but even if I was, this deal was in the Main Bridge Club so there is no redress.

Dummy with ♥AQJxx self-alerted the call as showing heart shortage?

[Kaitlyn S]

Dummy with ♥AQJxx self-alerted the call as showing heart shortage?

Nobody alerted anything. I asked if 3H showed shortness before I led and declarer said "It should."

 

I guess I should have been warned by the non-alert but TBH I thought that this was such a standard treatment in 2/1 that it didn't occur to me that the fact that it wasn't alerted would imply hearts.

[Zelandakh]

Assuming Dummy is not a beginner, I would have been asking why they did not say anything.

[Fluffy]

I was thinking that too. Wouldn't 2♥ be a forcing diamond raise? And leave us room to nose around for grand as well. Downside is ... that ops may be able to find a paying sac in 6M? Perhaps, but then again, they might anyway.

Cuebid = support is what most people play.

 

However it is a mistake to play cuebid by opener as support, in fact it should deny support (at elast when responder showed a major). When responder has shown a major you have 3 direct raises, 2 splinters and even 4m raise to show 4c support in all fashions.

 

Cuebid by opener should be preserved for the common, yet unbidable strong single suiter.

[Kaitlyn S]

Cuebid = support is what most people play.

 

However it is a mistake to play cuebid by opener as support, in fact it should deny support (at elast when responder showed a major). When responder has shown a major you have 3 direct raises, 2 splinters and even 4m raise to show 4c support in all fashions.

 

Cuebid by opener should be preserved for the common, yet unbidable strong single suiter.

So you open 1C on Kx, AKQx, xx, AKQJx because you don't like 2C followed by 2NT or 2C followed by 3C and surprise! Partner responds 1H and RHO overcalls 1S. Don't you think a cuebid followed by a jump to 4H (if possible) is perfect? You have tons of raises, but none describe a hand this good, and a raise to 5H focuses on the wrong thing and also may go down, whereas Old Black won't help much if the overcall was made on QJxxx of spades and AKx of diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

So you open 1C on Kx, AKQx, xx, AKQJx

You are correct that standard includes some strong raises within the cue bid but Fluffy's post makes it clear that he has 4♣ available for such a hand and that is a perfectly sensible way of playing.

[Fluffy]

This ^

[Kaitlyn S]

You are correct that standard includes some strong raises within the cue bid but Fluffy's post makes it clear that he has 4♣ available for such a hand and that is a perfectly sensible way of playing.

I had the impression that 4C showed a long broken club suit that expected to make 4H.

 

43, AKJ5, 6, AQ10962