[mikeh]

I had to think carefully here because the posted methods are unfamiliar to me: while I open 4 card majors in 3rd and 4th, I have a biddable suit requirement: thus with Jxxx Jxxx AK KQx I open 1♣

Having wrapped my mind around the assurance that we have a 10+ fit (and that partner is less likely than most to hold a 4 card major of either persuasion), I like 4♠. I am not so sure that this is a pure 2-suiter, but I did not splinter with 3♠, so the odds are high.

It is the most dramatic bid I can think of that is not completely unilateral, and so it carries the day for me, with my unusual hand.

A fit showing jump to 4♥, if available, is my second choice but I must confess I did not know of this gadget (and while it is a nice one to have, I doubt that I will ever have a need for it: these are not common scenarios).

A fit showing jump to 3♥ is less attractive: for me it would show a different type of hand, and so partner's next call will be less easy for me to interprete: her bid will be based on expectations of a more classical 3♥ bid.

[mike777]

3S

Want to leave some room for partner to take control.
Partner can bid 3nt to show duplicated values, 4d to rkc, etc.
Since we open with most big shape/2 suited hands 10 hcp hands I like 3s after my initial pass.

In fact I have denied a hand as good as:
void=AT9xxx=xxx=ATxx or
void=ATxx=xxx=AT9xxx

[Walddk]

Even if I had 4♥ available to show a 2-suiter (5-6 or 6-6), I wouldn't venture it with this anaemic heart suit. The important aspect for me is to make partner understand and evaluate how good her Jxx(x) or Axx(x) in spades are opposite a void.

Jxx(x) is great, Axx(x) is not.

In my opinion, a fit bid would only be appropriate if the side suit has concentrated values. With the heart suit here, AK with partner is gold, xx is not. How is partner to know if I made a fit bid on Qxxxxx or Axxxx/AKxxx/AQxxx?

Roland

[han]

I agree with Roland that 4S stands out, and that this is a showing bid and not an asking bid. This is the most descriptive bid and highly preemptive as well, almost perfect!

Make the hearts a little better and I would make a support jump shift. But then, make the hearts a little better and I would have opened.

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Dec 2 2005, 12:52 PM, said:

I agree with Roland that 4S stands out, and that this is a showing bid and not an asking bid. This is the most descriptive bid and highly preemptive as well, almost perfect!

Make the hearts a little better and I would make a support jump shift. But then, make the hearts a little better and I would have opened.

This seems contradictory; better hearts would open, but 4H shows better hearts.
Seems to me if 4H is a fit-showing jump with 6H and a big club fit, it surely would be weakish hearts else the hand would have opened.

Although 4S allows partner to judge the value of Axx and Jxx, it doesn't do anything for him to evaluate this:

QJx, AKx, xxxx, Kxxx.

But then I have stong views on splinter bids; IMO, splinter bids at the 4-level should be "picture" bids as they consume so much room - more so when it is in "suit under" as in 1S-4H. A splinter is an extension of a SSGT, or the other way around, and as such should ask for help in ALL the excluded suits or at a minimum the other two suits except trumps.

Kxxx, x, AKQ10xx, Kx verses Kxxx, x, KJ9x, AKxx.

If I splinter and consume all that room with both these hands, how is partner to know that with the first hand, AQJxx, AKx, xx, xxx is plenty in a diamond slam yet pretty well worthless opposite the second unless the splinter is precise? If the splinter is precise, he can now see that this hand is worth a try: AQJxx, Jxx, Ax, Qxx.

Winston

[han]

It is not a contradiction, it was exactly my point that I'm unlikely to bid 4H in this auction. An example hand might be x KQ10xxx x Qxxxx, good hearts, very distributional, just short of an opening bid.

I agree with you that splinters should be generally be descriptive because they take up so much room. On the other hand, a splinter is often *the* best way to let partner evaluate his hand for slam purposes.

However, your arguments don't hold for the hand in question. Here we DO want to take up as much room as possible. And 4S is quite descriptive, it shows a VOID and huge club support. Certainly more descriptive than 4H, and also slightly more preemptive.

[Al_U_Card]

As a passed hand, you can do a lot of interesting things, like take your time and bid strongly so that pard knows that you have a distributional grab-bag. Even if you choose to make a neg. dbl. then bid clubs at the 5 level, pard will understand your shape. So they may bid 4S or 5S or 6S, what about the majority of hands where only a part-score is up for grabs?

I gather that inverted minors are off by a passed hand (or in comp) but denying the H suit seems counterproductive when pard will appreciate knowing about the double fit should he hold hearts. Make the negative double and if pard doesn't have 4H cards you may get the suit in again at a higher level but at least it will be clear that it is a suit......

[Walddk]

Interesting discussion. Now, let's move on to ......

Part 2:

Nice to see that none of you went for the option the Scottish lady in question found at the table: 2♠, a high card raise with club support. The more I look at it, the more I dislike it.

However, I force you to bid 2♠ (you are playing in the Scottish women's trials remember), and then the auction proceeds:

3♠ by LHO, 3NT from partner and a loud double to your right. Now what? You brought yourself into this mess, remember. How to get out of it in a graceful way? Your country is relying on you!

Roland

[cherdano]

Roland, why can't you report such a hand without this implied chauvinism?

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Dec 2 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

Roland, why can't you report such a hand without this implied chauvinism?

???? Must be your imagination. Nothing, absolutely nothing intentional here. West is a fine player! If you get offended on behalf of the women, I recommend that you don't read the posts.

