[DavidKok]

Last night my partner and I scored spectacularly well, and we had a number of interesting deals and exciting decisions to make. If people are interested I might post a few more hands, but here's one with quite a bit of comedy and shock value.

Nobody vulnerable you pick up a modest 20-count in third seat:

---

^*A weak two in clubs (may well be a five card suit at this vulnerability) or any strong hand (game forcing any shape or 22-23 balanced). The bid is not forcing.

No points for correctly guessing which hand type partner has.

2NT is a shortage ask. If you make any non-jump suit bid or game bid partner will pass with the weak hand or make a natural bid with a strong hand. We do not have agreements about bidding their suit, though presumably it is forcing and asks for further description of the weak hand. Your thoughts and bid?

[mw64ahw]

I think we have enough to be in at least 5♣ so with controls in every suit I'll bid 4♦ to show 2KCs. Partner then has the choice of contract.

[DavidKok]

I don't know what 4♦ means, but it is not some keycard showing or asking bid. Without prior discussion I expect it to be a slam try in diamonds - my partner prefers no fitbids, so it is not that either.

In addition to the above I think it is decidedly against the odds to play partner for two aces in a preempt.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-19, 08:53, said:

I don't know what 4♦ means, but it is not some keycard showing or asking bid. Without prior discussion I expect it to be a slam try in diamonds - my partner prefers no fitbids, so it is not that either.

In addition to the above I think it is decidedly against the odds to play partner for two aces in a preempt.

4♦ would show an even number of keycards for me. I want to be in at least 5♣ so on the off chance the pre-empt has 2 Aces I'll bid it.
The alternative is to bid 3NT directly; I'd be very surprised if we both had a singleton in ♥

[pescetom]

For us 4♦ over a preempt in clubs would be a RKCB ask, but that's not much use here as even if he does have two Aces I need to know if that includes hearts.

The closest I can get is a jump to 4♣ which should be forcing and ask for a control-bid. At IMPs I might risk that, but at MP I think I settle for 3NT with the probably spades lead sewn up and a fair chance of running enough tricks before giving up control or surviving after (wouldn't be the first time we made a stiff K).

[apollo1201]

We are definitely not making 6C opposite a green preempt from what I infer (maybe wrongly) from the OP.

NT is safer facing AQ 5th and HQ, 5C otherwise unless it starts S, S ruff, HA.

Not sure there is way to know. But if partner can have Q 6th, and a side A to compensate, 5C looks better.

I guess I have to ask more by 2NT?

[jillybean]

Ok, I'll ask the obvious. 2nt, shortage p? Shortness in ♥ could be interesting

I doubt that we are going to stop in 5C, it doesn't make for an interesting, spectacular and exciting game.

[mikeh]

3N in a club game. 5C in a serious event.

Edit: I don’t like the method. It’d be fun to play once but after that, either I’m going to consistently get bad boards or people will start whispering. If I always respond with no club fit, and less than a strong hand, I’m getting to silly partials when the opps have no fit while if I always pass with moderate to fair hands, I’m missing games, slams and even grand. Either would be better than getting a reputation for always guessing correctly.

[DavidKok]

I'm surprised by the comments. My thoughts at the table were "partner is likely to have three hearts, four are possible but improbable. So they have a (big) heart fit, and this is a good chance to shut them out. I'm missing three aces so I don't need to worry about slam, so it's between 3NT and 5♣. In 3NT there is a serious risk of them cashing a lot of hearts, plus they might just bid 4♥ over that and put it to me. So 5♣ it is".

For the record: this was a club event, but we are playing against two strong opponents. Of course on an auction like this nobody really knows what's going on.

The auction continued:

---

Your bid?

mikeh, on 2023-December-19, 12:27, said:

Edit: I don’t like the method. It’d be fun to play once but after that, either I’m going to consistently get bad boards or people will start whispering. If I always respond with no club fit, and less than a strong hand, I’m getting to silly partials when the opps have no fit while if I always pass with moderate to fair hands, I’m missing games, slams and even grand. Either would be better than getting a reputation for always guessing correctly.

