How will this hands be bid ?

[msjennifer]

In a monthly pairs MP event this month this computer deal came across.BOARD 7 BOTH VUL. Silent opponents. South: S-K109,H-K73,D-AKQJ105,C-9. NORTH::S-A5,H-A10,D-983,C-J108542 .In a field of 18 pairs ALL PLAY ALL not a single pair bid this slam.May I humbly request the experts to throw a light on this one .All Souths opened this hand a normal appearing 1D as the hand is too weak for it to be opened 2Club and not suitable for 1NT.All of them played in 3NT.

[Tramticket]

I suspect that we would bid (playing weak NT, 4-card majors):

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hk73dakqjt5c9&n=sa5hatd983cjt8542&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp2cp2np3nppp]266|200|[/hv]

 

North's 2♣ is a bare minimum 2-over-1 for us. 2NT shows 15-18 balanced (I'm valuing as near the 18). North has no reason to do anything other than raise to 3NT.

 

Things are lying well for 6♦ (unless a major is 6-2), but I don't think that I get there.

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt9hk73dakqjt5c9&n=sa5hatd983cjt8542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]266|200[/hv]

 

I'm not overly surprised that folks aren't getting to slam on this one

 

1. The two players have a combined 25 count.

2. The reason slam is good is that the opponents AKQ of clubs and major suit queens aren't pulling full weight

3. Making slam required identifying that you are going to be able to take two major suit ruff's in the North hand

 

I can give you a relay auction that will trivially find this slam, however, even here you need some real optimism to bypass 3N and search for those magic aces.

 

Doubt you're going to see this happen for pairs playing more natural methods.

[mikeh]

In a monthly pairs MP event this month this computer deal came across.BOARD 7 BOTH VUL. Silent opponents. South: S-K109,H-K73,D-AKQJ105,C-9. NORTH::S-A5,H-A10,D-983,C-J108542 .In a field of 18 pairs ALL PLAY ALL not a single pair bid this slam.May I humbly request the experts to throw a light on this one .All Souths opened this hand a normal appearing 1D as the hand is too weak for it to be opened 2Club and not suitable for 1NT.All of them played in 3NT.

 

 

I doubt that even a strong club pair would reach this magic contract, and I can't imagine how any pair playing standard or 2/1 would even sniff at it.

 

1D 1N is normal, and now South really has no call other than a conservative 2N (easily raised to game by North) or an aggressive 3N, easily passed by North.

 

3D is an option that might occur to some players, but I think it is misguided after the 1N response. While we have a stiff club, partner usually has club length and often some club strength for 1N, since he lacks a 4 card major and did not raise diamonds. Finally, the opps are most likely going to lead a major on such an auction. Of course, 3D is hardly going to get North to do anything other than 3N. Make South Kx Kxx (or Kxx Kx) in the majors, with Qx or worse in clubs (so an 18 count...heck, make it KQ Kxx AKQJxx Qx: a 20 count) and bidding any slam is silly.

 

Even the big club players are likely to have problems, especially if North shows a positive response with clubs: that is going to steer South, who has minimal hcp and a misfit, towards the 'obvious' 3N, in due course.

 

One has to understand that bidding will never be a completely accurate, precise science. The closest one is likely to come is to use a complex relay method, but relay methods have their limitations on hands on which neither partner has extras such that one of them can institute the relay, and get the requisite information at a safe level.

 

If one starts distorting one's methods so as to make bidding 6D plausible, one is almost surely going to have a lot of problems on less magical fits.

[steve2005]

Things are lying well for 6♦ (unless a major is 6-2), but I don't think that I get there.

Takes a 7-1/8-0 major break to beat 6♦ you can ruff with the high 8/9 so can't be overruffed.

[masse24]

I'm not finding slam.

 

My auction would be:

1♦ - 1NT - 3NT

[steve2005]

Well if I get a 1♦-2♣ will give it the college try and jump to 3♦.

Playing a strong club without relays. I probably still won't have the stomach to find the two doubletons so won't find 6♦.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hk73dakqjt5c9&n=sa5hatd983cjt8542&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp2cp2np3nppp]266|200|

MsJeniffer's deal is of the kind that authorities might flag in an effort to diagnose and prosecute collusive cheating.

Bidding double-dummy, cheats might well reach 6♦

Admittedly, rarely, a lucky innocent pair might also bid and make the slam.

But evidence of consistent success on such flagged deals, would corroborate cheating suspicions.[/hv]

 

 

 

[Tramticket]

Takes a 7-1/8-0 major break to beat 6♦ you can ruff with the high 8/9 so can't be overruffed.

 

True 😀

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think I'm going beyond 3N at MPs. There is a chance at IMPs, but I don't think N quite has room to show that he has 3 diamonds, 6 clubs and both aces. He can sort of show 3 of the 4 by 3N but S is then taking something of a punt. Depending on what N shows, you can't tell if he has Axx, Ax, xx, J109xxx or Axx, Ax, xxx, Q10xxx or his actual hand.

[chasetb]

I play Precision, and there is no way I am finding 6♦. After finding out partner is a min 2236, I am playing in 3NT as South. I could even find out that partner has 4 controls, and I'm not going.

[pescetom]

Depending on what N shows, you can't tell if he has Axx, Ax, xx, J109xxx or Axx, Ax, xxx, Q10xxx or his actual hand.

J109xxx would be quite a surprise :)

[Cyberyeti]

I play Precision, and there is no way I am finding 6♦. After finding out partner is a min 2236, I am playing in 3NT as South. I could even find out that partner has 4 controls, and I'm not going.

