Help me bid this hand pls :)

[Curls77]

In IAC matches today this was first hand. None vulnerable N is dealer.
At 1 table bidding was
pass 1D pass 1S pass
3D pass 3N and all pass

other table:
pass 3N (alert as gambling) pass 4C (alert as aces, presumably Gerber)
4D pass 4N (not alerted but meant as rkc --- ask same again??) pass
5D pass 6N all pass.

Full deal : https://tinyurl.com/y6g3kgqq

I'd be all lost at both tables, which is common state for me anyway
I'd take gambling as weak hand with long minor and no outside entries.
From the other angle, East hand has only 4 losers, is it not better open 2C? And how proceed? Would u bid 2C-2D waiting, or 2C-2S with so bad suit, or 2C-2N positive balanced (I hate that bid).

Thanks

[kenberg]

Opponents can play any agreement that they want, but I know of no one who thinks of the E hand as a Gambling 3NT.

Now when I am playing a Gambling 3NT, the meaning of 4 is not Gerber, it is an escape to opener's minor.  Thus 3NT- 4 would, for me, mean: Pass if your minor is clubs, bid 4 if your minor is .  This would make sense because the opening bid of 3NT promises a running suit, so this includes the AK, and denies an outside A.  But that's me, they have their own way.

Now what would happen if I am playing with my clone?  Well, we have choices here but on this one I think yes, I do open 2 . I wouldn't be sure where we are going with this, but it seems right. Now the problem is to keep partner from getting too excited with the hand that he has. 2 - 2 - 3 - 3!S - ?. I have a good three card spade holding and a stiff club, I probably raise to 4 . It's not that the 3 showed five, but it didn't deny five and with only four he might have found an alternate bid. We will now go on to a slam somewhere, probably 6 . It seems that it can be make. although it requires care.   If N leads his stiff it's easy, but if he starts with a it presumably then goes to the board dropping the Q, then a back, and here you duck, letting N take his trick while you still have a trump on the board to prevent opponents from cashing another . It's true that the hand makes 7 , played double dummy.   Declarer wins the opening lead, cashes the K, and then runs the 9. But nobody is actually going to be doing that. Of course 7NT is easy when the Q falls.

Possibly you are better off if your agreement is that 2 - 2 shows some values, with 2 - 2 being the negative bid. You are then in a game force after 2 - 2 and maybe this helps. The guy that I play a weekly face to face game with likes control responses to 2 . I'm not a fan, but he likes it so I play it.It works well here. The auction begins 2 - 3 showing 4 controls (A counts as 2, K as 1). Opener can see that partner cannot have either two aces or four kings so he has one A and two kings. That's enough info to bid the slam.

Added: I am not really positive I would/should raise 3 to 4 , it could go very wrong. I am nver going to figure out about pard's club A so it's between raising spades and going back to diamonds. I don't think it is clear cut but probably after the 2 opening we get to one slam or the other. I'll be interested in other's thoughts.

[Masse24]

I open 1 . Will elaborate later.

[Added]
Obviously not a gambling 3NT, at least using anything resembling a standard definition of that method. And 4 as Gerber over any 3NT is a poor agreement. As Ken mentioned, if it’s Gambling 3NT --- 4 is now pass-or-correct.

So, how to bid this?

There are many possible auctions depending on your agreements, and your style.

First of all, I am intensely reluctant to open 2 when my suit is a minor. Yes, there are exceptions. This ain’t one of ‘em. It’s a rare hand that I decide to open 2 and intend to rebid 3 . Because responder will usually bid 2 , which will often make him declarer, I strain to avoid that start to an auction. If I do rebid 3 it’s truly a one-suited hand—at least six cards. A hand that, should partner pass my one-level open, I kick myself for not choosing 2 . Those hands happen. But this ain’t one of ‘em.

As an aside, if I have a four-card major, in addition to a six-plus card diamond suit, I jump rebid the major, a specialized agreement showing the 6-4 nature of my hand. It solves an otherwise difficult to handle space issue. 

If this hand is opened 2 , responder’s suit is not good enough (I prefer the 2-of-top-3 method) to respond 2 , so 2 it is. Also, after opener’s 3 , if this pair has agreed 3 is only rebid with single-suited hands, then responder knows they have at best a 5-3 fit. So . . . does responder introduce the suit, showing a 5+ card suit not good enough to respond 2 ? Or, does he support by bidding 4 ? I think it’s a close call if the previously mentioned agreements are in place.

