Automatic ?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqt8hat5dj2ckt9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(4%2B)2c(Red%202%20suiter)2s3h4sp4np6h(2%20and%20a%20void%20heart)p]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you call as South now ?

[Gilithin]

What do you call as South now ?

Why did we not bid 2♦ over 2♣ to show a good hand with ♠?

[LBengtsson]

Why did we not bid 2♦ over 2♣ to show a good hand with ♠?

 

that would have not changed the auction after 3♥. partner has bid 4♠ on 4045 shape is my guess. we need to know about ♦K and ♣Q. that we cannot do so sadly I bid 6♠ only.

[mw64ahw]

What is 6♥ - an odd number of keycards w. ♥ void isn't possible so is it flagging an additional control? If so I can count 13 tricks so 7♠

[pescetom]

What is 6♥ - an odd number of keycards w. ♥ void isn't possible so is it flagging an additional control? If so I can count 13 tricks so 7♠

 

It is explained as 2 and a ♥ void, which is rather weird.

I suspect I would risk 7♠ in that case, partner has 11 HCP in the minors after all.

If we go down to clubs queen, so be it.

[mw64ahw]

Thanks- have yet to get used to the hidden explanations.

 

Few possible picture cards left for 11hcp so I guess the extra trick is still there

[Winstonm]

I don’t understand why partner failed to bid 4H over 3H unless thinking that overstates the hand meaning a weaker distributional hand is held. Sounds like Jxxxx(x) void AQ(x) Axxxxx is possible.

 

With this much doubt, 6S for me, and it won’t be the first time I missed a grand.

[Cyberyeti]

Why did we not bid 2♦ over 2♣ to show a good hand with ♠?

 

This is my team mates' auction it's possible 2♣ was an ambiguous 2 suiter rather than specifically reds.

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks- have yet to get used to the hidden explanations.

 

Few possible picture cards left for 11hcp so I guess the extra trick is still there

 

He bid 4♠ rather than 3, 2♠ is F1 not GF I believe, so he is better than minimum.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqt8hat5dj2ckt9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(4%2B)2c(Red%202%20suiter)2s3h4sp4np6h(2%20and%20a%20void%20heart)p]133|200|'Cyberyeti'What do you call as South now ?

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

Two questions to consider:

1. What is the worst North hand, consistent with the auction. (Perhaps something like ♠ J x x x ♥ - ♦ A x x ♣ A J x x x x)?

2. East advertised a red 2-suiter. Can we survive the likely bad-breaks?

 

My guesses

1. 6♠. Heed the gypsy's warning. Andrew Robson advises against bidding grands. For example. East might be able to ruff a ♣ :(

2. 7N.

3. 7♣. Suggesting an alternative. Might be a safer trump-suit than ♠ with East on lead. Could be an effective blame transfer :)

4. 7♠, A reasonable gamble.

5. 6N, But if 6N makes then 7N is likely to make.[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqt8hat5dj2ckt9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(4%2B)2c(Red%202%20suiter)2s3h4sp4np6h(2%20and%20a%20void%20heart)p]133|200|'Cyberyeti'What do you call as South now ?

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

Two questions to consider:

1. What is the worst North hand, consistent with the auction. (Perhaps something like ♠ J x x ♥ - ♦ A x x x ♣ A J x x x x)?

2. East advertised a red 2-suiter. Can we survive the likely bad-breaks?

 

My guesses

1. 6♠. Heed the gypsy's warning. Andrew Robson advises against bidding grands. For example East might be able to ruff a ♣ :(

2. 7N.

3. 7♣. Suggesting an alternative. Might be a safer trump-suit than ♠ with East on lead. Could be an effective blame transfer :)

4. 7♠, A reasonable gamble.

5. 6N, But if 6N makes then 7N is likely to make.[/hv]

 

I can think of one hand consistent with the auction where 6N makes but 7N doesn't, xxx, void, AKxx, AQJxxx where ♠Jxxx is offside, but there aren't many.

[Winstonm]

A question: would partner have opened and then in this auction have bid 4S with: Jxxx, void, Q10x, AQJxxx or would 3S have been enough?

