Another More on in between hands

[wackojack]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-2782151903-1563656876

We missed this laydown slam playing a version of SA and not 2/1.  You could put a case for East to rebid 3 .  Or after the actual auction up to 3N for West to make a quantitative slam try of 4NT. Strong clubbers would get to slam with no difficulty as would those that played Gazzilli 2/1 provided East responded 1NT.  (Gazzilli players:  Is a response of of 1NT sanctioned here?) 

In general, when opener has about 1 trick more than a min opener and responder has about 1 trick more than than a game force, how can this be revealed to get to a slam?  A 1M opening hand  worth about 16 points is so difficult to reveal without playing a strong club or a Gazzilli type gizmo.  That is why 5M332 16 pointers are usually opened 1NT despite the possible downside. 

[jcreech]

I can think of ways for both sides to show extra in a 2/1 GF auction, but in SA, I feel that there is only one option to show extras without a clear distortion. 

The problem is that no one ever really showed extras, in either auction and with spades as the opener's suit, the space for exploration disappeared very quickly.  The only options with responder's hand to show extras is to jump shift (which I think is an overbid) or bidding the fourth suit (but that is already at the four level), so neither is a satisfactory solution. 

With SA, I think the trick-taking quality of the suit (quality + extra length), coupled with 15 HCPs is worth the 3 bid.  I can understand a reluctance given a singleton in partner's suit, but the hand has too much potential to risk partner dropping you in 2 .  Even though 2/1 in SA doesn't carry the same promise of a minimum level of bidding, it does carry the promise of a second bid.  Unfortunately, in practice, I have found that if you make a minimum raise of your own suit, sometimes partner forgets the promise.  A jump rebid by opener makes your life, as responder, easier to see the slam potential. 

[kenberg]

I think this can be tough unless the pair has more agreement than is usually the case. Smoe thoughts:

STD AM: In SAYC, the auction 1 - 2 - 2 - Pass is forbidden. The 2 is no game forcing but he promises another bid


I play once a week or so in a club game with someone who does not do 2/1. After 1 - 2 I would bid 3 . We don't play 2/1 and we don't play SAYC, si I just bid 3 .

In 2/1, I have the Lawrence disk. He offers two meanings for 1 - 2 - 3 . One option is that it is a solid suit. A second option is that it guarantees only semi-solid. He leaves it open as to which one to choose although I think he favors the latter. For example AKJT74

My guess is that few pairs on IAC have discussed whether 1 - 2 - 3 shows a solid suit or can be done with AKJT74.

Now even if it begins  1 - 2 - 3 we are not yet home. W looks at his Qx and figures that takes care of the semi-solid issue. But how about the suit? Can the opponents cash the AK? I would hope that after the 3 bid a call of 4 would say yes to and start cue bidding. If E now cues the K with 4 , W is happy and rkc, by W,  will take care of the rest. He learns of the A and counts 6+1+1+4=12. Even if E has two spots, W can reasonably hope E can irse oth the A on a lead, draw trump, itch a ob the good , and develop a .

So, what a surprise, it comes down to having agreements.  It's pretty tough to bid this otherwise.

[wackojack]

I think this can be tough unless the pair has more agreement than is usually the case. Smoe thoughts:


My guess is that few pairs on IAC have discussed whether 1 - 2 - 3 shows a solid suit or can be done with AKJT74.

Now even if it begins  1 - 2 - 3 we are not yet home. W looks at his Qx and figures that takes care of the semi-solid issue. But how about the suit? Can the opponents cash the AK? I would hope that after the 3 bid a call of 4 would say yes to and start cue bidding. If E now cues the K with 4 , W is happy and rkc, by W,  will take care of the rest. He learns of the A and counts 6+1+1+4=12. Even if E has two spots, W can reasonably hope E can irse oth the A on a lead, draw trump, itch a ob the good , and develop a .

So, what a surprise, it comes down to having agreements.  It's pretty tough to bid this otherwise.

If 4  is a control bid agreeing spades then normally you would cue 1st or 2nd round controls up the line.  What rule would you invoke to say that East must not cue 4  but must cue 4  ?  So here is a challenge:  Please list the agreements that you must have in order to bid the slam with (i) SA and (ii) 2/1?  How about this for a simple rule?:  "After 1M/2x, a jump rebid needs at least 6 1/2 playing tricks with a solid or semi solid suit and 15HCP"    Do we need another rule about cue bidding that can break the "up-the-line" rule?

[kenberg]

Yes, there are all sorts of problems here. After 1 - 2 I doubt I would later cue a stiff , but maybe I should. Thinking it over, I realized that after 1 -2 !d -3 -4 - 4 , if it starts that way, rkc will not entirely  make matters clear.  W will show three keys, surely including the AK because of the 3 bid and W holding the Q, but is the third key the A or the A. with W holding the KQJx he surely wants E' to have the K and the A.   Probably he would go for the slam anyway, with reasonable confidence, but it's not as clear as I thought.

It would be very tough for E to effectively take control. Being able to cash four tricks is great, but there is no bidding sequence where W will be showing that he has the J.

I am not entirely certain that over the 3 that a 4 call is a cue in support of . Perhaps the 3 should be understood as "We are playing this in or in NT" or maybe understood as "We are playing this in or NT or maybe if you have great and no !". That is, the 3 call rules out playing in , and that would make 4 a cue bid.

Really I am saying that I am not at all sure. That makes it an interesting hand.

[Masse24]

If 4  is a control bid agreeing spades then normally you would cue 1st or 2nd round controls up the line.  What rule would you invoke to say that East must not cue 4  but must cue 4  ?  Do we need another rule about cue bidding that can break the "up-the-line" rule?

On holiday . . . so this is brief.

My rule, generally: Don't control-bid shortage in partner's first suit. Here, I would not show the shortage, but would instead show the control. I stole this from others over the years. While not universal, I believe it to be a widely-accepted treatment. (This would be specific enough to require discussion.)

On my list of things to do is to gain a better understanding of control bidding in different auctions. The out-of-the-box "Italian Cues" can be a bit simplistic.