 

At what level do you find out min 2236 with 4 controls, because if you can establish the fact that his controls are not in clubs you know the slam is great.

[msjennifer]

SIRS.I sincerely thank all of you for the comments given.I was expecting a reply from any ACOL expert to make any comments as they play strong 2 openings .I t shall be looking wishfully for someone.

[hrothgar]

SIRS.I sincerely thank all of you for the comments given.I was expecting a reply from any ACOL expert to make any comments as they play strong 2 openings .I t shall be looking wishfully for someone.

 

This is the year 2019...

[pescetom]

I was expecting a reply from any ACOL expert to make any comments as they play strong 2 openings .

Italian 4-card majors employs strong 2 openings, but this hand does not meet the requirements either for hcp or losing tricks.

Nor are responder's clubs good enough to show at 3 level over a strong 2 opening.

Maybe with ACOL it would be different.

[Cyberyeti]

SIRS.I sincerely thank all of you for the comments given.I was expecting a reply from any ACOL expert to make any comments as they play strong 2 openings .I t shall be looking wishfully for someone.

 

Acol 2s require 8 playing tricks, you only have 7

[HardVector]

I think the bidding should go 1d-1n. I don't think that the north hand is good enough for a 2/1 bid even playing standard. Move an ace into the club suit, and you may have a case. After 1n, south should bid 3n. This should show this kind of hand, as with a balanced 20 count, you wouldn't open 1d, so the 3n bid is specifically unbalanced. If north was feeling frisky, they could bid on here, but I think pass is normal. The fact it makes 6d is due to fact that north has literally the perfect hand. If you chase perfect hands from your partners, you will lose more often than you will gain.

[fluff]

I am always surprised to see people talking about 2/1 over an opening bid of a minor.

 

2/1 needs to be combined with a forcing 1nt to work. There is no such thing when you open a minor.

The hand here is a standard 1nt response.

[nullve]

Suppose the auction starts

 

1♦-1N

3♦.

 

Unless South would tend to rebid NT instead of 3♦ with both major suits stopped, I think North can almost expect partner to have a singleton club given opps' silence. But then 6♦ is probably good if partner (South) also has enough key cards. So at IMPs, maybe

 

1♦-1N

3♦-4♦

4N-5♥

6♦-P

 

?

[mtn1ms]

Our 1♦ shows 5+♦ or 444 with 1♣ so we would open this 1♦ and respond 3♣ (showing limit raise in ♦). The bid would then go 3♥ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) 3♠ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) showing interest in 3N or 5♦. Opener would then bid 4♣ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) and responder would cue 4♥. Opener would cue 4♠ and with his 2 doubletons, knowing we have 1st and 2nd round control of ♠and♥ and a control in ♣ responder would bid 6♦. Without the A♥ responder would bid 4♦ and opener would bid 5♦.

 

So our bidding would be:

1♦-3♣

3♥-3♠

4♣-4♥

4♠-6♦

 

Without interest or without an available cue over 3♥ responder could bid 5♦ or 3N with suitable hand.

[mtn1ms]

Our 1♦ shows 5+♦ or 444 with 1♣ so we would open this 1♦ and respond 3♣ (showing limit raise in ♦). The bid would then go 3♥ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) 3♠ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) showing interest in 3N or 5♦. Opener would then bid 4♣ (cue - A or K or singleton or void) and responder would cue 4♥. Opener would cue 4♠ and with his 2 doubletons, knowing we have 1st and 2nd round control of ♠and♥ and a control in ♣ responder would bid 6♦. Without the A♥ responder would bid 4♦ and opener would bid 5♦.

 

So our bidding would be:

1♦-3♣

3♥-3♠

4♣-4♥

4♠-6♦

 

Without interest or without an available cue over 3♥ responder could bid 5♦ or 3N with suitable hand.

[GrahamJson]

With my regular partner we play a jump to 3NT on the second round as showing a shortage in responder’s suit, so the bidding could go 1D-2C-3NT. It might then continue 4D- cue bids...-6D. (The 3NT bid also shows a good suit and good values).

 

On the other hand it’s a borderline 2C bid and if responder bids 1NT all roads lead to 3NT.

[mrt2000]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hk73dakqjt5c9&n=sa5hatd983cjt8542&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp2cp2np3nppp]266|200|

MsJeniffer's deal is of the kind that authorities might flag in an effort to diagnose and prosecute collusive cheating.

Bidding double-dummy, cheats might well reach 6♦

Admittedly, rarely, a lucky innocent pair might also bid and make the slam.

But evidence of consistent success on such flagged deals, would corroborate cheating suspicions.[/hv]

 

I have seldom heard such nonsense in all my life. Although I admit that both hands have to take very optimistic views of their holdings it is a million miles away from anything even remotely close to cheating. My partner of choice and I, playing 2/1 GF, could bid the hands as follows:

1♦ - 1NT

3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)

3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)

4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)

6♦ - P

 

Not so hard really was it?

[Cyberyeti]

I have seldom heard such nonsense in all my life. Although I admit that both hands have to take very optimistic views of their holdings it is a million miles away from anything even remotely close to cheating. My partner of choice and I, playing 2/1 GF, could bid the hands as follows:

1♦ - 1NT

3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)

3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)

4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)

6♦ - P

 

Not so hard really was it?

 

It's hard because at MPs if partner doesn't have a heart cue or has 2 losing or potentially losing clubs, you may struggle to get out in a number of NT you can make, and end up playing 5♦ for a bottom once you blast past 3N. There are lots of variances from the actual hands which make the slam bad with the same auction