[DavidKok]

There are two somewhat unusual bids on the auction - 3♥ and 4♠. Since partner is void in hearts the opponents have a 10-card heart fit. If East would be so kind as to have 5-5 in the red suits that means West, broke, favourable vulnerability is staring at 5 hearts and could only produce 3♥. Maybe this particular West bids like that, but at these colours and strengths they jumped last century and they still jump now. So maybe the hearts are 4-6? That presumably gives East a 6-5 in the red suits (with 6-4 you just don't mention the diamonds, even if your partnership agreement allows 2♣*). That makes a club ruff all the more likely. How likely? Let's give partner 4 spades and 6 clubs as a baseline guess, so there's 4 outstanding spades and clubs each. The chance of a club void in East is then ~21% with 2 vacant spaces, so the real number is in that ballpark. Incidentally this would give North 3 diamonds, hence 3 for West. The double fit should have been enough to jump to 4♥ anyway, but at least this is a plausible mistake. Maybe North has 4 diamonds instead?

 

Secondly, does 4♠ show a more distributional hand, in particular a fourth spade? With so much shape around the table I'd hate to be in a 5-3 spade fit, only to find the spades breaking 5-0 (or even 4-1 can be awkward if the jack is missing). Did partner have other ways to raise spades, such as X, 4♦, 4♥ or other bids, and what would they have shown?

 

There's one more trick we can try to pull - if we bid 7♠ there is every chance East will inform us of the club situation with an (absence of a) Lightner double. If East doubles we can run to 7NT and count on the clubs to come in (something like 5 spades, 1 heart, 1-2 diamonds and 5-6 clubs. If partner is 4=0=4=5 we'll need to find them with diamond AK). Probably a bad plan, but at least it's cute.

 

Between the threatened club ruff, potential of a spade loser or even a club loser I think I'll take the low road with 6♠. It looks like our 4NT bid, or partner's compulsory 6♥ response, derailed this train by taking away all the bidding space.

[Cyberyeti]

A question: would partner have opened and then in this auction have bid 4S with: Jxxx, void, Q10x, AQJxxx or would 3S have been enough?

 

I suspect he'd have opened, but not sure about 3♠/4♠, but you know having used blackwood he has ♦A. I'm a little hazy about the bids because our auction was very different.

[Winstonm]

I suspect he'd have opened, but not sure about 3♠/4♠, but you know having used blackwood he has ♦A. I'm a little hazy about the bids because our auction was very different.

Yes, I was actually wondering why someone pulled out an ace-asking bid while holding Jx in an opponent’s known suit.

..and without partner showing that suit controlled.

 

Seems to me at that point in the auction partner could have held xxxx, Kx, Qx, AQJxx and with a 4-0 offside game is the max on the hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, I was actually wondering why someone pulled out an ace-asking bid while holding Jx in an opponent’s known suit.

..and without partner showing that suit controlled.

 

Seems to me at that point in the auction partner could have held xxxx, Kx, Qx, AQJxx and with a 4-0 offside game is the max on the hand.

 

I think that's a pretty clear 3♠.

[Gilithin]

This is my team mates' auction it's possible 2♣ was an ambiguous 2 suiter rather than specifically reds.

That would make sense. Looking at our hand it seems to me that we could have put partner in a perfect place to decide by bidding 5♣ over 4♠. If slam is there partner will bid 5♦ over that and now we can bid 5♥. If grand is there, partner will know to bid 5NT now assuming we play the modern-style GSF responses rather than the traditional ones, meaning that we are not committed to 7♠ on 2 of the top 3. As long as partner is sensible enough to know that we would not bid this way with terrible spades, this seems like an easy way for us to show all 5 of our cards.

 

On the actual auction, we can surmise from the actions that either West has ♠ length or East is 6-5 (or both). In either case any suit grand we might bid will be much safer being played by partner. So we should really be deciding between 6♠, 6NT and 7♣ and 7NT as potential contracts. Of these, 6NT seems like the least likely landing spot and 7NT runs the risk of only having 3 spade tricks and 9 outside. In general, I feel that our odds of picking up the clubs and wrapping up 13 tricks, perhaps by ruffing out the ♠J, exceed the magic IMP level, so 7♣ looks like the best spot on pure probability. But it is certainly not automatic if this turns up in a UI ruling.

