[wank]

obviously north needs a calculator. 11+2C = slam

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-28, 09:03, said:

Did the control-showing 2S response cause opener to rebid 3H instead of 2NT?

I wondered this as well, and I think that one potential problem with using control-showing responses is if the response dictates what kind of hand opener shows. If this is a hand that has been upgraded out of a 2NT opener, fine. If this is a hand that is a GF with hearts not so fine but whatever. I feel that it is best if opener decides what sort of hand he has and shows it no matter how many controls partner has admitted to. Either that, or maybe opener can ask about responder's hand with a series of relays.

In any case, perhaps responder has seen this sort of auction before -- where a 3♥ rebid says not "I have a game-forcing hand with hearts" but "I have hearts, and your values combined with mine will be enough to make a game". This bidding-both-hands approach may be playable, I don't know; it seems to me that it involves a lot of guesswork on responder's part. And what does opener do when he really has a GF single-suited hand?

Some variety of 5-card Stayman would be a useful addition to the system, so that South can make the normal 2NT opener or rebid without worrying about missing hearts if it is the best spot.

PS Would we be having this discussion, and would everyone be so keen to get to slam, if E/W's diamonds were reversed?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 10:58, said:

PS Would we be having this discussion, and would everyone be so keen to get to slam, if E/W's diamonds were reversed?

Yes we would because it is a quantitative hand. But, maybe someone would be resulting a way to make North the declarer

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-28, 10:58, said:

PS Would we be having this discussion, and would everyone be so keen to get to slam, if E/W's diamonds were reversed?

We still have 12 cashing tricks and the opponent's have no obvious reason to lead diamonds, so yes...

[kenberg]

I have been playing controls with one partner. We play that 2♠ shows either three kings or one king and one ace. In theory this could be ambiguous but in fact it never has been. In fact we get a little more clarity on the posted hand because 2♣-2NT shows an AK in the same suit. So here we can clearly identify the holding as the ace of clubs, not diamonds, and of course the king of diamonds. I'm not sure I am all that big on controls as a method, but I also am not so sure that the method was the problem here. One should try alternative agreements and see how they go.

Suppose it starts 2♣-2♦(waiting)-2NT. Are we better off? Wyman provides an answer with 3♠ as a relay to 3NT, the start of a minor suit slam try. This looks fine, if you have that agreement. Otherwise you are sort of stuck, since presumably 3♦ shoes hearts. So does 4♦. Richard suggests 2♣-2♦-2NT-6NT. Certainly a possibility.

Me, I probably open this with a perhaps cautious 2NT. Maybe partner bids 6. Or at least an invitational 4. Maybe not.


Suppose it begins 2♣-2♦(waiting)=2♥. If we are playing Kokish then it will take another round before I have clarified that I have hearts, so we are probably worse off than with the controls auction. If we are not playing Kokish then at least partner knows right off that I have hearts. But who does what to get us to 6NT, and why could s/he not have done it after the controls auction?


It's always easy to come up with an answer looking at four hands, but it seems to me that, as the auction went, over South's natural 4NT North should either bid 5NT or 6NT, his/her choice. I would think that 5NT is pick a slam, not a passable invitation. It gives opener the option of suggesting 6♣ or perhaps 6♥. From responder's viewpoint there is no reason on the auction why opener cannot have a stiff diamond. But maybe just raise 4NT to 6NT.

My point is not to cricize either partner for their choices. We all make choices, some work, some don't. But at least with this hand, I don't think that control responses were the problem.

[han]

kenberg, on 2013-March-29, 05:10, said:

Suppose it starts 2♣-2♦(waiting)-2NT. Are we better off?

No obviously you are worse off. The 3H bid was at fault here, not the control responses.

Quote

Wyman provides an answer with 3♠ as a relay to 3NT, the start of a minor suit slam try. This looks fine, if you have that agreement. Otherwise you are sort of stuck, since presumably 3♦ shoes hearts.

I don't understand your problem. You just make the bid that in your system shows diamonds. Surely there has to be a way to show that suit?

