2/1 Assistance Please

[Cyberyeti]

You generally want the shapelier hand (unless it has a void) to be the one asking about key cards, as it is easier for that hand to see how the play will develop.

 

Cheers,

mike

 

On some hands yes,but say you have xx, xx, Kxx, KQJxxx, knowing partner has 3 aces and a king in a balanced 20 count doesn't help, he might have AKxx, QJxx, AQ, Axx or AQx, Kxx, AQJxx, Ax, whereas partner will get to find out you have ♣KQxxxx and ♦K and can judge accordingly.

[fromageGB]

It's tough to play 3♣ after an opening 2NT unless 3♣ is signoff. :)

Of course when I have such a hand I do want opener to play in 3♣, and 2♣ would be better, but I do concede it has to be 4♣ ;)

[Lovera]

[hv=pc=n&w=sK98HJT96DK987CT3&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]400|400|

briannz556 writes 'North opens 2N. My question is what is the best way to get to slam 6N / 6♣. We play transfers & control bidding. I've toyed with:

2N - 3♠ - 4♣ - 4♦ - 4♥

but then feel I should just bid 5♣ and let North make the decision. But it doesn't grab me as being ideal.'

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Non-expert comments...

-- In my favorite version of Muppet, 3♠ is a ♣ transfer and then 4♦ is RKC for ♣s but, lacking that understanding, I like JohnU's Gerber 4♣.

-- There seem to be 12 top tricks, so you would like to reach at least 6N and 7N by North is reasonable.[/hv]

 

But also Minorwood and then asking in ♠ knowing of Queen with the answer of 5♦ and then again with 5♥ knowing Queen having 5♠ by N and all is clear about to bid ..

[pescetom]

Of course when I have such a hand I do want opener to play in 3♣, and 2♣ would be better, but I do concede it has to be 4♣ ;)

 

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

[maartenxq]

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[Lovera]

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

 

Maarten Baltussen

 

Exactly ( a my suggest is to avoid the finesse but to consider the squeeze play to bypass it as for the elimination play ).

[Cyberyeti]

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

 

Maarten Baltussen

 

KQJ♦ together for example can also help in some situations

[nige1]

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

A possible simple consistent response schema after 2N - ??

• 3♣ = ASK (Puppet/Muppet/Crowhurst/Ordinary Stayman).
• 3♦ = TRF 5+ ♥s.
• 3♥ = TRF 5+ ♠s.
• 3♠ = TRF 6+ ♣s,
• 3N = S/O.
• 4♣ = TRF 6+ ♦s.
• 4♦ = TRF 6+ ♥s.
• 4♥ = TRF 6+ ♠s.

After e.g. 2N - 4♣ - 4♦ - ??

• 4♥ = RKC for ♦s.
• 4♠/4N/5♣ = EXC (Void ♠, ♥, ♣) for ♦.

[nige1]

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

Exactly (my suggestion is to avoid the finesse but to consider the squeeze play.)

KQJ♦ together for example can also help in some situations

[hv=pc=n&w=S978HJT96DKQJ7CT3&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]400|400|

 

As Lovera and Cyberyeti point out, the ♦s give you slight extra double-squeeze chances

 

For example, Maartenxq's line results in 13 tricks when LHO has ♦KQJ and 4+ ♥s, as on the left.[/hv][hv=pc=n&w=S987HJT965DKJ8CT3&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]400|400|

On a non-♦ lead, if RHO shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s,

then declarer's best chance is to play for a layout like that on the left:

Cash the major winners and run ♣s for a standard double-squeeze.[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

Also if hearts are 5-1 you can cash ♠ A and use the J to squeeze E with ♦KQJ and ♠K, but reading that is pretty tough, and you probably just finesse.

[Lovera]

The analisys of the hand with other endings can take far away. I say that a double squeeze has its weakness in the double menace, if the opening lead is in that suit and is not protected.

[fromageGB]

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

No, you are not missing anything, as it depends whether you think the sacrifice of right-siding is worth the slight benefit when there is a game hand. Perhaps this is a matchpoint / IMP thing, but it's a choice. With a minor hand good enough for game you can always use 3♠ "minor suit stayman" to get that information if you are prepared to play in 4NT when opener likes the wrong minor.

