[lamford]

---

Dealer South Love All. Assume South passes.

Board 1 of the second week of the London Superleague featured a solid grand, only bid at two of the 12 tables, despite the presence of many national champions, and some World Champions. Your reporter was not there, so does not know how many tables had a free run. Some might have opened a trash natural weak 2D as South which would test your methods!

[Cyberyeti]

2♣-2♥(nat F4N unless a suit is known to be open)
2N-3♣(asking)
3♠(5 without 3♥)

and now there are various ways of continuing, blackwood will do it (and yes 4N is keycard since 3N is forcing)

[mikeh]

even Seeing both hands doesn’t help much.

2C 2D would be our start in my serious partnerships, with 2D gf and semi-automatic


Now west has 3 choices: 2S to show the 5 card suit, 2N to show 22-23, or 2H, kokish (forces 2S and now 2Nshows 24-25)

I’d never show the spades, but that 5th spade, and all those controls, would cause me to upgrade into kokish.

2C 2D 2H 2S 2N 3D 3H is all obvious, but then it becomes murky. I don’t see how east can ever count to 13 tricks, nor how west can ever discover that he has 5 spade winners.

20 years ago I played, in one partnership, a relay method over the 2N rebid, which would (if we remembered the method) make it trivial. East would not show his hand, but west would show 5=2=3=3, all the aces, and the red kings.

However, even tho that partnership has reformed, we aren’t playing relay any more, since it was very high memory load for rare gain, and we’re both much older😀

I suspect strong club bidders would have an easier time.

[FelicityR]

mikeh, on 2020-February-06, 09:40, said:

even Seeing both hands doesn’t help much.

2C 2D would be our start in my serious partnerships, with 2D gf and semi-automatic

Now west has 3 choices: 2S to show the 5 card suit, 2N to show 22-23, or 2H, kokish (forces 2S and now 2Nshows 24-25)

I’d never show the spades, but that 5th spade, and all those controls, would cause me to upgrade into kokish.

I suspect strong club bidders would have an easier time.

I couldn't agree more. Re-bidding that semi-anaemic ♠ suit in any auction in preference to a 2NT rebid just doesn't enter the equation in my book, too. I can't see a logical way to the grand slam either starting with a 2♣ bid except if you have some gadget on board as in Cyberyeti's auction.

[nige1]

Lamford "Dealer South Love All. Assume South passes. Board 1 of the second week of the London Superleague featured a solid grand, only bid at two of the 12 tables, despite the presence of many national champions, and some World Champions. Your reporter was not there, so does not know how many tables had a free run. Some might have opened a trash natural weak 2D as South which would test your methods!
++++++++++++++++++++++

A Jasmine 1♣ auction might start as on the left. The auction is weird because Jasmine is meant to right-side contracts. Anyway, it's no help here

- 7N seems to be the best contract.
- 7♥ should be OK.
- 7♠ needs more luck.

---

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2020-February-06, 09:40, said:

even Seeing both hands doesn’t help much.

2C 2D would be our start in my serious partnerships, with 2D gf and semi-automatic


Now west has 3 choices: 2S to show the 5 card suit, 2N to show 22-23, or 2H, kokish (forces 2S and now 2Nshows 24-25)

I’d never show the spades, but that 5th spade, and all those controls, would cause me to upgrade into kokish.

I would never show those spades, but I also dislike upgrading very strong balanced hands as quantitative bidding becomes important.
Here on a good day we might bid:
2♣ 2♦
2NT 3♣ (Puppet)
3♠ 4NT (RKC)
5♣ 5NT
6♦ 6♥ (probe for second K)
6NT 7NT

[KingCovert]

1♣: 15+
1♦: Game Forcing
1♠: 4+♠
2♥: 5+♥
2N: 18-20 Balanced or 23+ Balanced. Exactly 5♠.
3♠: 3♠
4N: 1430

There'll be a queen ask in there, but, partner has Game Forcing values, and 5 hearts opposite my AK♥s. I'm bidding grand.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2020-February-06, 13:50, said:

I would never show those spades, but I also dislike upgrading very strong balanced hands as quantitative bidding becomes important.
Here on a good day we might bid:
2♣ 2♦
2NT 3♣ (Puppet)
3♠ 4NT (RKC)
5♣ 5NT
6♦ 6♥ (probe for second K)
6NT 7NT

Is 4N RKC rather than quantitative ?

[lamford]

KingCovert, on 2020-February-06, 14:28, said:

1♣: 15+
1♦: Game Forcing
1♠: 4+♠
2♥: 5+♥
2N: 18-20 Balanced or 23+ Balanced. Exactly 5♠.
3♠: 3♠
4N: 1430

There'll be a queen ask in there, but, partner has Game Forcing values, and 5 hearts opposite my AK♥s. I'm bidding grand.