Personally I also don't like the method. Dutch pros have been playing this and it trickled down, and my partner and I are experimenting with a number of treatments. This is an example of one of those, the main other one being 1♦-1NT as a game forcing relay.
Personally I don't think the vague implication of cheating possibilities is warranted, and at high level people have ended up in some silly 2♣+4 contracts and the likes. Our strategy is to respond with weak hands (regardless of the number of clubs) and pass with approximately 10-16 unless we have a long(er) suit and wish to play it, and take charge with even stronger hands. Frankly I think this 2♣ opening harms constructive bidding more than it helps our preemptive bidding, and I don't like it.

[mikeh]

I apologize if I offended you, David. However,I think you basically confirmed my views. Playing honestly gets some very bad contracts. Your approach, for example, means that you may play some slam or grand slam hands in 2C! You don’t need many of those, playing imps, to be having a bad day. I fully accept that you and the leading players who use this are scrupulously honest, but that means accepting such results as the cost of doing business. I may be overestimating that cost, or underestimating the offsetting good results that I’m sure this opening creates.

All I meant was that it’s a bit like odd/even discards.I lay those with one (scrupulously honest) partner. The result is usually ok but every now and then we have the ‘wrong’ spot cards and we either hesitate or we mislead. I think we’re pretty good at ‘lying’ in tempo, but I doubt that we’re perfect…so once in a while we suspect partner has been stuck and we play as if it were an honest signal unless bridge logic makes it obvious. However, the need to resort to bridge logic is troubling…if partner’s hesitation is what makes us think, then we’re being unethical. Your approach (passing 10-16 hcp hands) eliminates that ethical issue but at a cost in terms of getting some silly results. Maybe you only play it at mps?

[jillybean]

X , we are not making 6C

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2023-December-21, 09:56, said:

I apologize if I offended you, David. However,I think you basically confirmed my views. Playing honestly gets some very bad contracts. Your approach, for example, means that you may play some slam or grand slam hands in 2C! You don’t need many of those, playing imps, to be having a bad day. I fully accept that you and the leading players who use this are scrupulously honest, but that means accepting such results as the cost of doing business. I may be overestimating that cost, or underestimating the offsetting good results that I’m sure this opening creates.

All I meant was that it’s a bit like odd/even discards.I lay those with one (scrupulously honest) partner. The result is usually ok but every now and then we have the ‘wrong’ spot cards and we either hesitate or we mislead. I think we’re pretty good at ‘lying’ in tempo, but I doubt that we’re perfect…so once in a while we suspect partner has been stuck and we play as if it were an honest signal unless bridge logic makes it obvious. However, the need to resort to bridge logic is troubling…if partner’s hesitation is what makes us think, then we’re being unethical. Your approach (passing 10-16 hcp hands) eliminates that ethical issue but at a cost in terms of getting some silly results. Maybe you only play it at mps?

No, we are playing IMPs. And I think you are spot on: the occasional small or grand slam that we miss is more costly than the gains from the preempt (despite being far less frequent), and it is a poor treatment with more downsides than upsides. However, that is just my personal opinion, and currently we are trying it out for a combination of reasons (it is fun, my partner likes it and disagrees with my assessment, and I personally enjoy trying out new gadgets even if I think they are worse than a readily available alternative). For what it's worth: the missed slams haven't happened yet, though I do have a minor heart attack every time I pass with a 12-count.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-December-21, 09:57, said:

X , we are not making 6C

That was my first thought, but if the opponents have a 10 card spade fit - which is a pretty decent chance for a bid of 5♠ - we don't have any spade losers and 6♣ is suddenly looking good again. I'm also a bit nervous they're making 5♠ with big fits in both majors and likely shortness in each minor.

Making things more difficult is considering where we'd be without the 2♣ opener at another table.. if East is passing we're opening 1♦ and it's hard for partner to get weak clubs into those auctions.. and East opening isn't much easier.

