IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => Sleight of Hand => Topic started by: wackojack on March 29, 2020, 11:25:39 AM
-
Below are some "your bid" questions that arose during a recent match. Different choices were made which could have been crucial. No doubt you could find what actually happened, but if you did, that could spoil genuineness of your answers.
A. At WvR, you dealer open 1 !D
!S AQ8, !H 862, !D QJ109, !C KQ5.
1 !D - (1 !H) - Dbl - (p); ?
B. At WvR, partner the dealer:
!S KQJ5, !H K97542, !D J3, !C 2
p -(p ) - ?
C. Game all, RHO opens 1 !H:
!S K87632, !H 62, !D A6, !C J75
1 !H - (?)
D. At WvR. RHO opens 1 !S:
!S Q943, !H KQJ10753, !D K3, !C -
1 !S - (?)
E. At game all. partner the dealer opens 1 !C, opponents silent
!S 10963, !H AQJ1074, !D - , !C KQ9
1 !C - 1 !H
2 !D - 2 !S *
2NT - ?
* 2 !S you intend as 4th suit game force meaning "please tell me more"
-
I'll start slowly, offering an opinion on only one to begin with.
PROBLEM A: 1 !S. The extra room created by the double can be taken advantage of. Textbook hand for this. Described here: Responding to Negative Doubles (Billy Miller). (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-6SEhcS_S80WW-U4_CGghwM7MnWMYLE/view?usp=sharing) Even if partner is unaware of this very logical treatment, it’s a smart choice.
-
I thought I had posted my answers this morning, but found that I had not. Trying again.
A: 2 !C I wish I had elevated this 14 HCPs to 1NT to avoid rebid issues. However, having opened this 1 !D, this hand is not well suited for a Moysian and partner is almost certainly making a negative double with exactly four spades. So I will gamble that partner either has five clubs or a diamond fit.
B: Pass This just doesn’t feel right to make a weak two in hearts, even in 3rd seat. The spades are too good. If I were playing Flannery, I would open this 2 !D because partner will know about both suits at once. Since I am probably not, I will pass and hope the hand either gets passed out or that I get a chance later to show both. Since I have both of the boss suits, I doubt that I will not have something to say before the auction is over.
C: 2 !S The suit is nasty, so this could come back to bite me, but the space eaten up is pretty good given the vulnerability. It will make invitational sequences by the opponents more difficult because a cue bid forces them to game, and 3H would be nebulous.
D: 2 !H I am torn between jumping to 3 !H trying to induce a bad decision by the opponents and showing my real strength and bidding 2 !H. In the end, I want to instill trust in the partnership, so I will make the simple 2-level overcall.
E: 3 !C We are already in a game forcing auction, so it shouldn’t hurt to mention my club fit now. I am not really keen on my 4th suit forcing bid because partner’s reverse should allow me to show a fifth (or longer) heart without passing. However, having used 4th suit forcing, 3 !C should be slammish, but I do not want to go jumping around since I do not have a spade control.
-
A: 2 !C I wish I had elevated this 14 HCPs to 1NT to avoid rebid issues.
Just a quicky comment on this. Without going into any of the hand evaluation softwares. I like to be able to calculate at the table. Then Bergen is amenable.
Milton Points = 14.
Aces + tens = 2; Queens + Jack =4 That is almost -1 point
Quality sequence !D QJ109 (3 out of 5 hons) Add 1
4333 Subtract 1
This leaves us with 14 but not a good 14.
-
I agree, Jack. For me it's downgradable, not the opposite.
-
PROBLEM B: 2 !H. I slightly prefer this to 1 !H.
PROBLEM C: 1 !S. The vulnerability steers me away from the preemptive choice. My one-level overcalls show 8-16 or so. Coincidentally, that is what I have.
PROBLEM D: 2 !H. WTP?
PROBLEM E: 3 !C. Somewhat dependent on agreements, specifically, the meaning of 2 !S and whether lebensohl or Ingberman were being employed.
But with the auction as presented, the description of 2 !S, and with opener bidding 2NT—showing 12 or rarely 11 cards not in my suit—there is no heart fit. But we have a club fit.
So I show it.
3 !C is enough since 4 !C would (for me) show four card (or better) support.
