[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

---

I'm looking for a realistic 2/1 or standard american-oriented bidding sequence to 7 clubs on these cards, South to start.

[aguahombre]

2/1 --1c-1H-1S-2D 3C.

Not likely from here we could determine that the spade jack was the key to the grand. Probably die in 6C and lose a lot to the 6NT people.

Just being honest, since I gave the N hand to my reg partner, and didn't mastermind from the South position.

[cloa513]

How about 3S to emphasize spades support. 4NT then using standard methods 7C should be easy.

[655321]

cloa513, on May 19 2010, 02:50 AM, said:

How about 3S to emphasize spades support. 4NT then using standard methods 7C should be easy.

Um, don't quite understand your auction except that it sounds like the final contract will be spades not clubs.

[Free]

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦ (2♦ = 4th suit or 2-way, whatever)
3♦ - 4♣ (shows at least 4-0-3-5 ; sets trumps)
4♦ - 4♥ (cue ; cue)
4♠ - 4NT (cue ; Blacky)
5♥ - 5NT (2 ; grand slam try)
7♣

5NT is grand slam try (5♠ would ask Kings). South can bid it imo, though he might bid it also with ♦AQx and ♠Kxxx (in which case you still have many chances for success).

[helene_t]

Agree with Aquahombre.

To avoid the issue of not being able to identify ♠J, South needs to be captain, and then we would need 6-aces blackwood after having found the double fit. But I don't see how we can establish the double fit. Maybe something like Pavlichek's methods would work so that North has a forcing club raise after 1♣-1♥-1♠. But even so, if South is going to ask for keycards, since he has a void he would need some combination of 6-aces blackwood and exclusion, I don't play that it any partneship

[kenrexford]

Just thinking out loud...

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
3♥???

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on May 19 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Just thinking out loud...

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
3♥???

One of the few times when I don't agree with Ken at all, not even in an empathetic manner (pun very much intended) I think 3H should show a great 4315 ish hand, too strong to bid 2H directly but too weak to bid 2S.

[Fluffy]

if your system allows south to bid 3♦ instead of 3♣ as Frederick suggests you are on the right track. But finding ♠J is impossible to any system anyway so its just a gamble in the end.

[ONEferBRID]

kenrexford, on May 19 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

Just thinking out loud...

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
3♥???

My first thots were the same as Gwnn's .

But since all non-jump bids after a 4th Suit GF are forcing ( until game ), then a "jump bid" over a force would be a splinter by definition . But that normally ONLY applies to a jump in the 4th suit ( ♦ here ) by RESPONDER which would agree partner's ( Opener's ) last bid natural suit -- ♠ here ) :
1C - 1H
1S - 3D jump ( = splinter for Sp )

Since Opener's 3♥ is a jump in Responder's natural bid suit,  I guess Ken's purpose is to use it as a "self-splinter" for ♣ .   But I would think the ♣ suit should be much better -- say: A K Q x x x .

[ONEferBRID]

kenrexford, on May 19 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

Just thinking out loud...

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
3♥???

My first thots were the same as Gwnn's .

But since all non-jump bids after a 4th Suit GF are forcing ( until game ), then a "jump bid" over a force would be a splinter by definition . But that normally ONLY applies to a jump in the 4th suit ( ♦ here ) by RESPONDER which would agree partner's ( Opener's ) last bid natural suit -- ♠ here ) :
1C - 1H
1S - 3D jump ( = splinter for Sp )

Since Opener's 3♥ is a jump in Responder's natural bid suit,  I guess Ken's purpose is to use it as a "self-splinter" for ♣ .   But I would think the ♣ suit should be much better -- say: A K Q x x x .

[mikeh]

I don't see any clear route to 7♣.

I really don't see any point at all in using a jump in hearts, over FSF, to show a void in hearts. Remember what 2♦ means: it announces 'we are going to game, make a cheap descriptive bid and I will then tell you what denomination I am interested in'. IOW, responder may well love hearts...or spades....or clubs...or be uncertain about 3N due to location of cards or too much strength and so on. Preempting one's own constructive auction to show a shape that is probably bad for our side, while not conveying any meaningful information about hand strength or honour location sounds to me like an extremely bad idea. It's the sort of idea one comes up with when one is more concerned with 'solving' a particular hand than it is about constructing a coherent bidding method.

[whereagles]

me neither. agree with the water man

[rogerclee]

1C-1H
1S-2D
3C-4C
4D-4H
4S-4N
5N-?

Responder can see opener has something like Kxxx void Axx Kxxxxx now. DK or SJ or a seventh club make it cold, DQ makes it on a hook or 3-3 spades, ST makes the contract a favorite, etc, and if opener has the bare minimum, then it's just on 3-3 spades.

[aguahombre]

Of course, Roger's anaysis is good. I like better odds when I bid a grand, though --something like 14 or 15 tricks, which might turn into only 13 with bad breaks. Stodgy old wus, that I am. Easy David, there is half a smiley face implied.

[Jlall]

I don't like rogers auction, why 5N completely preempting all grand slam tries/queen asks/etc given that our suit is clubs when partner has bid 4H? Showing the void seems really bad, it just endplays partner into a guess, he doesn't even have a bid to tell us that we have all the keycards and we are unlimited.

If the auction went 4N-5H-5N(5S)-6C then we know partner has no DK. Of course this "knowledge" means we will never bid 7.

[rogerclee]

...

[dwunn1]

Use Walsh to begin with. 1!C, 1!D

[peachy]

dwunn1, on May 19 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Use Walsh to begin with. 1!C, 1!D

If this is what Walsh requires (bypass a major suit in favor of bidding a doubleton diamond), I will have to swear off Walsh forever. I am pretty sure there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what Walsh is.

[mikeh]

peachy, on May 19 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

dwunn1, on May 19 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Use Walsh to begin with.  1!C, 1!D

If this is what Walsh requires (bypass a major suit in favor of bidding a doubleton diamond), I will have to swear off Walsh forever. I am pretty sure there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what Walsh is.

I suspect he meant transfer walsh, but even if he did, his post makes no sense (to me). After a t-walsh start, opener bids 1♠ and the auction reverts to a normal walsh sequence.....it is thereafer precisely the same as 1♣ 1♥ 1♠...at least, according to every version of T-walsh that I've seen.