[awm]

Here's one of our few good boards from the spingold:

Scoring: IMP

---

We managed to produce a relay auction where basically nothing was known about the north hand! The final contract was 6NT by north. Opponents even found the best lead of a heart, but hearts broke 4-2 and it was simple enough to cash eight winners from dummy and then establish the spades. Opponents (quite a strong pair) had an accident on this hand using fairly standard methods and landed in 7♠ off the trump ace!

[effervesce]

Moscito auction

1♣(1)-1♦(2)
1♥(3)-2♣(4)
2♦(3)-2NT(5)
3♣(3)-4♦(6)
4♥(7)-4NT(8)
5♣(9)-6♣(10)
6NT(11)

(1) 16+
(2) gameforcing, 6+ AKQ points, not 5440 type shape
(3) Relays
(4) spades only OR clubs and spades
(5) spades and clubs, 5+/5+
(6) 6106
(7) AKQ point ask
(8) 7 AKQ points
(9) denial cuebid ask
(10) two A/K/Q honors in spades, two A/K/Q honors in clubs
(11) Places north with KQxxxx x - AQxxxx OR AQxxxx x - KQxxxx

[MarkDean]

awm, on Jul 29 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

Here's one of our few good boards from the spingold:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ KQJTxx ♥ x ♦   ♣ AQxxxx ♠ xx ♥ AKQJxx ♦ AKQ ♣ xx

We managed to produce a relay auction where basically nothing was known about the north hand! The final contract was 6NT by north. Opponents even found the best lead of a heart, but hearts broke 4-2 and it was simple enough to cash eight winners from dummy and then establish the spades. Opponents (quite a strong pair) had an accident on this hand using fairly standard methods and landed in 7♠ off the trump ace!

I assume you mean 7♠x?

[Free]

effervesce, on Jul 30 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

Moscito auction

1♣(1)-1♦(2)
1♥(3)-2♣(4)
2♦(3)-2NT(5)
3♣(3)-4♦(6)
4♥(7)-4NT(8)
5♣(9)-6♣(10)
6NT(11)

(1) 16+
(2) gameforcing, 6+ AKQ points, not 5440 type shape
(3) Relays
(4) spades only OR clubs and spades
(5) spades and clubs, 5+/5+
(6) 6106
(7) AKQ point ask
(8) 7 AKQ points
(9) denial cuebid ask
(10) two A/K/Q honors in spades, two A/K/Q honors in clubs
(11) Places north with KQxxxx x - AQxxxx OR AQxxxx x - KQxxxx

(6) doesn't exist in MOSCITO...

[effervesce]

True, shapes in moscito end max at 4C-so you'd pretend the hand was a 6511 type hand. I think after partner has bid 1♥ bid after 1♦, showing extras, is sufficient cause for responder to show shape above 4♣. The 1♥ bid shows a typically 19+ point hand (12+ relay points), and with your hand you're hardly going to stop in a mere game.

If you don't want to have shapes resolved above 4C, you'd have to pretend the 6106 was a 5116 or 6115. Eg

(1) 16+
(2) gameforcing, 6+ AKQ points, not 5440 type shape
(3) Relays
(4) spades only OR clubs and spades
(5) spades and clubs, 5+/5+
(6) 5116 OR 6115
(7) AKQ point ask
(8) 7 AKQ points
(9) denial cuebid ask
(10) two A/K/Q honors in spades, two A/K/Q honors in clubs

[awm]

Our auction:

1♣(1) - 1♦(2)
1♥(3) - 1NT(4)
2♠(5) - 2NT(6)
3♣(7) - 3♦(8)
4♣(9) - 4♦(10)
4NT(11) - 5♣(12)
5♦(13) - 5♥(14)
5NT(15) - 6NT(16)

(1) Strong
(2) 0-4 hcp or various GF
(3) Hearts or balanced 21+ without 4♠
(4) GF relay
(5) 5+♥ and 0-2♠
(6) Relay
(7) 2632 or 2623
(8) Relay
(9) 2632 and 12 AKQ points
(10) Relay for location
(11) one or three top ♥, one or three top ♦, zero or two top ♠
(12) More relay
(13) zero or two top ♣
(14) Relay for heart jack
(15) Heart jack, no spade jack
(16) Right-sided, and opener's entire hand known, declarer's hand hidden