This hand is a good example of visualizing partner's hand. What does he have to open 1 !C, reverse, bid no-trump (showing !S stoppers), and all the while--I have the !C KQx?
We could get into a lengthy discussion about what 2 !S is or is not depending on methods.
I know these hands, because I was at the other table. After the auction, one of the opps asked, "Why no alert if 2 !S was 4th-suit-forcing?" My partner, who bid 2 !S said he didn't think about it. I then offered that I play it as the weakness showing bid, so I was guessing a bit as to meaning. Remember that alerts are for agreements. I thought he might be using it as Ingberman, but I would rebid 2NT if using that method, too, so it did not matter. I'm simply mentioning my thought process during the three seconds it took me to bid.
My partner and the alert police were shocked.
-
The comment was more an expression of regret that I am not playing a weak NT than a serious thought that I should upgrade the hand. The real point I was making is that 1NT would solve a lot of my rebid issues that opening 1 !D seemed to create. With square hands, I love to throw captaincy to my partner as quickly as possible and allow myself to be guided and limit myself to following direction or answering questions.
By opening 1 !D, the captaincy issue has not yet resolved, and I want to bid 1NT, but the opponents have stuck in a 1 !H bid where I do not have a stop. It is at this point I am saying to myself, if only I had upgraded and bid 1NT, I would not have this problem. Granted, I might have a different problem, but at least I would have made the least possible lie about my hand. How much closer could I come than 4-3-3-3 and a decent 14 to balanced and 15-17. Lets consider my current alternatives - 1 !S suggests I have four, 2 !C, suggests I have four, 2 !D suggests I have six, but might be stuck for a bid with only five, and 1NT suggests have a heart stop. All of these involve small distortions, and I would be hard pressed to distinguish which is the least lie.
Nonetheless, I feel that that these options having differing levels of being fraught with danger. Starting off with 1NT is the one I feel would have been least dangerous at this point, but I am beyond that point already. I feel that rebidding diamonds is not the least lie, so I am excluding that option on that basis. 1 !S and 2 !C are equivalent least lies - highly suggestive of four, but actually having three. I view 1 !S as being more dangerous because a partner that made a negative double with 3 spades and a very weak hand, may be willing to pass at the one level - partner is not likely to ever have five spades, so the best fit you are looking at is a 4-3. I view 2 !C a bit less dangerous because with 3-3 in the minors at the two-level, they are more likely to take me back to diamonds - at least now I will be ruffing in the short hand.
Jack, like MSC, is giving us a bad situation, I just think 2 !C is the best option given the auction.
-
The comment was more an expression of regret that I am not playing a weak NT than a serious thought that I should upgrade the hand.
Okay, whew! ;D I guess I did not read between the lines closely enough to get your intended meaning. It also crossed my mind that life would be so much easier if we were playing a weak notrump. Alas . . .
I already expressed my preference above. I think it a far superior treatment. With agreement.
But both tables were casual partnerships, so did not have exhaustive agreements on nuanced auctions like this. I am curious what the cognoscenti would do here--lacking discussion--so I posted it to BW. I have no clue which way they will go.
BW numbers, one week later . . .
1 !S - 68%
1 NT - 27%
2 !C - 2%
2 !D - 2%
-
A. 1 !S, with or without agreement. But it is best to have the agreement mentioned, that 1 !S is either on 3 cards or on a minimum. Partner can realize that I have been forced to bid, so he can take any call with a grain of salt (or a glass of wine).
B. 1 !H I have six of them and a more or less opening hand. Playing some extended version of Flannery I could open 2 !D but I am fine with 1 !H. I don't think 2 !H is crazy, but I go with 1 !H.
C. 1 !S. 5 of my 8 hcps are not in spades. I prefer more in spades, less elsewhere, for 2 !S.
D. 2 !H. I suppose I could jump to 4 !H but I think 2 !H is more descriptive.
E. As with Todd, and with Jim I now see, I am not fond of 2 !S as an artificial game force. Assuming that the reverse promises another bid, even if I rebid 2 !H, I don't see that I need an artificial game force. Using 2 !S to show a hand where I might well want to get out short of game seems more useful.
But suppose we agree 2 !S is an artificial game force. Then?