One of the problems with a strong club is intervention. The opponents should be bumping it to 2NT on the first round. I think that a reasonable uncontested auction is 2C-2D-2NT (24+)-3D*-3S (should be played as 5 spades and only 2 hearts). Now I suggest that 4C sets hearts and 4D sets spades. Now I think West should set hearts, and then RKCB for hearts, and he finds out that his partner has Axxxx A? A? A?. Is it correct for the weaker hand to RKCB? It might be here, and after West discovers all the key cards are present, he can ask for specific kings with 5NT. Now, as Tom Townsend once told me, it is unsound to play that 6C shows either the king of clubs or the other two, and East should bid 6D. Then 6H asks partner to bid grand with the king of hearts. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. Dream on ...

[KingCovert]

lamford, on 2020-February-06, 14:42, said:

One of the problems with a strong club is intervention. The opponents should be bumping it to 2NT on the first round. I think that a reasonable uncontested auction is 2C-2D-2NT (24+)-3D*-3S (should be played as 5 spades and only 2 hearts). Now I suggest that 4C sets hearts and 4D sets spades. Now I think West should set hearts, and then RKCB for hearts, and he finds out that his partner has Axxxx A? A? A?. Is it correct for the weaker hand to RKCB? It might be here, and after West discovers all the key cards are present, he can ask for specific kings with 5NT. Now, as Tom Townsend once told me, it is unsound to play that 6C shows either the king of clubs or the other two, and East should bid 6D. Then 6H asks partner to bid grand with the king of hearts. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. Dream on ...

Sure, intervention can sometimes be a problem. Although, not on this hand. And, I certainly won't complain about being given the opportunity to score 2NTx-8 for significantly more than I can make in a non-vul grand. But, our defensive methods would handle this hand just fine, and they're not particularly refined.

I'd far sooner deal with slightly more frequent intervention in an auction where my partner's hand is completely unspecified, and my hand is known to be strong, with scores like 2NTx-8 as possibilities than the myriad of problems that face people who play 2♣ as strong. One of the problems with your argument is the underlying assumption that the intervention would be beneficial or effective, this is suspect at best against pairs who have solid agreements about how to handle interference.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2020-February-06, 13:50, said:

I would never show those spades, but I also dislike upgrading very strong balanced hands as quantitative bidding becomes important.
Here on a good day we might bid:
2♣ 2♦
2NT 3♣ (Puppet)
3♠ 4NT (RKC)
5♣ 5NT
6♦ 6♥ (probe for second K)
6NT 7NT

One upgrades when the hand is worth more than the hcp suggests. To refuse to upgrade when the hand is worth more than the 4321 point count suggests makes quantitative bidding difficult, while showing the value of the hand makes it easy Bridge, even quantitative bidding, is not simply adding 4+3+2+1 points. Cards take tricks, points don’t. The only utility of point count is to afford a simplistic guide to evaluation. If one decides that one will not apply judgement (as in an appreciation that a hand may be worth more...or sometimes less...than the hcp) then one is going to miss quite a few good contracts through mis-evaluation.

I’ve upgraded 19 counts into a 20-21 2N and, when the bidding indicated we had a super-fit, accepted a quantitative slam try (to a great slam). I don’t assert this to say how wonderful I am, but to stress how important it is to have valuation tools, and a willingness to use them, beyond simple arithmetic. Indeed, in quantitative auctions I rarely count points at the point of deciding to go or not go. I ask myself: do I like my hand in the context of the auction so far. Hcp is usually a minor factor....controls, fit and shape are the main factors.

[lamford]

KingCovert, on 2020-February-06, 15:01, said:

Sure, intervention can sometimes be a problem. Although, not on this hand. And, I certainly won't complain about being given the opportunity to score 2NTx-8 for significantly more than I can make in a non-vul grand. But, our defensive methods would handle this hand just fine, and they're not particularly refined.

I'd far sooner deal with slightly more frequent intervention in an auction where my partner's hand is completely unspecified, and my hand is known to be strong, with scores like 2NTx-8 as possibilities than the myriad of problems that face people who play 2♣ as strong. One of the problems with your argument is the underlying assumption that the intervention would be beneficial or effective, this is suspect at best against pairs who have solid agreements about how to handle interference.

I didn't think that they would be playing 2NTx. In fact on the two hands you can beat 3Dx by 4 for 800 which is a bit of a loss if you can make a grand. You have three clubs, two top trumps and three major suit winners. I would have opened 3D on the South hand, x xx QTxxx Kxxxx, if 2D was not available. But I agree that a strong club does better without intervention. Many pairs play it when the opponents are vulnerable because of intervention. If I knew you were playing 1C-1D as game-forcing, I would open a strong NT sans voir on the South hand!

[KingCovert]

lamford, on 2020-February-06, 15:30, said:

I didn't think that they would be playing 2NTx. In fact on the two hands you can beat 3Dx by 4 for 800 which is a bit of a loss if you can make a grand. You have three clubs, two top trumps and three major suit winners. I would have opened 3D on the South hand, x xx QTxxx Kxxxx, if 2D was not available. But I agree that a strong club does better without intervention. Many pairs play it when the opponents are vulnerable because of intervention. If I knew you were playing 1C-1D as game-forcing, I would open a strong NT sans voir on the South hand!