[Free]

effervesce, on Jul 31 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

If you don't want to have shapes resolved above 4C, you'd have to pretend the 6106 was a 5116 or 6115. Eg

Hehe I still disagree with you: 6610 should be described as 6520, not as 6511. The point is that you're lying about a void, which can be crucial for slam. I always learned not to lie about voids (and I agree with that view). Not that it matters on this hand

[javoresku]

here is what I managed with my partner, assuming no intrusion from opponents:

1♣(1) - 1♠(2)
1NT (3) - 2♦ (4)
2♠ (5) - 3♠ (6)
4♣ (7) - 5♣ (8)
5♠ (9)- 6♠ (10)
pass

1 - 16+ any
2 - 5+♠ 8+
3 - Controls?
4 - 3 controls
5 - ♠ ?
6 - 6♠ with two top honors
7 - ♣ ?
8 - AK or AQ
9 - which honors in spades do you have?
10 - KQ

[gwnn]

I really think it's unhealthy to bid 6610 as 6520, the singleton can also be very crucial. From my Vast Experience on the subject (probably bidding 2 or 3hands not in the table), you can get away with it a little better if you describe it as 5521. Then you'd bid again over partner's signoff. Of course you need some sort of agreements. The trap is that partner could think you're showing your controls.

[Free]

gwnn, on Aug 29 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

I really think it's unhealthy to bid 6610 as 6520, the singleton can also be very crucial. From my Vast Experience on the subject (probably bidding 2 or 3hands not in the table), you can get away with it a little better if you describe it as 5521. Then you'd bid again over partner's signoff. Of course you need some sort of agreements. The trap is that partner could think you're showing your controls.

This makes absolutely no sense! First you claim it's dangerous to show the singleton as a doubleton (please explain why it's more dangerous - a 6-1 will usually still be ok, while a 7-0 may be a disaster), and then you claim it's better to show 5521 which is lying about both the singleton AND the void! Stay off the booze

[gwnn]

Free, on Aug 30 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 29 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

I really think it's unhealthy to bid 6610 as 6520, the singleton can also be very crucial. From my Vast Experience on the subject (probably bidding 2 or 3hands not in the table), you can get away with it a little better if you describe it as 5521. Then you'd bid again over partner's signoff. Of course you need some sort of agreements. The trap is that partner could think you're showing your controls.

This makes absolutely no sense! First you claim it's dangerous to show the singleton as a doubleton (please explain why it's more dangerous - a 6-1 will usually still be ok, while a 7-0 may be a disaster), and then you claim it's better to show 5521 which is lying about both the singleton AND the void! Stay off the booze

I said you'd bid again. The point is if you lie about one card the damage is not repairable. If you lie about 2, 3 cards (ie bid an 8 card suit as 5332) and then bid again partner will usually know what's going on. I don't claim to know the exact key to this problem but I don't think it is by showing 6610 as 6520.

[Free]

gwnn, on Aug 30 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

Free, on Aug 30 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 29 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

I really think it's unhealthy to bid 6610 as 6520, the singleton can also be very crucial. From my Vast Experience on the subject (probably bidding 2 or 3hands not in the table), you can get away with it a little better if you describe it as 5521. Then you'd bid again over partner's signoff. Of course you need some sort of agreements. The trap is that partner could think you're showing your controls.

This makes absolutely no sense! First you claim it's dangerous to show the singleton as a doubleton (please explain why it's more dangerous - a 6-1 will usually still be ok, while a 7-0 may be a disaster), and then you claim it's better to show 5521 which is lying about both the singleton AND the void! Stay off the booze

I said you'd bid again. The point is if you lie about one card the damage is not repairable. If you lie about 2, 3 cards (ie bid an 8 card suit as 5332) and then bid again partner will usually know what's going on. I don't claim to know the exact key to this problem but I don't think it is by showing 6610 as 6520.

No offense, but I wonder if you have played relays in the last couple of years. In natural bidding you can show more shape by bidding again, but in modern relays you show exact shape as good as possible. After that, "bidding again" usually means "showing extra strength", NOT "extra shape".

[gwnn]

None taken. It's not that big of a deal anyway. It's probably just a matter of taste. I like Andrei Sharko's idea and you like other ideas (which are indeed probably more mainstream - I don't know).