3 !C, I suppose.
Assuming 2 !S was artificial we now know that partner has at least something in spades. Having announced that much, he is now free to bid 3 !H over 3 !C if by some chance he also has something in hearts. There is no way I would take that as showing three cards in hearts. I suppose 3 !H could be artificial but in an undiscussed auction I think that if a bid could be natural then we should take it as natural.
Anyway, I bid 3 !C.
PS I so far have not gone looking for the hands, but I might do so now.
-
A. At WvR, you dealer open 1 !D
!S AQ8, !H 862, !D QJ109, !C KQ5.
1 !D - (1 !H ) - Dbl - (p); ?
Choices: Ken 1♠; Jim 2♣; Todd 1♠; My table 2♣; Opps table 1♠
I am completely sold on the idea that 1♠ should show a 3 card suit when holding a minimum opener and no heart stop. I also think that this should extend to vulnerable balanced 12 point hands with a heart stop. The reason for this is partner’s negative double could be on a 6 count. 12+6 =18. If opponents double you for penalties when you bid 1NT you are almost certain to go for -200 but more likely -500. Both against a part score their way. With a balanced 13-14 and 4 card spade support you jump to 2♠. I am reminded of transfer responses to 1♣ which are all the rage in the f2f tournament world. So, with no intervention 1♣-1♥ = 4+♠. Responses are 1♠ = 3 cards exactly; 2♠ = 4 card support min opener.
However, I reject Billy Miller’s assumption after 1 !C -(1 !D) - dbl = both 4 card majors. I think you can double with 4-3 in the majors. This of course means that 1 !C -(1 !D) - 1 !S could quite easily be a 4 card suit.
Opener’s hand was !S AQ8, !H 862, !D QJ109, !C KQ5. At the other table opener (team mate) did find the 1 !S rebid. Now it is interesting to speculate what her partner’s response should be holding:
!S K432, !H A7, !D A752, !C 876. A rather bare 11 count. On the basis that her partner has either min opener or a wee bit better with no !H stop, then is it not perfectly reasonable to sign off in 2 !D? Or perhaps 3 !D on the basis that opponents may otherwise be able to compete and win the auction in !H.
At my table the bidding went:
1 !D - (1 !H ) - Dbl - (p);
2♣ - (p) - 2NT – (p)
3NT all pass
Opener “gambled” 2♣. Responder “went for it” with a 2N invite and opener with 14 obliged with 3NT. In the play it looks like only 8 tricks are available even when the K !D is on-side. Interestingly with clubs blocked all declare need to do is to duck the first trick and my partner is automatically squeezed with count rectification plus 3 when diamonds are played out. This must be extremely rare.
6 imps to the opps.
-
As I was typing, Jack also posted on A. It's a fascinating hand.
There is some, well a lot, of duplication in my comments and Jack's.
Now I have looked up the hands, some of them anyway, and A has some interesting features.
First I look at the two hands, the one given and the one opposite:
!S K432
!H A7
!D A752
!C 876
!S AQ8
!H 862
!D QJ109
!C KQ5
The auction, starting with the hand shown as S, non-vul versus vul:
1 !D - (1 !H) - Dbl - (p) -?
Where do we want to play this, and how should the auction go?
That's far from clear, at least in my opinion.
We need Lho to hold the !D K for either 3NT or 5 !D to have much of a play. So assume he has it. Now !H KQJxx and !D K probably suffices for most people to justify 1 !H, so the !C A could be anywhere.
Assume the !C A is to our right. If we now assume the !D K is on our left (probably so, given the overcall and the location of the !C A) and if we assume !D are 3-2 then it appears that 5 !D is a make. But 3NT? We have three tricks in !S, one in !H, four in !D, that's 8, so we had better assume !S are 3-3 or else that !H are 6-2 (so that holding up in !H for one round will keep them from being run when Rho is in with the !C A).
Well, !S were 4-2 and Lho has both the !D K (that's good) and the !C A not good in 5 !D but it turns out to be good in 3NT since it is Lho who wolds the !S length, subjecting him to a triple squeeze (actually a triple squeeze without the count!) on the run of the !D .
