working on mysteries without any clues

[kenberg]

It will not surprise those who read my posts that I often find ambiguity in auctions. Here is one from Jim's session yesterday:

1 -   2 - X - Pass
2 -  Pass - 4NT

I was the 4NT bidder, I was hoping it would be taken as RKC for and it was. So what's the problem?

I had a big hand (obviously) and I had both majors. But suppose I had a big hand with three and four . Let's say that I have a big enough hand so that I want to play a slam in if we can find a 4-4 fit, and I want to invite but not insist on a NT slam if we do not find a fit. With such a hand I would, I think, also start with the negative double and then, after the 3 , I would want to invite a NT slam. 
Also, opener does not have to have either major. So suppose, in response to my negative double, she rebids 2 . What is 4NT in this situation? Here there are options. If jumping from 2 to 4 is minorwood, which possible it should be, then 4NT can be used as a NT invitation.  Obviously I would not try this without previous discussion.

Here was (my recollection of) the actual hand.  As mentioned it all went smoothly:

: AKxx
: AQJx
: Jx
: Axx.


I'm not sure I even need to bother with RKC. After partner shows up with four there surely is a good play for 12 tricks and going for 13 seems like a stretch. Partner has Qxxx but of course after the overcall it is somewhat more likely than usual that the will not be 3-2. I don't think she had the J. Anyway, I think 6 is reasonable and in fact it makes 7 even opposite pard's 12 count. She has, as I recall, the AKQxx and they break 4-2 so, after the split, all we need is for the finesse to work. It does, as is likely from the 2 call. Still, I'm fine with settling for a small slam.

Vary my hand a bit to:

: AKx
: AQJx
: Jxx
: Axx.


Now I want to be in 6 if partner has , and I want to invite 6 NT, or possibly 6 , depending on pard's shape, if pard does not fit .

So that's a lot of variations. It's great when i have spades and pard has spades, but life is not always so simple.

[wackojack]

1 -   2 - X - Pass
2 -  Pass - ?

: AKx
: AQJx
: Jxx
: Axx.

Thoughts:  At present you do not know if partner has an unbalanced hand with longer diamonds than spades.  Or a 12-14 with 4  and 4  .  So perhaps we should find out by cuing 3  .  Then what do we we make of: 
3  ?  4252?  4351?  4153? 4162? 4261?  Regardless I think we could try 4N which has to be keycard in  . 
3  ? This cannot be a 4 card suit.  So I would take it as a denial of a club stop and a feature in hearts.  Now we could try 4N quantitative.
3  ?  Not sure what to make of this 5  + 6  ?  Surely not.
3NT?  12-14 with a  stop.  Now with a double  stop we might venture 6N or try 4N quantitative again.  Not sure.

No time to think deeper.

[Masse24]

Interesting question, Ken. I don’t believe I’ve ever contemplated this one. With the two-level overcall it would be rare to have slam interest, especially with a 40-point deck.

With your auction, responder’s double is searching for a major. The double does not promise both majors, which is almost universally accepted. Curiously, this search for a major resembles Stayman. So why not treat responder’s continuations in a similar fashion?

For example:
1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 3

3 agreeing to as trump and showing slam interest. Like Jack said, “This cannot be a 4 card suit.”

Or:
1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 3
3 agreeing to as trump and showing slam interest.

Surely the three-level bid of the other major cannot show the suit? With a five card (or longer) major, you just bid it . . . right?

Logically, the auction below, which is similar to yours but with the other major, can still end in the right strain:
1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 4NT

This should show something like this:
AKJx
AQT
Jxx
Ax

A quantitative invite with four , right? Maybe not. Is a quantitative invite even possible with a 2-level overcall? What could overcaller have other than a suit merely trying to get in the way of our auction? This would logically preclude the possibility of us holding that honor/stopper (although it didn't for you, Ken). If it is a quantitative invite, however, Opener, with a four card suit and a hand that would accept the "invite," can just bid 6 .

