Bid these hands
#2
Posted 2011-January-17, 03:02
3♠-4♣
4♦-4♥
5♣-6♠
Also:
1♦-1♠
3♠-5♦(exclusion KC?)
5♠-6♣
7♠
But that's a fantasy. I think 6♠ should be good enough.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#3
Posted 2011-January-17, 04:01
1♠ 4♣
4♦ 4♠
4NT 5♥
7♠
or
-----1♦
1♠ 4♣
5♦ 5♠ voidwood --> 1 keycard outside ♦
7♠
Rainer Herrmann
#4
Posted 2011-January-17, 07:11
I'd start:
1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)
4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)
5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)
#5
Posted 2011-January-17, 07:21
Anyway, i would start neither with 3♠ nor 4♣ splinter with East hand. I also don't like cueing in pd's suit with stiff or void by west.
1♦--1♠
4♠ or 4♦ whichever shows 6-4 shape and decent ♦ suit in your system.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#6
Posted 2011-January-17, 07:40
Free, on 2011-January-17, 07:11, said:
I'd start:
1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)
4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)
5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)
What would you bid if response to blacky was 5♥ ? Lets say something like KQJx x AKxxxx xx And even when the response is 5 NT, do you really wanna be in grand if he holds KJxx Qxx AQJTxx void. Perhaps we do but it wont be a laydown grand then Not likely but possible KJxx void AKJxxx xxx ?
I know i sound pessimistic but sometimes when u have a void and when i have a void, i wouldnt be surprised when they have a void somewhere too. So i think ♦K or ♣ K also needed to make this a decent grandslam bid. Even with 2-1 ♠, without ♦K we have a lot of work to do during the play. Heck, even with the ♦ K it is still not a grand where u claim after the lead.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#7
Posted 2011-January-17, 08:31
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#8
Posted 2011-January-17, 08:35
MrAce, on 2011-January-17, 07:40, said:
The first example is possible indeed, then at least it's still on finesse so we might get away with it.
The second example isn't possible, that hand is not offensive enough for us (both suits contain finesses).
Responder looks at ♠A, so opener should have ♦AKxxxx or better to bid 4♠. This means the only danger comes from the ♣ suit, like your first example illustrates. But there's no good way to find that except bidding 6♣ after 5NT. So ok, if we want extra insurrance, we bid 6♣ first before bidding grand. If opener shows a ♥ void we can signoff in 6♠.
#9
Posted 2011-January-17, 08:54
Free, on 2011-January-17, 07:11, said:
I'd start:
1♦-1♠ (nat ; nat)
4♠-4NT (<16HCP but good offensive hand, usually 6-4 ; Blacky)
5NT-7♠? (2 with a void ; I guess we can bid grand now)
Not opener is voidwooding, responder is, by bidding 5♦.
Rainer Herrmann
#10
Posted 2011-January-17, 09:09
MrAce, on 2011-January-17, 07:21, said:
And where do you suggest are opener's values for splintering on the second round?
Once opener admits to the ♠ king, it is almost impossible to construct a 4♣ splinter which will not deliver an excellent play for the grand.
Rainer Herrmann
#11
Posted 2011-January-17, 09:27
As a side note I don't think opener is strong enough for 4♦, so I would probably have something like this:
1♦ - 1♠
2♠ - 4N
5N - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt]
If opener bid 4♦:
1♦ - 1♠
4♦ - 4NT [Overbid; RKC, no reason to exclude diamonds since the ♦A looks useful as well.]
5NT - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt]
A lot of variables here, responder could splinter after 2♠, and poor opener would be kinda stuck. Would get to 7 anyway as long as opener shows the void.
#12
Posted 2011-January-17, 09:40
I'd prob bid as follows: (note that in my system, 1x-1M-2N is GF unbalanced often with support so 1x-1M-4M is shape not cards, also 1♦-1♠-4♣ is specifically a void, but better than this)
1♦-1♠-4♠-5♣-5♦-5♥-5♠-5N-6♦-?
Not sure if 6 or 7 would be bid now. It seems likely partner has ♠K?xx, ♦AK?xxx(x) and 2-3 random smallish cards in the other suits. Grand may well be good but not certain.
#13
Posted 2011-January-17, 10:38
#14
Posted 2011-January-17, 10:50
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#15
Posted 2011-January-17, 11:03
#17
Posted 2011-January-17, 11:51
Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-17, 11:10, said:
I also agree with Cherdano, especially his point that you have to have a way to differentiate between 'gambling, preemptive' splinters and real ones. With the given hand repeated club leads would make it depend on a trump split and a diamond split.
#18
Posted 2011-January-17, 12:35
Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-17, 11:10, said:
There are two points in reply to that. First of all, as dboxley said, against good defense you actually need a 2-2 spade split and a 3-2 diamond split. (Club lead or heart lead and club switch.)
The second point is that obviously game will be excellent opposite most responding hands with 5 spades. But most hands with 5 spades will bid 4♠ over 3♠ anyway. And if partner has only 4 spades, he needs a couple of fitting honors for game to be good; if he passes 3♠ and has only 4 spades, then game will almost always be terrible.
#19
Posted 2011-January-17, 13:28
cherdano, on 2011-January-17, 12:35, said:
The second point is that obviously game will be excellent opposite most responding hands with 5 spades. But most hands with 5 spades will bid 4♠ over 3♠ anyway. And if partner has only 4 spades, he needs a couple of fitting honors for game to be good; if he passes 3♠ and has only 4 spades, then game will almost always be terrible.
Yes but that was a 2 count and partner will have more than that, do you expect partner to bid 4S on Axxxx, xx, xx, xxxx ? I know I don't.
I was fully aware of what 4♠ required on the repeated club leads, but showing it still had play.
Even Q10xx, xx, Qx, xxxxx is a decent game. There are to my mind just too many hands where partner will not bid 4 when it's right and will bid it when it's wrong with a load of wasted club honours. 3♠ doesn't tell partner what he needs to know to make a sensible decision.
#20
Posted 2011-January-17, 13:30