All four hands:
!S K432
!H A7
!D A752
!C 876
!S T976 !S J5
!H KQJ53 !H T94
!D K8 !D 643
!C AT !C J9432
!S AQ8
!H 862
!D QJ109
!C KQ5
Suppose the defense starts with !H. Declarer takes the second !H, goes to the board with a !S, runs the !D, it holds, so declarer cashes all four !D. W follows to the second !D, tosses the !C T on the third !D, and on the fourth !D he has the choice of tossing the !C A, or throwing a !H winner, or tossing a !S so that !S now run. Ouch!
So we want to be in 3NT if the triple squeeze is on, but if the !C A is in the other hand, so that W easily just tosses !C on the run of the !D, then, assuming !D are 3-2, we want to be in 5 !D. Or maybe the !S split. But maybe they don't.
It's a fun hand
-
However, I reject Billy Miller’s assumption after 1 !C -(1 !D) - dbl = both 4 card majors. I think you can double with 4-3 in the majors. This of course means that 1 !C -(1 !D) - 1 !S could quite easily be a 4 card suit.
1 !C - (1 !D) - dbl = both 4 card majors is standard. To play that double could be 4-3 majors seems strange when you have a perfectly biddable four card major. Standard stuff. So . . .
1 !C - (1 !D) - 1 !H and
1 !C - (1 !D) - 1 !S
both show 4+ in the major bid, not 5+. Standard stuff.
-
Sorry a senior moment. Of course 44M is correct in that sequence. I was getting mixed up with 1m -(dbl) which should only guarantee 43M.
-
E. At game all. partner the dealer opens 1 !C, opponents silent
!S 10963, !H AQJ1074, !D - , !C KQ9
1 !C - 1 !H
2 !D - ??
Apologies for the thread hijack since you did not ask this question. I know the choice at both tables was 2 !S.
Why not 3 !H? It's right out of a textbook.
-
I tried hand A with the bots, the result was amusing.
It began as expected:
1 !D - 1 !H - X - Pass
Opener now bid 1 !S on his three card holding. He also self-alerted (the bots self-alert just about everything) the 1 !S call as showing four spades. Yes, he self-alerted it as showing four, he had three. Director!
Responder then raised 1 !S to 2 !S, passed out.
I'm a little tired so I might check this again tomorrow.
-
E. At game all. partner the dealer opens 1 !C, opponents silent
!S 10963, !H AQJ1074, !D - , !C KQ9
1 !C - 1 !H
2 !D - ??
Why not 3 !H? It's right out of a textbook.
Yes Todd, I agree that 3 !H conveys the best information about responder’s hand trusting partner to make the best decision. Then if she has 3145 distribution and bids 3NT one could be really scientific and bid 4 !C minorwood if you play that way.
I confess I was the player who made the 2 !S bid and alerted it as “art forcing”. I am aware of the “black-out” convention whereby after this particular reverse the 4th suit 2 !S is the cheapest bid below 2NT and therefore should be used to enable a bail-out into 2NT. Suppose I did have this type of hand then I could pass partner’s obliged 2NT. If OTOH I had a stronger hand, I could use this relay to 2NT to my advantage and continue bidding. I don’t know if that was an intended use of “blackout”. My partner has an extensive knowledge of many artificial bids having absorbed them from her expert mentor so as I type I have just trawled though notes she has sent me. It appears that "black-out" is included. We have never discussed this convention and so intended it as an ask to “tell me more”.
Partner had:
!S AK5
!H 9
!D KQ109
!C A10876
And I had
!S 10963,
!H AQJ1074,
!D - ,
!C KQ9
So, if not playing “black-out” her 2NT bid would appear indicate a stop in spades. Consider now her shape. Far more likely 3145 than 2245. I personally hate reversing with that shape and prefer to open 1N with 17 regardless of lack of major suit honours and with 18-19 I would almost always rebid 2NT. Since we were in uncharted territory I and further science likely to be risky I just went straight to 6 !C. Note that even had partner taken 2 !S as “black-out” and dutifully bid 2NT with 1345 distribution 6 !C could well be just as good a contract as 6 !H. Yes we could miss an easy 7 !C if partner had K !H and J !C
The bidding at the other table was: 1 !C - 1 !H. 2 !D - 2NT, 3 !H - 3NT, 4 !H - pass.