Maybe a search for slam after a two-level overcall is too rare to bother; rare enough that better uses could be made of the follow-up three-level bid of the other major?
Maybe the fact that opener has not implied a flattish hand is a consideration to reject this type of follow-up structure? But the resemblance to Stayman of responder’s double, I think, allows one to consider this structure.

Good question, Ken! Now I’m curious enough to ask around.

P.S. These ramblings are a product of a 4 a.m. brain, pre-caffeine, working on four hours sleep. Any resemblance to gibberish is (like most days) to be expected. 

[kenberg]

I also need some coffee, but I just got up. I think Steve Robinson recommends that after 1 - 2 that the negative double promise either both majors or else just one major plus a fit.  I'll have to take a look.

Usually we need some shape for slam if the opponents have the strength to come in with 2 , however 2 over 1 does often make things a little tough for the opening side, exactly because of the issues of sorting out who has four cards in which major,  so sometimes the opps get aggressive on this.

On the hand that I had, holding the A, surely the KQ are on my right pretty much assures me that partner has either the K or the Q, or both. So really, unless I opt for chasing the tough to find grand, it seems I could just raise 2 to 6 and lay down the dummy. interestingly, even with the suggested three card holding of AKx there should be a decent play for 6NT with partner's Qxxx / xx / AKQxx / Jx (maybe the Jx was xx). The finesse is pretty much marked to work so that's 3 tricks in that suit. Add in 3 spades, 5 diamonds and a club and voila.

Added: As mentioned, this was one of the hands in the jcreech gathering Thursday. He mentioned that at some tables the overcall was 3 rather than 2 . This of course would present other problems, but with the hands as they were I can imagine it going  X-3!S-6!S by responder and opener.

[jcreech]

Before I get into other comments, my recollection of the meaning of the negative double in the action (as defined by Steve Robinson) is the same as Ken's - both majors or one major and a fit.

With regard to the auction that Ken had, I agree with the inferences he made at the table.  I also think he is right that there is some justification to raise 2 directly to 6 .  Nonetheless, with Ken's hand, there is a reasonable chance for a grand, and I think worthy of exploration.  The question is how?

RKC is certainly a possibility, and yet Ken stopped short of completing that approach.  After finding out that partner had one (the maximum possible), Ken just lept to slam.  Did Ken use RKC just to temper his excitement?  That has not been my experience with him as a partner.  I think he just changed his mind and decided not to guild the lily.  If you are truly interested in a grand, then you make the queen ask.  When partner shows the queen and the K, the heart has already been bypassed, so you need to decide whether you want to bid the grand on a 4-4 fit knowing that the K is likely in the groove. 

I would base the decision of things like quality of opponents, state of match, and so forth.  With barometer scoring, certainly state of match would be my major consideration.

For me, the best way to explore a grand is to start with a cue bid.  At that point, all I am looking for is cooperation.  For a reasonable opener (given the overcall), partner needs to have four of the following, Q, K, AKQ.  For me, 3 shows a diamond control and 4 would show a cheesy 11 or 12 without either top honor, nothing else should be possible.

In some ways, I think the bidding and assumptions being made following a 3 overcall are more interesting.  Similar to Ken's auction, there was a negative double and bid.  Now I think it is more critical to cue bid, but you cannot feel reasonably certain that the K would be onside opposite a minimum, so a good diamond holding may be critical just to park your small clubs for 6.

[kenberg]

I grabbed my Washington Standard, 2nd ed. page 209 and indeed Robinson suggests that, after 1 - (2 ), a negative double will always be on either both majors or one major and a fit. He takes this literally, so that when opener responds 2 to the double, a bid of 2 shows four spades and a fit, while if opener responds 2 to the double, responder can bid 3 to show and a fit.

I have sometimes thought that there should be one other option. The doubler perhaps could have just one major if he is then prepared to bid NT over the "wrong" major response from opener. Steve seems to be saying no to this. I can imagine why. Sometimes, after the negative double, Lho might bid, say, 4 . If opener, holding one major, can trust that his partner has either that major or else the other major and , he might have the values to bid the major he has on a pass/correct basis. Whatever his thinking, SR seems to insist that doubler hold if he has only one major.