[kenberg]

han, on 2013-March-29, 05:25, said:

I don't understand your problem. You just make the bid that in your system shows diamonds. Surely there has to be a way to show that suit?

Yes. I'm pretty sure that 6♦ would not be a transfer.

But really, I understand your point and I mostly agree. I have played more than once in a partnership where I would be uncertain about just how to handle a minor 6-4 when partner opens 2NT, or 2♣ followed by 2NT, but without a doubt discussing just what N should do after a 2NT opening (weaken the S hand a just a little if needed) takes precedence over discussing control showing responses to 2♣. Controls may or may not be a great system, but I generally have found them playable. Handling miinor suit shape when poartner opens strong and balanced is a more pressing matter.

Given the auction up to 4NT, however much you think it misguided, would you agree that N must now somehow get them to 6 of something? As the cards lie, twelve tricks are available in three strains. It's true that there is the danger of two quick losers in diamonds when S is the declarer but first the cards must lie right for the defense and second the diamond lead must be found. At least at mp pairs, it seems right to be in 6.

[Mbodell]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-27, 20:18, said:

If you are including balanced 21-counts in your 2♣ opening you might want to consider playing Kokish. On the given hand you would have saved space had you taken the more mainstream view of the hand as balanced rather than a single-suiter in hearts.

I don't think Kokish comes into it too much on this hand, or shouldn't.

hrothgar, on 2013-March-28, 05:39, said:

I suspect that most people would favor treating this as a balanced hand and either opening in NT or rebidding in NT if possible.

5N isn't a contract that you want to play often, but I wouldn't be surprised if didn't score too badly

It wouldn't have scored that well at all. I think we were below average for 6♥= when my partner decided to use Kokish to show a heart suit with an auction of:

2♣-2♦
2♥*-2♠* Kokish, hearts or balanced; forced
3♥*-4♠* Single suited hearts (we don't switch 3 club response); kickback 1430
5♣*-5♦* 3 key cards; Q ask
5nt*-6♥ Q and something about K (we didn't agree here - partner thought it showed the spade K, I thought it should deny spade and show diamond K); place the contract off one KC

Maybe I should have steered more towards nt, but thought that my xx should be enough opposite a single suited heart 2♣ bid where I'd expect a minimum of a good 6 card suit.

[Vampyr]

Mbodell, on 2013-March-29, 18:57, said:

I don't think Kokish comes into it too much on this hand, or shouldn't.

No, it doesn't really; this hand should have got to 2NT with or without Kokish. I like it though, not least because it allows you to be the only pair in the room playing in 3m with 20 balanced opposite a yarborough with a long minor.

The more important convention here, I think, is 5-card Stayman:

Quote

my partner decided to use Kokish to show a heart suit

Not having it available (I assume) seems to have led again to the strange choice of showing a GF hand with hearts instead of balanced 21(or upgraded to 22 or whatever).

[the hog]

This is a 2NT opening, not a 2C opening. Should you decide to open 2C, rebid 2NT.

[Vampyr]

You are another person who posts in the future. Why does BBO not have the same time for everyone?

[chasetb]

First, I don't understand why some people play 2♠ as 3 Kings or an Ace and King in different suits, and 2NT as AK in the same suit. If you end up playing in NT, more often than not THAT is the hand that should be playing it, at least in my experience. It's pretty ironic that the reason you want North playing it is the Diamonds and not the Clubs.

Second, there is no reason that you cannot play 2♦ as either 0-1 control or 6+ controls if it's an established partnership. Playing in a home game once, in 4th seat I saw the bidding go 2♣ - Pass, and 3rd seat was taking awhile. I asked her if she remembered that she was playing controls, and she said that she knew, but didn't know how to show 6! We all had a good laugh, and they ended up in 7NT - 2, when every suit broke horribly and there were no extra tricks to establish.

Third, in Goren's 1985 book, he recommended that if you were thinking about using 2♣ on a hand with distribution and planned on bidding a suit, that it should match these criteria:
- If the longest suit is 5 cards, then the hand should have 25+ points
- If the longest suit is 6 cards, then the hand should have 23+ points
- If the longest suit is 7+ cards, then the hand should have 21+ points

I forget exactly what he used to define the points for suit length. That doesn't detract from my point: I agree with the upgrade, BUT the rebid should be 2NT showing 22-24. You have 8 tricks in hand and it's balanced.

