Plain sailing?

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=s652hj5dj7ck76532&w=sathat972dkq9852c&n=sk97hk864d4cqjt94&e=sqj843hq3dat63ca8&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sp2hp3dp4dp5cp6dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The first hand of the national simultaneous tournament last night seemed like plain sailing at the time, a diamonds slam which was fairly obvious and with no difficulty in the play. As there were also no really obvious alternative contracts (3NT with those clubs takes nerve as well as a jaunted view of minor slams) I expected to score little better than average, instead it was 75%. Out of 83 tables playing the board, just 32 made 6♦, 15 sneaked 3NT, 17 played game in a moysian major, one made the PAR of 6♥ or 6♠W, with 2 somehow making 7♦ and 10 going down in some contract.

 

Thinking harder about it, the bidding does pose some challenges, in particular whether 2/1 responder bids diamonds or hearts and how to control-bid / keycard over a minor fit exposed late in the auction. I had to guess a bit, having no kickback with this partner and knowing we were missing both major Kings. How would others go about bidding this one and what problems / risks / solutions do you see?

[Winstonm]

One problem that is obvious (to me, anyway) is that opener is really not interested in slam, especially in an auction that starts with 1S-2H. I would have bid 2N over 2H, and then would have a decision to make over 3D - raise, 3H, or 3Nt? Without an initial 2D response, I doubt I would have found slam unless partner bid aggressively.

[pescetom]

One problem that is obvious (to me, anyway) is that opener is really not interested in slam, especially in an auction that starts with 1S-2H. I would have bid 2N over 2H, and then would have a decision to make over 3D - raise, 3H, or 3Nt? Without an initial 2D response, I doubt I would have found slam unless partner bid aggressively.

 

Understood. Italian style is to bid 3♦ over 2♥ with a decent 4-card suit and even minimal extras: now it is partner (me) who is sitting on a diamonds powerhouse and a clubs void, so hardly needs to be aggressive.

[mikeh]

I simply don’t understand 2H. Why are we distorting our hand when we have mild slam interest?

 

While we should survive on this hand (1S 2H 2S 3D 4D is one possible start), it’s simply bad bridge to lie about one’shand in a constructive auction where we are not in control.

 

Picture KQJxx xxx Axx Ax

 

1S 2H: opener should raise with three card support, since it is pretty much universal that 2H shows 5+.

 

Just try getting to 7N now.

 

I’m not saying it’s easy to get to 7n after a 2D response, but 6D is solid while 6H has zero play.

 

Note that no keycard bid by either player gives the necessary information, even exclusion.

 

That’s obviously an improbable hand for opener, but the general point is valid across a wide range of hands

 

KQxxx Kx Jxx Axx

 

Would we rather be in 3N, 4H, 4S or 5D?

 

You’d be playing with mirrors to reach 5D after 2H…almost for sure you’re in 4H.

 

And so on.

 

With good hands, bid shape properly. I know a lot of people don’t trust their partners so they mastermind. Masterminding makes partners not trust you, and so a vicious cycle is created. Neither player bids descriptively because they don’t trust partner.

 

/rant

[LBengtsson]

I simply don’t understand 2H. Why are we distorting our hand when we have mild slam interest?

 

I was going to say the same. you got there first, mikeh :)

[Winstonm]

Understood. Italian style is to bid 3♦ over 2♥ with a decent 4-card suit and even minimal extras: now it is partner (me) who is sitting on a diamonds powerhouse and a clubs void, so hardly needs to be aggressive.

That makes sense but I am with the others thinking 2D is the correct first bid.

[pescetom]

That makes sense but I am with the others thinking 2D is the correct first bid.

 

If I opened the thread it was principally because I had doubts about this instinctive choice, although not at the time.

I certainly had no intention (@mikeh) to mastermind my companion, just maximise the odds of reaching an effective contract at MP.

Curious to see what others have to say about this.

[Winstonm]

If I opened the thread it was principally because I had doubts about this instinctive choice, although not at the time.

I certainly had no intention (@mikeh) to mastermind my companion, just maximise the odds of reaching an effective contract at MP.

Curious to see what others have to say about this.

 

IMO, this hand is way too slammish to simply think game, although I certainly appreciate your matchpoint thinking.

[jillybean]

I don't like 2♥ when you've got 2♦ available to describe this hand. I also don't like 3♦, for me it would show extra's, I would bid a "waiting" 2♠ / 2♥ with this hand.

 

1♠:2♦

3♦

 

I know a lot of people don’t trust their partners so they mastermind. Masterminding makes partners not trust you, and so a vicious cycle is created. Neither player bids descriptively because they don’t trust partner.

 

/rant

And it's a hard habit to break.

[mikeh]

If I opened the thread it was principally because I had doubts about this instinctive choice, although not at the time.

I certainly had no intention (@mikeh) to mastermind my companion, just maximise the odds of reaching an effective contract at MP.

Curious to see what others have to say about this.

I didn’t mean to imply that you actively intended to mastermind. What I did intend to imply was that one should almost never distort shape when embarking on a power auction.

 

Bidding 2H means you were thinking about 4H rather than 5D, 6D or 7D. Why?

 

The effect, if not the conscious intent, of distorting shape early in power auctions (defined as auctions where, on the first round, a game force is established) is to mastermind.

 

Too many people think that they are the decision makers. Here, you thought that showing hearts was the likely key to the hand, but you have woefully inadequate information on which to make ANY decision as to strain or level.

 

You and partner should be undertaking a dialogue.