[Winstonm]

I think that's a pretty clear 3♠.

I agree but I don’t know the agreements - in this sequence what are the differences among 3s, 4h, and 4s for example. How good of hand is 2s ? Is the jump to 4s a Wolff game try(bid it then try to make it)😉

[Cyberyeti]

I agree but I don’t know the agreements - in this sequence what are the differences among 3s, 4h, and 4s for example. How good of hand is 2s ? Is the jump to 4s a Wolff game try(bid it then try to make it)😉

 

Yup, I don't know them either, I just know the hands and the auction, but I was assuming 4♠ > 3♠, and 2♠ F1 rather than FG, 4♥ would be splinter but not sure if they limit their splinters in strength.

[Cyberyeti]

That would make sense. Looking at our hand it seems to me that we could have put partner in a perfect place to decide by bidding 5♣ over 4♠. If slam is there partner will bid 5♦ over that and now we can bid 5♥. If grand is there, partner will know to bid 5NT now assuming we play the modern-style GSF responses rather than the traditional ones, meaning that we are not committed to 7♠ on 2 of the top 3. As long as partner is sensible enough to know that we would not bid this way with terrible spades, this seems like an easy way for us to show all 5 of our cards.

 

On the actual auction, we can surmise from the actions that either West has ♠ length or East is 6-5 (or both). In either case any suit grand we might bid will be much safer being played by partner. So we should really be deciding between 6♠, 6NT and 7♣ and 7NT as potential contracts. Of these, 6NT seems like the least likely landing spot and 7NT runs the risk of only having 3 spade tricks and 9 outside. In general, I feel that our odds of picking up the clubs and wrapping up 13 tricks, perhaps by ruffing out the ♠J, exceed the magic IMP level, so 7♣ looks like the best spot on pure probability. But it is certainly not automatic if this turns up in a UI ruling.

 

There is no UI ruling, I think 7♣ is the right bid, sadly didn't occur to the player at the table. He bid 7♠, Jxxx offside, 13 tricks cold in clubs or NT. Even more unfortunately the other hand is xxx, void, Ax, AQJxxxxx and the auction at our table was 4♣-5♣.

 

Most people play 5N as pick a slam rather than GSF in that sort of auction. I wouldn't have chosen 4♠ on that hand, but team mate did.

[DavidKok]

Even more unfortunately the other hand is xxx, void, Ax, AQJxxxxx and the auction at our table was 4♣-5♣.

I don't like 4♠ on this hand. Does 4♣ not agree spades with extra club length/values? It becomes quite difficult, not to say impossible, for partner to judge that opener has only 3 spades along with 8 club tricks opposite the king.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't like 4♠ on this hand. Does 4♣ not agree spades with extra club length/values? It becomes quite difficult, not to say impossible, for partner to judge that opener has only 3 spades along with 8 club tricks opposite the king.

 

What do you do with 8 or 9 good but not solid clubs, a card or two and a spade void ? I think you bid 4♣. Do you think 7♠ is likely to make if 7♣ doesn't and partner doesn't put you back to 7♠ ? it's possible but unlikely. There are plenty of scenarios where having the hand short in the blacks on lead is important.

[DavidKok]

A void in partner's suit and you want to bid a slam? I'd contend myself with an immediate 5♣. Natural 4m bids, even if forcing, are big underdogs in competition.

 

Your system focuses on leads much more than I think is wise, and on the example auction you were unable to judge the level of your fit on the 7-level. I think that this is not a coincidence.

[Cyberyeti]

A void in partner's suit and you want to bid a slam? I'd contend myself with an immediate 5♣. Natural 4m bids, even if forcing, are big underdogs in competition.

 

Your system focuses on leads much more than I think is wise, and on the example auction you were unable to judge the level of your fit on the 7-level. I think that this is not a coincidence.

 

Not my system, this was team mates auction. I wouldn't have bid 4♠.

[DavidKok]

Ah, my mistake. The point stands though, I would prefer 4♣ fit-showing and 5♣ to play over two shades of club holdings.