[kenberg]

chasetb, on 2013-March-30, 00:53, said:

First, I don't understand why some people play 2♠ as 3 Kings or an Ace and King in different suits, and 2NT as AK in the same suit. If you end up playing in NT, more often than not THAT is the hand that should be playing it, at least in my experience. It's pretty ironic that the reason you want North playing it is the Diamonds and not the Clubs.

My reasopn is simple enough. partner said he wanted to, I brought up this point, he said he wanted to anyway, I said ok. We have not yuet got burned, but this hand would be an advertisement for reversing the meanings of 2NT and 2♠. If N responds 2NT, the eventual 6NT comtract fe[ends only on hearts being no worse than 4-2.

So it seeems to me that you are right, it was just one of those things that I thought of as too infrequent to much care about.

[aguahombre]

I can't imagine ever wanting to jam the 2C opener with a 2NT response. We like our notrump sequences, but would opener with a semi balanced 22-24 count have to bid 3NT forcing, so that responder (whose shape is unknown) can kick into stayman or transfers at the four-level?

[blackshoe]

Your South hand, Jilly, has seven controls and 21 HCP, which puts it, for me, squarely in the 2♦ (Mexican) opening camp. It is too weak for 2♣. A hand upgraded from 2♦ to 2♣ would have 22 HCP and at least eight controls. 21 HCP and eight controls would not be upgraded. Note that we don't use control showing responses opposite 2♦, but do opposite 2♣ or 1NT (artificial, 19-20 HCP balanced, 6 controls or unbalanced, 18-21 HCP, 4-5 losers, 6+ controls).

Our NT ladder:

12-16 HCP: open 1suit, rebid 1NT, 2 way Checkback (like two way Stayman, not with 2♣ as a relay) followups
17-18 HCP: open 1suit, rebid 2NT
19-20 HCP, 6 controls: open 1NT, rebid 2NT (or 3 if necessary)
21-22 HCP, 7 controls: open 2♦. Complex responses built around the assumption opener has the balanced hand (about 80% chance).
23-24 HCP, 8 controls: open 2♣, rebid 2NT (or 3 if necessary)
25-26 HCP, 9 controls: open 2NT, FG, Romex Stayman and major suit transfer responses. Alternative: open 2♣ and use Kokish. Then 2NT becomes preemptive in a minor
27-28 HCP, 10 controls: open 2♦, jump rebid in NT
29-30 HCP, 11 controls: open 2♣, jump rebid in NT

Takes some work, but IMO it's worth it.

[jillybean]

Just catching up with this thread mow (better things to do here now that the sun is shining in Vancouver ) and I see why some say the 3♥ rebid is the problem,
not the control showing response. A 2N rebid looked like it would kill the auction, we had not discussed systems being on.

[Mbodell]

jillybean, on 2013-March-31, 13:29, said:

Just catching up with this thread mow (better things to do here now that the sun is shining in Vancouver ) and I see why some say the 3♥ rebid is the problem,
not the control showing response. A 2N rebid looked like it would kill the auction, we had not discussed systems being on.

Even if you don't have systems, if it goes 2♣...2nt then N should force to small slam. Offer diamonds if possible, but play 6nt if no systems/fit can be worked out.

[Zelandakh]

chasetb, on 2013-March-30, 00:53, said:

Second, there is no reason that you cannot play 2♦ as either 0-1 control or 6+ controls if it's an established partnership.

Or you could just play 2♦ as 2+ controls; 2♥ as 0 controls; 2♠ as 1 control without suit; and 2NT through 3♥ as transfers to the suit above with 1 control. That puts you roughly in line with the Standard bidders most of the time.

On the actual hand, I would also upgrade and treat it as a balanced 22. Having done that, I would expect North to be looking for slam, not backing away from it. Agree with those that say that the initial responses are not the problem here, only the lack of discussion regarding the follow-ups.