So one possible auction beginning with 2 :
2 – 2
3 ^a – 4 ^b
4 ^c – 4 ^d
5 ^e – 5 ^f*
6

a) Six plus usually no four-card major
b) Choosing not to introduce the suit knowing "a." Agrees trump. Slamming.
c) Kickback
d) One key -- A obviously
e) King ask
f) Showing the K
* A bold responder (not me) knowing that the King ask also indicates partnership possession of all the key cards, might, with two Kings, simply bid the grand. I doubt I would do this, but it would cross my mind.

Another possible auction if responder shows the suit:
2 – 2
3 – 3 ^a
4 ^b – 4NT^c
5 ^d– 5 ^e
5 ^f – 6 ^g

a) Showing a 5+ card unable to show in response to 2
b) Okay, I have three
c) Too much to sign-off. RKCB
d) Three key cards
e) Q-ask
f) Nope. Do not have trump Q.
g) Five keys, missing Q. Small slam is high enough.

Or, if opened 1 :
1 – 1
3NT - ??
Is responder worth a slam try? I think yes. Opener is showing 7 running (presumably) and stuff outside. With my Ace, two Kings, and a Jack in the “outside” suits, those are certainly fillers for partner’s gaps. I would probably just rebid 4 here as responder, agreeing as trump, showing the slam try, and a control along the way. Partner could then keycard with 4 .

My personal preferences about how to begin the auction stems from my lurking on the BridgeBase Forums for hours and soaking up what I can from better players. They almost universally agree with the one-level approach with a minor. A friend posted a similar hand to Bridgewinners a couple of years ago. The results came back over 90% to open 1 . That does not mean everyone must. It's a choice of what you give up and what you gain. While I dislike the 2 approach, and understand the thinking, I would not choose it because it lacks just enough in defensive values to steer me toward 1 . Give me a K or K and I would feel better about opening 2 .

There are plenty of other possible auctions for the hand provided.

[kenberg]

I'll be interested in your thoughts, Todd. I can't say that I highly disagree, but I am thinking that if partner has as little as QTxx in clubs I should be able to make, or have a decent shot at, 3NT.  And QTx might be enough. Still, it's a tough hand.

I guess opening 1 and then bidding 3NT over any response shows a running suit with outside values.

[Masse24]

I really dislike the jump to 3NT following the 1 response with the obviously wide-open . But I dislike it less than starting with 2 . 

[kenberg]

I am not fond of the 2 opening. I don't worry so much about the lack of defensive values. I know some do, I just don't. But the problems I see are that after 2 - 2 - 3 it is still hard to sort out where it belongs. It would be better if the minor were clubs. After 2 - 2 - 3 I usually play that 3 is a second negative. But after 2 - 2 - 3 there is no second negative. It would indeed be useful to have the agreement that with long diamonds and a four card major it goes 2 - 2 - 4 . Then, after 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 4 partner will know the raise is on three.

I think of myself as being more reluctant to open 2 than many of my partners are, but I just couldn't stand it here.

My way of handling the lack of defense here is this: I pull my partner's first penalty double, almost no matter what the level. He is supposed to understand from this that I have an unusual hand. After that, I leave the next penalty double in.

I think the ACBL used to have some rules forbidding the 2 opening with a hand such as this. It was seen as some sort of psych.  I think they gave that up. I am not a rules expert.

It seems to me that all options are a bit chancy. What do we do after 1 - 1 ? Very possibly, on what is know so far,  the hand belongs in 4 . What's 1 - 1 - 4 ? That must be diamonds and some sort of major suit holding?  If partner responds 4 we can convert to 4 . But would he know what to do in this case? Maybe.


I don't see a clear route.  I acknowledge that opening 2 is not great.

[Masse24]

It would indeed be useful to have the agreement that with long diamonds and a four card major it goes 2 - 2 - 4 . Then, after 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 4 partner will know the raise is on three.

My earlier comment referred to a hand like this: x AKQx AKQJTx KQ

So the auction would proceed as follows:

2 - 2
3 -

indicating a four card suit and six+ card suit.

I first read this on Bobby Wolff's blog two years ago. Since then, I've seen it on both Bridgewinners and BBF.

I like it.

[kenberg]

Ah, I see. i have seen alternative meanings. 2 - 2 -3 is, I think, sometimes an announcement of the following: "Hearts are trump. I have exactly 9 tricks in my hand. Do what seems right."