All this to say I have no idea what to bid but I can see why this will get wild.

[DavidKok]

I doubled, which was passed out. I think the inference of a void is not strong enough to make a 6-over-5 auction percentage, and also 5♠ is very unlikely to make. We've made them guess and for all I know they aren't even in their best strain, now reap the profits. For my lead I decided on the ace of diamonds (would you have chosen something else?).

---

I've found the hearts, in case people were curious where those went.
♦A-3-7-9. We play standard attitude signals trick one, so low = discouraging and high = encouraging. Your plan?

[helene_t]

We won't make 6c but we might make 5nt. X is fairly clear, though.

[DavidKok]

This thread seems to have lost some of is lustre. The spoiler below reveals what I did at the table as well as the full hand and the result. I've put it in a spoiler so people can still come up with their own line before viewing, should they wish to.

Spoiler

At the table I messed up and misread partner's signal, encouraging in diamonds. I cashed a second diamond (the queen, since partner already knows about my king) on which partner played the ♦4, ostensibly remaining even count, declarer contributing the ♦5. For some reason I interpreted this as partner having started with three diamonds, which simply can't be right. I was worried that even if partner could overruff dummy declarer could just pitch the club loser on my third diamond, but in that case I can just run another diamond up. Whoops. At the table I switched to the king of hearts, the idea being that once I got in with my king of spades I could play a club to partner's ace and get a heart ruff. The trick went ♥K-A-8-Q, partner's 8 showing an odd number. Declarer led a spade to the ace (♠2-4-A-7) and another (♠Q-K-8-T). I played the club up (♣8-9-Q-A) and at that point I learned partner did not have an entry and I'd botched the defense completely. Declarer drew the trumps and ran off the hearts for -1. Here is the full hand:

---

Had I just continued diamonds declarer would have gone three off. Partner gets the immediate diamond (over)ruff, but if declarer pitches a card on the third diamond I get to lead a fourth immediately, while if declarer ruffs partner will overruff and put declarer in by leading a club, and now there are insufficient entries to the hand to ruff the fourth diamond and the second club (so we get an extra trick eventually, along with my king of spades).

The IMP score for 5♠X-1 was +4 IMPs to us. Scores were all over the place, a few NS pairs in 5♣X-1 (presumably on a slower auction), one NS in 3NT-7 and a second pair in 2NT-3. There were a few 3♠-2's by East, one 4♥X= by West and several more different results.

helene_t, on 2023-December-23, 11:28, said:

We won't make 6c but we might make 5nt. X is fairly clear, though.

5NT would not have worked so well. Even on a non-heart lead we don't have many tricks, and if East can find the ♥Q unblock (or just lead it after winning ♣A) it's all over.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. If I hadn't screwed up miserably we could have scored +500 for something like +10 IMPs rather than +4 IMPs. At the same time our auction put us well ahead of the field, and I'm happy with the bidding. Notice the 4♥X= and 5♣X-1's, if you give the opponents time to bid their hearts I think this is a likely outcome.

Merry Christmas all!

P.S. to mikeh in particular: Saturday we had our first 2♣+2 (we're in a 3-2 trump fit), missing a cold 7NT with 24 balanced facing a fitting 12. It was on a bidding app (Cuebids), but still.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-25, 03:42, said:

Saturday we had our first 2♣+2 (we're in a 3-2 trump fit), missing a cold 7NT with 24 balanced facing a fitting 12. It was on a bidding app (Cuebids), but still.

In the final of the 1996 Vanderbilt, Hamman-Wolff went down in a vulnerable major-suit game. when it turned out the other major would have made. Martel-Stansby pushed this result, going down in 3♣ on a 2-2 fit.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-25, 03:42, said:

Saturday we had our first 2♣+2 (we're in a 3-2 trump fit), missing a cold 7NT with 24 balanced facing a fitting 12.

I'm not adverse to playing the occasional dubious convention for fun, but I think this one would be top of my list for the imminent new year's cleanup