[Masse24]

Not having read Washington Standard, my understanding of a negative double over 2 is similar, but not exactly the same. I fully agree that it does not promise both majors. But I am not so rigid with the "if one major then too" requirement. I did not read this in a book, I simply picked it up along the way. So my understanding is two places to play.

This:

• A. Both majors
• B. One major and diamond support
• C. One major and a healthy club stop w invitational + values

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to agree trump and show slam interest. 

I know a cuebid will be a common method, but it can get murky. For example, what is responder's next call here wanting to go slamming in :

1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 3 - (P)
3NT - (P) - ??

[Added] I suppose that 4 now or 4 would show a control agreeing .

[kenberg]

Yes, the way Todd describes it is how I thought of it. But I can see the point in the "Both majors or else one major and support" approach.

I have been thinking a little more about the had I actually had:

: AKxx
: AQJx
: Jx
: Axx.



After the overcall and the 2 response to my negative double, I am in the unusual position of wanting partner to not have the K! Surely the overcall is not on just six clubs to the KQJ, and I wand partner to have the Q. But then my Rho must have some values in one of the red suits, so partner is missing some values in one of the red suits, and, assuming Rho has a red K, it's much better for our side if it is the K rather than the K.

Jim was suggesting that after I use rkc to determine partner has one key card that I continue on to ask about the Q, and of course that is right, at least if I want to try for the grand. So suppose I do that and find that partner has the Q and does not have the K.  I could do this with a 5 call over partner's 1430 5 bid. in response to 5 , partner has the Q, not the K, and so bids 6 . If I think it through, 7 is looking pretty good as long as are 3-2.  Of course I don't know that partner has a five card suit, but actually AKQx seems to be enough, as long as the K is onside. Let's give partner a 4=3=4=2 shape (S/he won't have 4=3=3=3, that gets opened 1 )

: AKxx
: AQJx
: Jx
: Axx.


: Qxxx
: xxx
: AKQx
: xx (or Jx, doesn't matter)

The 2 overcall was by W (as the diagram is placed). We win the opening lead, play three rounds of , take the finesse, play four rounds of tossing the two , repeat the finesse, and claim.  Nobody cares how the split, as long as the K is onside.


Jim mentioned that when he was watching, at least one table faced a 3 weak jump overcall. Then we might not be so sure that the overcalling hand has any values outside of , in which case I doubt one can reach 7. After all, it is a 31 point grand. Knowing  the location of the K is the key to getting to 7.  I didn't do it, but perhaps I should have. 


Back for a moment to Todd's post, including the Added:

1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 3 - (P)
3NT - (P) - ??

[Added] I suppose that 4 now or 4 would show a control agreeing .

Yes, probably it would, although I think bidding 4 over 3NT would show a control.  Opener could reason: If partner just wanted to play 4 he could have bid 4 over 2 so he is up to something. A control, with slam interest,  seems like the something. My general view is that if partner ostensibly is trying to get to NT, and then when I bid NT he pulls, it's a slam try and I should re-think the meaning of what I thought of as a try for NT.

[wackojack]

Not having read Washington Standard, my understanding of a negative double over 2 is similar, but not exactly the same. I fully agree that it does not promise both majors. But I am not so rigid with the "if one major then too" requirement. I did not read this in a book, I simply picked it up along the way. So my understanding is two places to play.

This:

• A. Both majors
• B. One major and diamond support
• C. One major and a healthy club stop w invitational + values

I think possibility A allows you to be quite weak. B allows you to be a little stronger and with C you need to have a hand strong enough to bid game.  The general rule being that the weaker the hand the more shape specific is has to be.  With a monster 19 points opposite an opening bid it can break all the rules of shape specificity:  So say you have :

: AKx
: AQJ
: Jxx
: Axxx.

Then you still double and when partner shows a 4 card spade suit with 2  , you can ask again with 3 clubs.  Now if partner next bids 3 you might strongly suspect that he opened with with something like a 4261 distribution and as little as 10 points.  So now how do you more forwards to confirm this? 
1 – (2 ) – X – (P)
2 – (P) – 3 - (P)
3  -(p) -