 

He: I have an opening hand with 5+ spades

 

You: I have game values and 5+ hearts, and hearts are as long as or longer than either of my minors

 

 

It should start:

 

He: I have an opening hand with 5+ spades

 

You: I have 5+ diamonds (or 4+ if that’s your style) and game values

 

As it happens, he raises and off you go.

 

But most of the time he’ll do something else

 

1S 2D

2H……again, off you go…I’d use exclusion now

 

1S 2D

2N……3H….I have at least 4=5 reds and game values….when/if I next bid 4H, I show 5+ hearts, longer diamonds and a good hand

 

1S 2D

2S 3H…..see above

 

 

Note that Axxxx is not a slam friendly trump suit, especially when partner is supposed to raise with 3.

 

The masterminding occurred subconsciously when you decided that you would try to get hearts as trump rather than try to engage partner in a discussion about which strain to play in. Most masterminding is like that….

 

 

Interestingly enough (?), say you held Ax AKQJx Qxxxxx void

 

Now here’s a hand on which it might well work out ok to bid 2H. The diamond suit is not at all slam suitable unless you’re very lucky to find partner with strong diamonds, while hearts will play fine opposite xxx (ignoring tap issues). I still wouldn’t bid 2H, but I’d be closer to understanding why it might work well.

[johnu]

Understood. Italian style is to bid 3♦ over 2♥ with a decent 4-card suit and even minimal extras: now it is partner (me) who is sitting on a diamonds powerhouse and a clubs void, so hardly needs to be aggressive.

 

Is responding 2♥ instead of 2♦ a holdover from canape days in Italy?

[mw64ahw]

I like to play Majors first when 5+ so would have opened initially showing the 5♥. I've looked at approaches using 2♥ or 2♦, but am sticking with natural for the time being.

 

It may well be that the shorter fit plays better with the extra length in ♦ and either fit can be found if it is there. Regardless of whether I open the ♦ or ♥ first 6/7♦ is the final contract.

 

West should be considering the grand with his distribution opposite a non-Min East

 

1♠-2♥

2♠ (5♠ & 4+m)-2NT (Which? denies a ♥ fit)

3♦ (4+♦)-4♥ (2/4KCs counting the void as a KC)

5♣ (club control denies ♥/♠ control)-6♦ (struggle to get rid of a ♥ looser)

[pescetom]

Bidding 2H means you were thinking about 4H rather than 5D, 6D or 7D. Why?

No, I was thinking 6D or 7D from the start, just worried that if 6H was also on it would probably score much better at MP and be bid by much of the field. Having said that, what you say about trusting the system makes sense, and I am often irrational or poorly concentrated on the first hand of a tournament: more so on this occasion as no longer used to F2F and fighting for space on the table amongst bidding boxes, travellers, Howell movement sheets and other mysterious paraphernalia.

 

 

It should start:

 

He: I have an opening hand with 5+ spades

 

You: I have 5+ diamonds (or 4+ if that’s your style) and game values

 

As it happens, he raises and off you go.

 

But most of the time he’ll do something else

 

1S 2D

2H……again, off you go…I’d use exclusion now

 

1S 2D

2N……3H….I have at least 4=5 reds and game values….when/if I next bid 4H, I show 5+ hearts, longer diamonds and a good hand

 

1S 2D

2S 3H…..see above

 

 

Note that Axxxx is not a slam friendly trump suit, especially when partner is supposed to raise with 3.

 

The one that was worrying me is 1S 2D; 2N 3H... when I next bid 4H, partner might find it tough to believe I have 5+ hearts, longer diamonds and a good hand, and even if he does then the follow ups are not well defined in our system as we haven't fixed trumps: I would take 4S/5C as a control-bid in hearts and 4N as RKCB hearts, but I don't think he can rely on that, and 5D is anyone's guess.

[bluenikki]

How about Ax AKQJx 10xxxxx _ ?

 

Carl

 

I didn’t mean to imply that you actively intended to mastermind. What I did intend to imply was that one should almost never distort shape when embarking on a power auction.

 

Bidding 2H means you were thinking about 4H rather than 5D, 6D or 7D. Why?

 

The effect, if not the conscious intent, of distorting shape early in power auctions (defined as auctions where, on the first round, a game force is established) is to mastermind.

 

Too many people think that they are the decision makers. Here, you thought that showing hearts was the likely key to the hand, but you have woefully inadequate information on which to make ANY decision as to strain or level.

 

You and partner should be undertaking a dialogue.

 

He: I have an opening hand with 5+ spades

 

You: I have game values and 5+ hearts, and hearts are as long as or longer than either of my minors

 

 

It should start:

 

He: I have an opening hand with 5+ spades

 

You: I have 5+ diamonds (or 4+ if that’s your style) and game values

 

As it happens, he raises and off you go.

 

But most of the time he’ll do something else

 

1S 2D

2H……again, off you go…I’d use exclusion now

 

1S 2D

2N……3H….I have at least 4=5 reds and game values….when/if I next bid 4H, I show 5+ hearts, longer diamonds and a good hand

 

1S 2D

2S 3H…..see above

 

 

Note that Axxxx is not a slam friendly trump suit, especially when partner is supposed to raise with 3.

 

The masterminding occurred subconsciously when you decided that you would try to get hearts as trump rather than try to engage partner in a discussion about which strain to play in. Most masterminding is like that….

 

 

Interestingly enough (?), say you held Ax AKQJx Qxxxxx void

 

Now here’s a hand on which it might well work out ok to bid 2H. The diamond suit is not at all slam suitable unless you’re very lucky to find partner with strong diamonds, while hearts will play fine opposite xxx (ignoring tap issues). I still wouldn’t bid 2H, but I’d be closer to understanding why it might work well.