bid this 70% slam

[Cyberyeti]

Most 15 counts will not be strong enough to jump to 3♥. My Acol auction would be:

 

---- 1♥

2♣ 3♥

3♠¹ 4♣²

4♠³ 4NT⁴

5♣⁵ 5♦⁶

5♥⁷ 6♥

 

1 - Cue-bid

2 - Cue-bid

3 - Cue-bid - West's hand is massive once East shows the ♣A and he can afford to go beyond game and shows extras.

4 - RKCB

5 - 1 (or 4) key cards

6 - Q ask

7 - No Q

 

Unfortunately this gets you to a really bad slam when ♣K is the 2 minor suit Qs instead, and you don't know whether you should be bidding 4♠ or not as partner's hand could be slightly different where that is exactly what he wants.

[nullve]

Is

 

1♥-2♣; 2♥-2♠

 

not FG in Acol?

[Tramticket]

Is

 

1♥-2♣; 2♥-2♠

 

not FG in Acol?

 

No F1 in standard Acol. Some may have other agreements.

[Tramticket]

Unfortunately this gets you to a really bad slam when ♣K is the 2 minor suit Qs instead, and you don't know whether you should be bidding 4♠ or not as partner's hand could be slightly different where that is exactly what he wants.

 

I would argue that ♠AKT5 ♥98 ♦Q7 ♣Q7432 is not worth going beyond 4♥ to make a second cue-bid in spades.

[Kapi Blas]

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2 NT - 3♣

3♦ - 3♥

3 NT - 4♣

4 NT - 5♣

5♦ - 5♥

6♥

 

2♣ - 11-15 5+♥4♣ or any 16+

2♦ - 8-11

2 NT - 18-21 6+♥

3♣ - 4+♣, denies 3-card support

3♦ - waiting

3♥ - 2 card fit

3 NT - non-serious

4♣ - cue

4 NT - RKCB

5♣ - 1

5♦ - Queen?

5♥ - no Queen

[maartenxq]

I think the E hand is too good for a 3H rebid (unless he feels like "catching up" after a 4H signoff). Look at all those controls!

Indeed, not playing gazzili you should therefore open 2 ♣.Partner says 2 ♦(me) or 2 NT and is strong anough to go for slam in some way.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[PhilG007]

[hv=pc=n&w=sakt5h98dj7ck7432&e=s43hakt742daktca8]266|100|Dealer East, IMPs[/hv]

 

12 out of 14 pairs played 4♥ in a recent, decent club game, IMPs.

Presumably after

 

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥ - 4♥

 

East was dealer.

Can you do better?

(Okay, it's a good hand for a strong club system)

 

I don't really like bidding 70% slams I prefer 90% or better. Usually when I bid 70% slams I find something always goes wrong such as finding I have two inescapable losers,

the trumps divide badly,partner has had a sudden rush of blood to the head or some other thing that wasn't in the script. No I will stay true to my beliefs so when I bid a slam in future,

there won't be any nasty surprise lurking at the end of the bidding

[Cyberyeti]

I don't really like bidding 70% slams I prefer 90% or better. Usually when I bid 70% slams I find something always goes wrong such as finding I have two inescapable losers,

the trumps divide badly,partner has had a sudden rush of blood to the head or some other thing that wasn't in the script. No I will stay true to my beliefs so when I bid a slam in future,

there won't be any nasty surprise lurking at the end of the bidding

 

This one is much better than 70% with you holding the ♥987, you stand a load of chances on 4-1 and 5-0 trump breaks.

 

If you stick to 90% slams it's losing bridge.

[masse24]

Usually when I bid 70% slams I find something always goes wrong . . .

 

around 30% of the time?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the question, how confident we are, that slam is at least 50%.

If West sees 6-4, and the king of clubs, he sees his useful doubleton,

and can move. But do you have an auction that tells this to West below 4M?

If you have, go ahead, if not, stay low, trump quality can be check with RKCB

I failed to do this in a convincing manner.