-
About reverses: I have never heard of "black-out". Perhaps it is the same as Ingerberman?
In my experience, reverses are a major source of trouble. Just about everyone agrees that they are a one round force (Goren did not agree with that as I recall) but beyond that ideas vary a lot as to which bids are natural/artificial, which bide are forcing/passable.game-forcing.
This is from the pinned note at BBO Discussion Forums> Bridge-Related Discussion> Intermediate and Advanced Bridge Discussion of mikeh about the reverse from 1 !C to 2 !D.
All of this is fine, and works reasonably well, but for those interested in something even better: use Ingberman.
This convention is similar to the lebensohl-type 2N above: in fact, on many hands, it works exactly the same. Ingberman use the cheaper of 2N and 4th suit forcing as the ostensibly negative bid. As with the lebensohl-like 2N, use of the Ingberman bid is the only way that the partnership is allowed to stop short of game.
This is an improvement on 2N, when it happens, because it increases the chance of the strong hand declaring notrump. After all, a very common hand pattern for a reverse is 5431 with a stiff in responder's suit.
Say you hold x AQx KQxx AKJxx and partner responds to your 1♣ opening with 1♠. You reverse to 2♦. If partner were to have a weak hand, without rebiddable ♠s, he has to bid 2N and now you play 3 of a minor or 3N from the wrong side. By allowing him to use 4th suit 2♥ here as the artificial, usually negative response, you as opener get to bid 2N! From the right side.
Change your hand to AQx x KQxx AQJxx and have the same opening, response and reverse. If he has to bid 2N, you are torn between 3♣ and 3♠. If he has 5♠s, 3♠ is definitely best, but if he has 10xxx Kxx xxx Kxx, you want to play 3♣. How do you know?
Well, allow him to bid 2♥ and you bid 2♠: a perfect description of your 3=1=4=5 hand. Now you find the 5-3 ♠s (and find decent games when he'd have passed 3♣ over 2N) while allowing him to play 2♠ rather than 3, or allowing him to intelligently decide between playing ♠s and ♣s.
Also, responder can now comfortably bid 2N naturally when 4th suit would be available: establishing a gf, showing stopper(s) in the unbid suit and allowing opener free rein at the 3-level to further describe his hand.
For this reason, many experts and advancing players use Ingberman.
My feeling with the hand in question is that after 1 !C - 1 !H - 2 !D I do not know if I want to play this in clubs or hearts (the stiff !H K is adequate support) and I do not know whether I want to play in game or slam ( can they cash the !S AK?) When there is a lack of discussion I often just take the best shot so I am fine with seeing if partner has something, who knows exactly what. in !S and then jumping to 6 !C. It's likely to be right.
But for discussion, we can consider just what means what. Whether it is called Ingberman or black-box is not critical, but whether the fourth suit is natural, or artificial game forcing, or artificial and potentially weak, needs to be settled. People have very different views on this and on many other ideas about reverses. Forcing for one round? Yes. Beyond that? Let's hope.
Added: Looking at the hands:
!S AK5
!H 9
!D KQ109
!C A10876
opposite
!S 10963,
!H AQJ1074,
!D -
!C KQ9
I guess 6 !H is a better contract than 6 !C. How are they to stop us, no matter where the location of the !H K, from taking five tricks in hearts, five in clubs and two in spades? Maybe a horrible heart split or maybe clubs are 4-1 and they can negotiate a ruff.
Playing in clubs it is less clear that we can set up and run the hearts. As it was played, the !S opening lead was won and the !H 9 was led to the T. Suppose it loses and a !D comes back to the K and, suppose, the A. Uh oh. If we ruff, we can no longer draw trump ending in the hand with the long hearts. A bit unlucky, but probably 6 !H is the better contract. Can that be worked figured out during the auction? Beats me.
-
I've never taken a deep dive into Blackout. I rarely hear of it. I have read several articles online, but that's as far as I pursued it. It is similar in that it uses the lower of 2NT and the 4th suit as the weakness showing bid. But I think there are specific meanings attached to the rebids?
Here, in North America, I think that lebensohl is the starting point for advanced methods over reverses, with Ingberman (since it employs the 4th suit if available at the 2-level like Blackout) as being a mild upgrade. Ingberman has been BWS since at least 2001.