I was thinking of 2 - 2 - 4 as being "I have six diamonds and a four card major. Please let me know if you have a four card major."

I am talking here of things that I think I have read about but I don't think I have ever played.

[jcreech]

I have played a form of gambling 3NT that fits this hand.  It was introduced to me as an "Acol" Gambling 3NT which may or may not be an accurate name for the bid.  Essentially, it shows a solid suit with at least two side suit stoppers.  The range that I played was 16-21 HCPs, and in that regard, this hand fits that description.  When I played this convention, our 3 bids showed solid suits without side stoppers (with the intent to right-side the 3NT contracts).  We did use 4 as a modified ace asking; since the primary suit was already known, we counted only side aces, and then side kings when asked.

However, to describe this hand as Gambling without any other modifiers is not the common understanding that most players use.  They tend to describe a Gambling 3NT as promising no outside ace or king (at least in the first two seats).

As for bidding this, if I did not have a spade stopper, then 3NT would have shown this sort of hand with many of my partners.  But the singleton is in .  I am tempted to manufacture a reverse into and see what happens.  I think I have some latitude with the spade support and partner will be playing this if they can't take a joke (or I can't steer this back where I think it belongs).

[Masse24]

Cool!

Never heard of it. "Acol Gambling 3NT" ---- Googled it. As you described, Jim. I learned something new, which is always a good thing. 

[kenberg]

Yep, live and learn. It would be good to know if the partnership is pick-up or regular. Whether by guess or by golly they found their way to 6NT.

The 4 call was alerted as "Aces?" including the question mark, or at least I assume that this alert was in fact given bt the bidder. After that nothing was alerted. I'm really curious as to just what meant what to whom.

But the tough part, for me,  is how I would bid it. I am not seeing a clear path.

[Curls77]

We all learned, great !! 

I only wonder why only 4 of us out of 590 IAC members? 

[kenberg]

It would be interesting to see what the OCP folks could sort out with their string of artificial bids. With the EW hands exactly as they are, the right contract is 6NT since there are 12 top tricks and the 13 the would have to come from spades. This time the comes down, but you don't want to be on it. But change the E holding in the majors from A65 / A6 to A6 / A65 and you want to be in 7 . This makes if are 2-1, and if they are 3-0 it's still ok if you can ruff the third round of without an over-ruff. Worth placing a bet on I think. OCP has a number of bids that ask for exact shape so maybe it would work here.

I'm still curious if E and W were on the same page as they bid this. In the alert of 4 the "?" was part of the alert, right, meaning it was asking about Aces rather than showing an Ace? But if so then what was 4 ? 

It's a tough hand to bid with any methods that I regularly use.

[Curls77]

All alerts that u can see in full deal are what really were given at the table.
The 4NT was not alerted, but after play started, it's bidder said it was rkc to my dismay, coz did not they just asked for aces with 4C, Gerber??

Funny, seems I can not stop see wrong use of Gerber at IAC tables. And ofc no real effort of new pardship agree on system.

[kenberg]

Often in pick-up games there are misunderstandings. Otoh, sometimes people have unusual systems. On this hand, if I held the W hand and a pick-up partner opened 3NT and, somehow, I knew that we were playing this as gambling but without further discussion, I might well make a gambling pass. I have a trick, partner has seven ricks, he won't have a side A or K, but he might have a little on the side and that might be enough. If I were pessimistic, or maybe I should say if I were realistic. I would pull to get us to 4 . Just how to do that is a question. There are various meanings attached to 3NT - 4 . A reasonable one is that it is to play. I think I would like my LHO, rather than my RHO, on lead against 4 . But w/o discussion, I just bid 4 , partner does as he is told and bids 4 , and I pass.

Now this is not what happened. E did not have the hand I would have for 3NT, and W did not treat the 3NT as the sort of hand I would have, so either they are playing a different system, perfectly possible, or they had a misunderstanding. I'm sort of betting on the latter. It happens a lot. No one to blame really, it's just a feature of playing with someone w/o having extended agreements about what means what.  I'm guessing W took the 3NT opening not as gambling but as a hand that is very strong.  Which it was, but maybe W was also expecting balanced. But I don't know.  I can make up an entire story line that fits both the hands and the alerts, but it's guesswork.

Back to what I would do. I dunno. I did consider opening 1 and manufacturing a fake reverse into but while I think that maybe that isn't crazy, it's just to extreme, seven in my real suit, two in my fake suit,  for cautious old me.
So I went with 2 . That could go wrong.