With kind regards

Marlowe

[subbaroow]

playing polish club with 1c--1d artificial reply

1c----------------------------------1d

2h- shows 18-20 pts-5h+4 other suit or 6 cards h-6331/6322--------2nt-relay

3h--6331/6322----------------------------------------------------3s-to know no of cards(opener assumes 5 cards)

3nt--no 3 cards-s------------------------------------------------4nt(rkc for-s)

5d--(1403)--------------------------------------------------------5nt

6h--2 kings-------------------------------------------------------pass-he knows all aces and kings

if opener shows one king -luck to prevail

[PhilG007]

around 30% of the time?

 

I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law :)

[ahydra]

No F1 in standard Acol. Some may have other agreements.

 

I thought a "responder's reverse" was GF - at least that's how I've always played it. When the second suit is below the first, like 1C-1H; 2C-2D, it's only F1 (with less than INV, responder can pass opener's 2H).

 

@PhilG007: a slam with two inescapable losers is a 0% slam. We're talking a posteriori odds here, i.e. seeing both hands. Even at teams you only need just over 50% odds on a slam to break even vs 4M+1 at the other table. Your 90% rule is more suited to grands, particularly those where the other table might not even reach 6.

 

ahydra

[pescetom]

2C - 2S is not a reverse in my book.

That's what nullve was asking about.

[Kapi Blas]

playing polish club with 1c--1d artificial reply

1c----------------------------------1d

2h- shows 18-20 pts-5h+4 other suit or 6 cards h-6331/6322--------2nt-relay

3h--6331/6322----------------------------------------------------3s-to know no of cards(opener assumes 5 cards)

3nt--no 3 cards-s------------------------------------------------4nt(rkc for-s)

5d--(1403)--------------------------------------------------------5nt

6h--2 kings-------------------------------------------------------pass-he knows all aces and kings

if opener shows one king -luck to prevail

 

The only problem is that there won't be 1♦ but 1♠ instead. In polish club 1♦ is either 0-6 any, 7-11 without 4 card major or 16+ balanced.

[Tramticket]

I thought a "responder's reverse" was GF - at least that's how I've always played it. When the second suit is below the first, like 1C-1H; 2C-2D, it's only F1 (with less than INV, responder can pass opener's 2H).

 

This is a really interesting question in Acol.

 

As you say 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♦ is not a reverse. I also play this as a one-round force like you and I think that this is the recommended modern treatment. But I am aware that old Acol texts treated this sequence as non-forcing!

 

Now compare 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♠ - a traditional responder's reverse. Opener does not have a four-card spade suit and responder is not bidding 2♠ with the intention of playing in spades. There is little point in bidding 2♠ except as a forcing-to-game bid. I would definitely play this as forcing to game but again, old Acol texts treated this sequence as a one-round force only.

 

Finally we have the sequence that you asked about where responder makes a two-level response and then bids a second suit: 1♥, 2♣; 2♥, 2♠. I think that this is different and I'm not sure that I think of it as a reverse. The usual advice in Acol is that responder should by-pass a four-card major only if worth two bids - normally suggested as 11+ HCP. But if you are going to take this approach with a mis-fitting 11-count, this is clearly not enough to force to game opposite a minimum opener. On this basis I think that it is standard for the sequence to be forcing for one round only, but I have encountered players who play the sequence as forcing to game. I don't have a strong view either way - as long as partner and I are agreed.

 

 

Sorry to hijack the thread with this post which has little to do with the opening post and is probably boring if you don't play Acol!

[rhm]

You were correct in your assessment that it is a good hand for big clubs systems - which explains why this hand is difficult otherwise, because the second thing you have to do is play catchup with hand strength, wasting a level of space in the process.

I think the issue is that we have 2 trends in modern standard bidding which have a cost

 

1) opening bids got lighter

2) exalted requirements for opening with a game forcing 2♣.

 

Together they create a rather wide range of hands to be handled after one-level opening bids.

 

I understand not opening 2♣ when a hand may be difficult to describe.

However, one-suiter are not difficult to describe after opening 2♣ and playing tricks is not the most important requirement, slam potential being much more important.

I do not see why it should be difficult to reach slam once you decide that this hand is good enough to open 2♣.

I think the risk of getting too high with this hand by opening 2♣ is negligible.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

I think the issue is that we have 2 trends in modern standard bidding which have a cost

 

1) opening bids got lighter

2) exalted requirements for opening with a game forcing 2♣.

 

Together they create a rather wide range of hands to be handled after one-level opening bids.