I know you didn't think they'd be playing 2NTx, neither did I, but, I have an "opportunity" for that to be the contract given what you said. I don't know why you'd assume that I'd sit for 3Dx, that seems silly on this particular hand.

While, I may agree that a strong club does better without intervention, it's in the sort of default way in which almost all systems do better without intervention. I think you should read my post again, you seem to have overlooked the commentary on how interfering in an auction doesn't always result in a better outcome than silence. Which is the whole point I was trying to make.

On the whole, I just find both your posts to be rather ridiculous. Now, you're gloating about how you'd open the South hand a strong NT without looking because my agreement is 1C-1D game forcing? Besides the obvious ethical issues here, in order to assess that this would be an appropriate hand to do so, you might have to look at it. Just a thought. It's just somewhat impossible to take you seriously when you talk this way. And, if you believe that you would have opened 3D on South's hand, then, I don't really see the point of questioning my strong club methods, since neither a 1♣ or 2♣ opening bid was ultimately made on this hand.

I've seen many players exhibit behaviour like this before, and I'll reserve my commentary on what I think it indicates, it's not flattering.

[lamford]

KingCovert, on 2020-February-06, 16:01, said:

On the whole, I just find both your posts to be rather ridiculous. Now, you're gloating about how you'd open the South hand a strong NT without looking because my agreement is 1C-1D game forcing? Besides the obvious ethical issues here, in order to assess that this would be an appropriate hand to do so, you might have to look at it.

I think you are interpreting my point too literally. I was suggesting that the upside of bidding 1C-1D as game forcing is overshadowed - massively - by the opponents making sure that you don't get that chance if at all possible. Quite a number of people only play Precision when the opponents are vulnerable. And no, I would never cheat and open 1NT sans voir, but a large number of people will bid over (or even before) Precision on practically any hand. We know that Precision is better if opponents are silent.

On your final point that my behaviour is not flattering, I will refer you to a quote by Jung: "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."

[lamford]

.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-06, 14:37, said:

Is 4N RKC rather than quantitative ?

If he shows a 5-card major yes. If he denied it would be quantitative.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2020-February-07, 03:15, said:

If he shows a 5-card major yes. If he denied it would be quantitative.

OK, for us this is quantitative on a hand that was looking for a heart fit, how do you bid a 24(34) in range for ...2N-4N.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-07, 04:36, said:

how do you bid a 24(34) in range for ...2N-4N.

I could bid that as 2N 3♣ 3♦ 3♠, over which I'm going to discover if opener has fit for hearts and if so if he is max.
But in quantitative range I'm more likely to bid a vanilla 2N 4N with that shape.
With a quacky hand on the edge like the one in OP we might even bid Gerber (don't tell bridgewinners).

[msjennifer]

Sir,
With due respect to all ,we have to be able to discover both the Jacks in order to bid the 7NT contract.If East does not have either of them then we can not count 13 tricks,Given the hands to two good bidders using standard system did not want to bid 7 as they could not discover the Jacks and did not want to bet everything on a club finesse in case both the Jacks are well guarded .I then gave the hand to two of my super precision playing friends,.
1♣-1♥
1♠2♦
2♠-3♦
3♠-4♣
4hearts]-4NT
5♥-5NT
7NT.
1♣ 16+,1♥ 5+ H and 8+,1♠ask in S,2♦Support and 0 to 2 controls,2♠ clarify,3♦ 2 top honors,3♠ do you have Jack?,4♣YES,4♥ask in♥-4NT,5cards and one top honor,5♥Do you have the Jack?.5NT-YES. Now can count 13 tricks and bids 7NT Goes down only if an opponent holds 5/6 hearts and can not be squeezed if a club is led.,

[Cyberyeti]

msjennifer, on 2020-February-08, 09:53, said:

Sir,
With due respect to all ,we have to be able to discover both the Jacks in order to bid the 7NT contract.If East does not have either of them then we can not count 13 tricks,Given the hands to two good bidders using standard system did not want to bid 7 as they could not discover the Jacks and did not want to bet everything on a club finesse in case both the Jacks are well guarded .I then gave the hand to two of my super precision playing friends,.
1♣-1♥
1♠2♦
2♠-3♦
3♠-4♣
4hearts]-4NT
5♥-5NT
7NT.
1♣ 16+,1♥ 5+ H and 8+,1♠ask in S,2♦Support and 0 to 2 controls,2♠ clarify,3♦ 2 top honors,3♠ do you have Jack?,4♣YES,4♥ask in♥-4NT,5cards and one top honor,5♥Do you have the Jack?.5NT-YES. Now can count 13 tricks and bids 7NT Goes down only if an opponent holds 5/6 hearts and can not be squeezed if a club is led.,

The key is that if you don't play these asks that E who is looking at the J's does the asking, if you can engineer that and have W show 5 spades, you're in shape