Roland

[mikeh]

Hmmm, how to get out gracefully?

I fold my cards and place them, face down, on the table. I turn to my screenmate and politely announce that I believe that I have been taken ill, and would she mind if I leave now.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this tactic would work. So I have to revert to making a call.

The strong, loud redouble is not at the top of the list and I am going to reject that on the basis that we probably can't make 3N redoubled.

Edit: I made a silly comment here originally, and then realized that I have made a number of bids that, on reflection, were absurd, and no player in a teams trial deserves my comment. I remain of the view that 2♠ was poor and that, if I had made the call (which on bad day I might have) I would be feeling ill when the auction got back to me.

If I were brought in as an emergency replacement (South having understandably wanting to leave and her screenmate unexpectedly agreeing), I would bid 5♣. 4♠ no longer looks safe, for two reasons: partner has wasted values in that suit and I have overstated my hcp strength with my 2♠ - 4♠ sequence.

I guess there is going to be a Part 3, based on slow action here (or slow action by partner over whatever I inflict on her this turn). I await developments with interest.

BTW, in a strange way, my weird 2♠ bid may be working out: I avoided the expected 4♠ call and now partner's 3N may scare them off.

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Dec 2 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 2 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

Roland, why can't you report such a hand without this implied chauvinism?

???? Must be your imagination. Nothing, absolutely nothing intentional here. West is a fine player! If you get offended on behalf of the women, I recommend that you don't read the posts.

Roland

Wel, sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's how your sentence "However, I force you to bid 2? (you are playing in the Scottish women's trials remember)" can be misunderstood.

Btw, I don't see detesting chauvinism as getting offended on behalf of someone else, I just find it highly disagreeable myself.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Dec 2 2005, 09:24 PM, said:

Wel, sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's how your sentence "However, I force you to bid 2? (you are playing in the Scottish women's trials remember)" can be misunderstood.

Yes, I force you to bid 2♠ whether you like it or not, because otherwise there would have been no known continuation. You might have guessed that we haven't reached the climax yet (sorry in advance if "climax" also is chauvinistic in your world).

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Dec 2 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Interesting discussion. Now, let's move on to ......

Part 2:

Nice to see that none of you went for the option the Scottish lady in question found at the table: 2♠, a high card raise with club support. The more I look at it, the more I dislike it.

However, I force you to bid 2♠ (you are playing in the Scottish women's trials remember), and then the auction proceeds:

3♠ by LHO, 3NT from partner and a loud double to your right. Now what? You brought yourself into this mess, remember. How to get out of it in a graceful way? Your country is relying on you! 

Roland

5 clubs seems clear now, yes? Partner must read me for some void in spades with long clubs but no cuebid/rkc so on the way to slam interest?

Can we make a case for 6 club bid in commitee?

BTW1 lets try blindly using LTC: my hand is 4.5 loser in support of clubs (5.5-1)?
That gives us 24-7-4.5=12.5 tricks?

BTW2 lets try FTL: 13-1-0=12 tricks? 13=total tricks, minus 1 =combined two shortest suits, minus zero assumes 19 working hcp?

BTW3 Just heard last night they discovered the bones of giant 6 foot/550 lbs scorpion in Scotland so why not believe in a 6 club bid Mr/Ms. commitee person?

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Dec 2 2005, 11:08 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 2 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

Roland, why can't you report such a hand without this implied chauvinism?

???? Must be your imagination. Nothing, absolutely nothing intentional here. West is a fine player! If you get offended on behalf of the women, I recommend that you don't read the posts.

Roland

Its not "just" Cherdano's imagination.

Maybe its one of those English as a second language issues, however, I find the tone of some of your posts sexist in nature.

It might seem strange for me to be commenting on "offensive" posts, however, my decisions to insult people are typically very deliberate. And I stand behind my insults...

[Chamaco]

Well let's say that I had a similar impression as Cherdano, especially after the posts on LOLs (little old ladies) in another thread, but sometimes the written communication might be tricky, the message that gets across is sometimes.... a "misbid"

[Al_U_Card]

As I said, take your time especially when outcome hangs in the balance.......now your problem is whether to suppress the H suit or not. 4C gets you to a part-score where 5 might make or be doubled, and make.......but 4H is too hard to read even if pard has said he has a H stopper..... so I vote (under the circumstances) for 4C.

[mikeh]

I think that I agree that Roland's wording was capable of being seen as chauvinistic, but have not we all written or spoken something, intending an inoffensive bit of humour, and had it come across not as we intended? Or am I alone in that? And I confine my mis-speaks to one language!

[han]

I too don't like the implication that we should expect such bad bids because this is a women's event (or a Scottish event, for that matter). Bad bids are made in any event, and even if the level of the Scottish women's trials is extremely low (I have no idea, and by what standards would one measure this anyway?), then there is still no reason to turn the event into a laughing stock.


But I find the hand interesting and I do want to hear the final part. So I am still going to answer to part 2.


Now that I've bid 2S I am not going to stay in 3NT, no matter what pauses or violent doubles the other three players made. I can imagine bidding 2S (yes, I have made bids worse than this) but I cannot ever imagine sitting in 3NT with this hand. I am 6-6 and partner has opened in one of my suits!

I think I would just bid 5C.

[han]

mikeh, on Dec 2 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

I think that I agree that Roland's wording was capable of being seen as chauvinistic, but have not we all written or spoken something, intending an inoffensive bit of humour, and had it come across not as we intended? Or am I alone in that? And I confine my mis-speaks to one language!

I absolutely agree with this.