Like Ken, I've read the pinned BBF post many times. Mike Hargreaves is a rare combination of expertise and writing ability. He can communicate ideas if he takes the time to do so. I do know he has changed some of his ideas since writing that article. He stated as much on another post. But he did not go into detail. I'm curious what his "revised" thinking is on bidding after reverses.
I think a separate leb, Ingberman, Blackout (Wolff?) thread--here in the IAC--would be interesting. Maybe we can get one started elsewhere?
Anyway, back to Jack's hand. Since the partnerships were casual, after Jack's choice of 2 !S, and hearing 2NT, I am in complete agreement with Jack's conclusions as to partner's shape. And 6 !C was okay too. But I would have taken the scenic route. ;)
-
Problem B
WvR p-p-?
!S KQJ5
!H K97542
!D J3
!C 2
Choices: Jim Pass; Todd 2 !H; Ken 1 !H; Me 2 !H; Opps table 1 !H
Most choices are made emotionally We then search for rational reasons for our choice, select a convincing one and then fool ourselves into believing that we chose rationally. So I cannot comment on my choice of 2 !H except to say it would have given me pleasure to hear a 2 !S overcall on my left and my partner raising to 3 !H. When 2 !H was passed out dummy was not really what I wanted and all I could make was 7 tricks for 1 off.
!S 86432
!H A
!D Q9
!C J10643
Nevertheless, opps have got a 9 card !D fit with a combined 23HCP, so -50 looked quite promising. And as it turned out when my opposite number decided to open my hand 1 !H (and I do not criticise this at all) our team mates were able to overcall in diamonds and compete to the 3 level. Our opps won the bidding battle and went 1 off in 3 !S for a push board. So the 2 !H pre-empt worked, but so did the constructive 1 !H bid by my opponent in the same position. As the cards lie it looks like 4 !D will make (10 tricks). So LoTT was spot on seeing that 2 !S was all that could be made by NS. .
-
Problem C
At game all:
p -(p) - 1 !H- (?)
!S K87632
!H 62
!D A6
!C J75
Chioces: Ken 1 !S; Jim 2 !S; Todd 1 !S; Partner pass;
Dummy turned up with:
!S AQ54
!H 1085
!D KJ942
!C 10
4 !S is an easy make when !D s can be established. 4 !H is an easy make at the other table. LoTT evaluation 10 !S + 8 !H =18. (2 short of actual) However, EW have a 10 card !C fit also so at least 1 extra LoTT trick should be allowed for.
Arguments against:
1 !S : Only 8HCP and if you end up defending partner will misjudge your high card strength in !S
2 !S: With absolutely no stuffing in the suit and spades sitting over you, you could easily go for 800.
Pass: You lose a possible !S fit when opps bid up in !H s.
Sadly for us partner's pass lost us finding our super spade fit.
Turning attention to the opps hands: East had:
!S 9
!H KQ9743
!D Q5
!C AKQ9
At both tables the excellent 4 !H contract not being reached.
At my table:
p - (p) - 1 !H - (p);
1NT -(p) - 3 !H all pass
At opps table:
p - (p) - 1 !H - (1 !S);
p- (2 !H)- 3 !H -(3 !S);
all pass
I would argue that at both tables east's 2nd bid should have been 3 !C and not 3 !H. Discuss?
-
Problem B
WvR p-p-?
!S KQJ5
!H K97542
!D J3
!C 2
Choices: Jim Pass; Todd 2 !H; Ken 1 !H; Me 2 !H; Opps table 1 !H
Most choices are made emotionally We then search for rational reasons for our choice, select a convincing one and then fool ourselves into believing that we chose rationally. So I cannot comment on my choice of 2 !H except to say it would have given me pleasure to hear a 2 !S overcall on my left and my partner raising to 3 !H. When 2 !H was passed out dummy was not really what I wanted and all I could make was 7 tricks for 1 off.