 

But I disagree with you that 4♣ to transfer to diamonds loses a useful Gerber. If I am for example interested in a NT slam I can transfer to clubs, or any suit in which I would like to know of the K, then ace ask etc with the next step. When I convert the answer to NT at any level opener does not argue. If I wish to progress to specific kings then likewise I can choose 6NT or 7NT. Even if your Gerber gives you specific kings, I cannot see how it improves the situation.

[pescetom]

No, you are not missing anything, as it depends whether you think the sacrifice of right-siding is worth the slight benefit when there is a game hand. Perhaps this is a matchpoint / IMP thing, but it's a choice. With a minor hand good enough for game you can always use 3♠ "minor suit stayman" to get that information if you are prepared to play in 4NT when opener likes the wrong minor.

 

But I disagree with you that 4♣ to transfer to diamonds loses a useful Gerber. If I am for example interested in a NT slam I can transfer to clubs, or any suit in which I would like to know of the K, then ace ask etc with the next step. When I convert the answer to NT at any level opener does not argue. If I wish to progress to specific kings then likewise I can choose 6NT or 7NT. Even if your Gerber gives you specific kings, I cannot see how it improves the situation.

 

Thanks. As it happens, my Gerber does give specific kings (when investigating for 7NT) but that's far from essential and I agree that Gerber itself is not either, in this context. I would be more concerned about losing the possibility to retreat to 3NT, but I agree it is related to other partnership agreements and to MP/IMP focus.

[Winstonm]

For all the ace-askers on this thread who asked for aces without control in spades, I curse your partners to forever hold:

Qxx, AQxx, AKQx, Ax

[fromageGB]

For all the ace-askers on this thread who asked for aces without control in spades, I curse your partners to forever hold:

Qxx, AQxx, AKQx, Ax

Well, I said in post #22 the odds are against this, but I'm sure it's not worth anyone working out how unlikely this is. Almost all you want is an ace or king in spades. Bidding goes on probability, and when this happens you shrug and accept your bad luck. The fact that opener might get only 5 tricks with this hand does not prevent him from opening 2NT. Equally the fact that I might not make 6♣/NT will not prevent me from bidding it.

[Lovera]

[hv=pc=n&w=S978HJT96DKQJ7CT3&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]400|400|

 

As Lovera and Cyberyeti point out, the ♦s give you slight extra double-squeeze chances

 

For example, Maartenxq's line results in 13 tricks when LHO has ♦KQJ and 4+ ♥s, as on the left.[/hv][hv=pc=n&w=S987HJT965DKJ8CT3&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]400|400|

On a non-♦ lead, if RHO shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s,

then declarer's best chance is to play for a layout like that on the left:

Cash the major winners and run ♣s for a standard double-squeeze.[/hv]

Franckly i was for the previous one situation (A♦,A♠ and on last club W/E is squeezed..).

[nige1]

Frankly i was for the previous one situation (A♦,A♠ and on last club W/E is squeezed..).

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]200|200|

Declarer can start by cashing ♥KQ.

If West shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s

Then West is more likely to hold ♠K so declarer should probaby finesse.[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=SJH7DC4&n=SHA8DTC&d=N]135|200|

If both follow to ♥KQ then declarer reduces to the ending on the left

When ♣4 is cashed,

-- Either opponent with a ♥ guard and ♠K is squeezed.

-- West with a ♥ guard and ♦KQJ is squeezed. .[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=sjd6c4&n=SH8datC]130|200|

On a non-♦ lead,

if East shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s,

then East is slightly more likely to hold ♠K than West.

Hence, declarer's best chance is to reduce to the 3-card ending on the left

When ♣4 is cashed,

-- West must keep a ♥ guard, and

-- East must keep the putative ♠K.

-- In which case, ♦AT win the last 2 tricks.

 

-- Also if West has everything, the squeeze is overwhelming. :)[/hv]

Edited to avoid confusion -- replacing "RHO"/"LHO" with "East"/"West"

Edited June 25, 2019 by nige1

[Winstonm]

Well, I said in post #22 the odds are against this, but I'm sure it's not worth anyone working out how unlikely this is. Almost all you want is an ace or king in spades. Bidding goes on probability, and when this happens you shrug and accept your bad luck. The fact that opener might get only 5 tricks with this hand does not prevent him from opening 2NT. Equally the fact that I might not make 6♣/NT will not prevent me from bidding it.