 

I understand not opening 2♣ when a hand may be difficult to describe.

However, one-suiter are not difficult to describe after opening 2♣ and playing tricks is not the most important requirement, slam potential being much more important.

I do not see why it should be difficult to reach slam once you decide that this hand is good enough to open 2♣.

I think the risk of getting too high with this hand by opening 2♣ is negligible.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I disagree with this, but it's methods dependent over 2♣. We play 2♣ and a positive response is F4N unless a suit is known to be open, which has a lot of advantages, but means you need more playing strength than this for 2♣. We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

[pescetom]

We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

Kokish doesn't push you any higher even when trumps are ♥, because your 3-level bid is essentially the same one you would have made without playing Kokish. But you lose the possibility to "open" 3♥ which reduces incisivity of slam seeking.

[Cyberyeti]

Kokish doesn't push you any higher even when trumps are ♥, because your 3-level bid is essentially the same one you would have made without playing Kokish. But you lose the possibility to "open" 3♥ which reduces incisivity of slam seeking.

 

It kinda does because you have no info about partner's hand, in a standard auction without Kokish you have whatever partner would have bid instead of 2♠ over 2♣-2♦-2♥ to go on and would have had the chance to raise their suit.

[pescetom]

It kinda does because you have no info about partner's hand, in a standard auction without Kokish you have whatever partner would have bid instead of 2♠ over 2♣-2♦-2♥ to go on and would have had the chance to raise their suit.

That doesn't happen often for us because most strong 5-card hands are going to go through some level of 2NT. And in the case you mention but with Kokish then you are probably going to bid his suit yourself at 3-level anyway, and partner can then raise it (he might also learn about a double fit that would otherwise have remained hidden). But yes you do find the fit in second suit one level higher, although still in time for RKCB or other slam seeking toys.

[akwoo]

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

 

Without Kokish, I play that

 

2C - 2D

2H - 3C (second negative)

3H

 

is non-forcing.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

 

Without Kokish, I play that

 

2C - 2D

2H - 3C (second negative)

3H

 

is non-forcing.

 

You don't but for many in the UK the only 2♣ auction that is not FG is 2♣-2♦-2N (for us Kokish-2N is also NF).

[JanisW]

I guess, whether

 

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♣

3♥

 

is forcing, depends on what constitutes a second negative in your system.

 

What other bid is responder supposed to invent, besides 4♥, if 3♣ already denied any values (0-3HCP)?

Well he could cue-bid a king if he had one and bid 4♥ otherwise. You'd trade to be able to stop in 3♥ for slams where you only need one specific King. Might be reasonable. I cannot imagine playing responders 3rd bid to be natural?

 

IF 3♣ just denied suitable values (Fit/Controls) in the context of a 2♥-rebid and could still be something like Jxx,x,Qxxx,QJxxx then 3♥ has to be forcing. But I guess forcing this decent 6count to go through 3♣ leads to other problems.

 

On the actual Hand:

You have to choose your poison before opening this Hand.

It's either 2♣, because you are too strong for a 3♥-rebid and the suit is too bad for a 4♥-rebid.

The other option is to fake a Jumpshift with 3♦, which has ist own problems.

[rhm]

Sorry if this is a hijack. How do you stop at 3!H playing Kokish?

 

Without Kokish, I play that

 

2C - 2D

2H - 3C (second negative)

3H

 

is non-forcing.

 

Why are you so keen stopping one trick below game?

 

I do not care for these very rare occurences and consider 2♣ game forcing except for a 2NT rebid.

No other exception.

It makes life so much easier.

Yes I sometimes go down in game when I open 2♣, but I do go down in game 20 times more often when I do not open 2♣.

Big deal.

 

But if you play Kokish it is a good idea after 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ to exchange the meaning of 3♣ and 3♥

 

So

 

2♣-2♦

2♥-2♠

 

3♣: one suiter in hearts

3♥: two suiter hearts and clubs

 

A one-suiter is much more frequent than a specific two suiter.

 

You could now agree that 3♥ after

 

2♣-2♦

2♥-2♠

3♣

 

by responder is nonforcing and 4♣ or 4♦ agrees hearts and is an invite to more.

As I said I do not care.

 

Rainer Herrmann