!S 86432
!H A
!D Q9
!C J10643
Nevertheless, opps have got a 9 card !D fit with a combined 23HCP, so -50 looked quite promising. And as it turned out when my opposite number decided to open my hand 1 !H (and I do not criticise this at all) our team mates were able to overcall in diamonds and compete to the 3 level. Our opps won the bidding battle and went 1 off in 3 !S for a push board. So the 2 !H pre-empt worked, but so did the constructive 1 !H bid by my opponent in the same position. As the cards lie it looks like 4 !D will make (10 tricks). So LoTT was spot on seeing that 2 !S was all that could be made by NS. .
Double dummy I think there are 11 tricks when played in diamonds.
!S KQJ5
!H K97542
!D J3
!C 2
!S T7 A9
!H QJ86 T3
!D 8642 AKT75
!C AK7 Q985
!S 86432
!H A
!D Q9
!C J10643
Suppose E is in 5 !D and the defense starts with the !H A and a shift to a !S. Win the ace. Now the play is not even all that double dummy, providing you are in 5 !D and so decide to risk it all to make. You need S to hold both !C honors and you need !D to split. And you need to be able to handle the transportation without suffering a ruff.
Lead a !C and if S doesn't split, play the 7, it wins, so draw trump in two rounds, cash the !C AK and come back to hand with a trump to throw a !S on the !C Q.
So assume at T3 S splits !C go 5-J-A-2. Cash the two high trump and lead another !C. Again you pick up the clubs.
Playing this way the losing !S gets tossed no the !C Q and there is still a trump on the board.
Of course if N has a !C honor then playing this way is a disaster so only someone who is actually in 5 !D would try it. But LOTT analysis usually assumes double dummy play and, with dd, it seems to make 5 !D. It's a very lucky 5 !D but it seems to be there. I don't see any defense, at the first two tricks when they have choices, stopping it.
-
I agree that at both tables, 3 !C should have been opener's 2nd bid. The suit is excellent for a second suit, and it helps guide the defense (if need be).
I also agree that if AQxx Txx KJxxx T had shown up on my left, I could be sucking wind after a reopening double, But by bidding 2 !S, I also made it easier for partner to raise me to game (either freely or pushed there by the opponents bidding 4 !H). Initially, my idea was to take away clear invitational sequences so the opponents would have to guess. If 2 !S is passed back to opener, I think 3 !C would say I have a very nice distributional hand. But holding the opener's hand, I would be reopening with a double, to cater to partner holding a spade stack and heart shortness.
-
Turning attention to the opps hands: East had:
!S 9
!H KQ9743
!D Q5
!C AKQ9
At both tables the excellent 4 !H contract not being reached.
At my table:
p - (p) - 1 !H - (p);
1NT -(p) - 3 !H all pass
At opps table:
p - (p) - 1 !H - (1 !S);
p- (2 !H)- 3 !H -(3 !S);
all pass
I would argue that at both tables east's 2nd bid should have been 3 !C and not 3 !H. Discuss?
Clubs. Yes. Clubs at both tables. Yes.
But not 3 !C.
At the other table, where there was interference, 3 !C.
However, at your table, 2 !C. It's not worth a jump-shift.
-
I agree with Todd. Let's start with agreements:
p - (p) - 1 !H - (p);
1NT -(p) - 3 !C
This is 100 % game forcing? For me, it is, and I believe that is the standard treatment.
Holding
!S 9
!H KQ9743
!D Q5
!C AKQ9
I can easily imagine the opponents taking the first four tricks regardless of the strain so I am not going to make a game forcing bid. What will I do? With silent opponents and my shapely hand it seems highly likely that partner will have the values to bid over my 2 !C. After I make a passable 2 !C bid, a bid of 3 !H is clearly passable and clearly encouraging, and partner will do as partner thinks best.
If they go on to 4 !S partner, holding five clubs, might well take the sac.
And, as is so often the case, LOTT need a bit of interpreting. Usually, for LOTT, we take the longest fit in each hand. There is a ten card spade fit and a nine card club fit so LOTT works with 9. This is actually right, sort of. There are ten tricks played in spades and only nine if played in clubs since after taking two diamonds and a spade, another diamond gives a trump promo. Now if we play in hearts the trump promo doesn't work so there are 20 total tricks. So LOTT gives the correct trick total comparing a spade contract with a club contract, but we can do better playing in hearts rather than clubs.So taking the sac is better in !H ! That would be hard to figure.
-
point well taken Todd - I get lazy in my dottage.