 

Wouldn't you rather know than guess? Don't you think it is better to develop good havits (not using ace-asking when improper) than bad habits?

[Lovera]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N&a=2NP4C(Gerber As?)P4D(0 or 4 As)P5C(Ks?)P5D(0 or 4 Ks)P6NPPP]200|200|

Declarer can start by cashing ♥KQ.

If LHO shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s

Then LHO is more likely to hold ♠K so declarer should probaby finesse.[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=SJH7DC4&n=SHA8DTC&d=N]135|200|

If both follow to ♥KQ then declarer reduces to the ending on the left

When ♣4 is cashed,

-- Either opponent with a ♥ guard and ♠K is squeezed.

-- LHO with a ♥ guard and ♦KQJ is squeezed. .[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=sjd6c4&n=SH8datC]130|200|

On a non-♦ lead,

if RHO shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s,

then RHO is slightly more likely to hold ♠K than LHO.

Hence, declarer's best chance is to reduce to the 3-card ending on the left

When ♣4 is cashed,

-- LHO must keep a ♥ guard, and

-- RHO must keep the putative ♠K.

-- In which case, ♦AT win the last 2 tricks.

 

-- Also if LHO has everything, the squeeze is overwhelming. :)[/hv]

 

It's slight different from the previous one where were indicate the two Aces (then in N/S remains ♥AQxx/Kxx,♠Q idle c./J,♣4sq.c.). The heart suit is at indeterminate position it being in W or E the longness.

[fromageGB]

Wouldn't you rather know than guess? Don't you think it is better to develop good havits (not using ace-asking when improper) than bad habits?

Of course, but I am not aware of methods that can show a minor and cue bid controls all the way including control of the trump suit, and not interfering with other sequences that may have meaning such as bidding a major after a long minor. Please enlighten me.

[Lovera]

Another automatic ending is the "criss-cross" squeeze. With the possibility that trump suit doesn't break, it means that the diamond suit allows to move between the two hands.

[Winstonm]

Of course, but I am not aware of methods that can show a minor and cue bid controls all the way including control of the trump suit, and not interfering with other sequences that may have meaning such as bidding a major after a long minor. Please enlighten me.

 

Me, neither.

 

Note: Playing rubber bridge with a pick-up maybe ace ask is OK and practical; however, with a fine partner in any other form of the game it is the kind of undisciplined bid that partner notices, and one that can end a partnership.

 

That was and is my only point. Long range, being disciplined is more important than any one result.

[Lovera]

What seems strange to me is that this hand combined with that of the dummy presents, once the presence of the four Aces has been ascertained, such a variety of squeeze finals, of which little is spoken, such as to render certain the possibility of the grand slam which should , for greater safety, be played with the trump suit.

[nige1]

... the grand slam which should, for greater safety, be played with the trump suit.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N]100|200|

This deal might be an exception to Lovera's sensible general rule: Notrump might be slightly better than a suit, especially on a non-♦ lead. (Ideally, North should be declarer, in either contract).

Suppose defenders lead a ♣ and all follow. IMO, declarer should start by cashing 2 rounds of ♥s...

-- If both defenders follow to 2 rounds of ♥s, then you can reduce to the 1st ending above.

-- If East shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s, then East is more likely to hold ♠K so you can reduce to the 2nd ending above

-- If West shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s, then West is more likely to hold ♠K so a simple ♠ finesse might be best.

[/hv]

[Lovera]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthk72d6ckqj9764&n=saq53haq83dat5ca8&d=N]100|200|

This deal might be an exception to Lovera's sensible general rule: Notrump might be slightly better than a suit, especially on a non-♦ lead. (Ideally, North should be declarer, in either contract).

Suppose defenders lead a ♣ and all follow. IMO, declarer should start by cashing 2 rounds of ♥s...

-- If both defenders follow to 2 rounds of ♥s, then you can reduce to the 1st ending above.

-- If East shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s, then East is more likely to hold ♠K so you can reduce to the 2nd ending above

-- If West shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s, then West is more likely to hold ♠K so a simple ♠ finesse might be best.

[/hv]

 

At those endings you can add the criss-cross ♠/♥ for N/S A/J10,83/K that suggests to have the trump suit yet because the S hand is unbalanced and not apt to play NT. I think that it's easier to have the honors in diamond suit devided between E and W and that all this discussion points to avoid to finesse (by a squeeze).