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.