[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-16, 11:34, said:

....
In truth my system is at fault - one needs to get this hand defined much lower so one can ask or cue at a safer level.

Polish Club lets you do this

1♣*--1♠
2♦**-2♥***
2♠

* Polish Club
** 2♦ is called Odwrotka (fit-reverse), 18+ game forcing, 3+ cards in responders major.
*** 7-10 HCP, 4 cards in spades. The variant used here to respond to 2♦ is called Bubrotka and popular in Poland. There are of course others.
Now 2♠ sets spades and gives plenty of room to find out below 4♠ that slam is good.

Rainer Herrmann

[lycier]

This is my auction without interference.

---

[Codo]

Over 1 ♣ (natural, 5 card major) this does not look like a very big challenge. But I had opened a 20-21 NT and may play it in 3 NT.

[Zelandakh]

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 2♥ = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, bal, GF
2♠ = relay, usually 18+
... - 3♦ = 4333
3♥ = relay
... - 3♠ = min
4♣ = relay
... - 5♣ = 4 controls, spade control, no heart control
6♠ (it does not matter which red suit king partner has and grand odds are too low)

Interesting that sfi and I show almost exactly the same information but reach different contracts!

Of course, the LOLs will have no problem with this hand.

1♣ - 1♠;
4♣ - 4♥;
4N - 5♥;
6♠

where 4♣ was Gerber, 4♥ 1 ace and 5♥ 2 kings.

[bigbenvic]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-16, 04:51, said:

Dealer S vul EW teams

---

This hand occurred in the local county league and spawned a complete line of +510s in the top division when both blacks split, 6♠ was bid twice in 20+ tables. We won't talk about the 460 or the 7N-1.

We were EW and would have had a shot at the slam as we could show a hand that was 4225 and good enough to GF opposite a 1/1 response, but whether N has another go is arguable.

How do others cope ?

Playing Acol with my partner we'd go
1 ♣ 1♠
2NT* 3NT
4♦* 5♣*
6♠

2NT is 19-20 Bal or 19+ with 4♠ (no singleton) (can include 20 counts 4225 that are now effectively 22counts with fit)
4♦ is cue(1st) agreeing ♠
5♣ is cue(1st denying cue in ♥) should be 8-11 as less just bids game!
6♠yep that's plenty!

[PhilKing]

bigbenvic, on 2012-December-17, 17:52, said:

Playing Acol with my partner we'd go
1 ♣ 1♠
2NT* 3NT
4♦* 5♣*
6♠

2NT is 19-20 Bal or 19+ with 4♠ (no singleton) (can include 20 counts 4225 that are now effectively 22counts with fit)
4♦ is cue(1st) agreeing ♠
5♣ is cue(1st denying cue in ♥) should be 8-11 as less just bids game!
6♠yep that's plenty!

Skid Marx (or is it Jack Simon?) is spinning in his grave.

[antonylee]

To continue on rhm's remark about Polish club, this is how I would bid it:
1♣-1♠ (Polish; 7+HCP & 4+♠)
2♦-2♥ (18+HCP & 3+♠; 7-10HCP & exactly 4♠)
2♠-2N (sets spades; natural (no good side suit))
3♣-4♣ (natural; natural)
4N-5♥ (keycards?; 2 no Q)
6♠ (if p holds a red king there's not enough room for him to hold either black jack, so the grand will likely need both black suits 3-2).

[bigbenvic]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-17, 19:01, said:

Skid Marx (or is it Jack Simon?) is spinning in his grave.

Ok, not the original Acol, lets just call it a weak NT system with 4card suit openings up the line. The 2's aren't acol based and neither is pretty much anything else, HOWEVER we still write Acol on top of the Sys Card as most recognise that we play a wk NT and 4 card suits from that 1 word ;-)

[Mbodell]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-17, 07:44, said:

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 2♥ = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, bal, GF
2♠ = relay, usually 18+
... - 3♦ = 4333
3♥ = relay
... - 3♠ = min
4♣ = relay
... - 5♣ = 4 controls, spade control, no heart control
6♠ (it does not matter which red suit king partner has and grand odds are too low)

Interesting that sfi and I show almost exactly the same information but reach different contracts!

I showed the same as sfi, and I got to 7. I think the key is you showed a responder min, where as we didn't. I don't know how you define a min, since you are gf opposite 15, but presumably AKK is a min, and AKKQJ or the like is more? I mean given the information you have absent the min 7 is quite good. In addition to the 3-2 splits being ~48%, partner has the spade J 3/8 of the time, the red Q to go with the K 2/10 of the time, the club J 2/7 of the time and these cards will generally survive some 4-1 splits (even the T instead of J will pick up the stiff J in 4-1 splits). Add that up and that is nearly 2/3 chance of success even when a black suit doesn't split 3-2 because of the key cards above. I'd guess we are looking at something like 75% likely to make. knowing just 4333 ♠K, ♣A, redK and knowing nothing about quacks.

[Zelandakh]

Hmmm, I think we should be able to eliminate the red suit queens by relaying further. They would be impossible for me since minimum is essentially 9-11 and AKKQ would certainly not be downgraded. So (3/8) of 68% + (5/8)(2/7) of 68% + (5/8)(5/7) of 46% = about 57%. Add a few fractions for stiff J with a ten opposite and other minor holdings we can pick up. Is that enough at Teams? I thought not - perhaps I am just being cowardly though...

[Mbodell]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-18, 06:10, said:

Hmmm, I think we should be able to eliminate the red suit queens by relaying further. They would be impossible for me since minimum is essentially 9-11 and AKKQ would certainly not be downgraded. So (3/8) of 68% + (5/8)(2/7) of 68% + (5/8)(5/7) of 46% = about 57%. Add a few fractions for stiff J with a ten opposite and other minor holdings we can pick up. Is that enough at Teams? I thought not - perhaps I am just being cowardly though...

I'm not sure I follow your percentages. Your 57% (call it 60% for some stiff J) is what percentage of the time when not both black suits 3-2 you can still make it. no? So the total grand slam is something like 48% + 60%*52% = just shy of 80% at 79.2%. Break even for a grand slam at IMPs depends on how likely opponents are to be in small (assuming the hand is a 6 or 7 hand, not a 5 or 7 hand - and assuming no X) and ranges from 56% break even (if opponents are 100% in small slam [57 if we were vul]) to 79% (if opponents are 0% in small slam [76% if we were vul]). It is hard to estimate that without knowing points and likely natural auctions, but on this board you probably need 70+% because most of the field isn't in it. But if partner had another Q and a J much of the field likely bids small slam.

[Zelandakh]

The numbers are:-
3 times in 8 partner holds the ♠J and we make 68% of the time (3-2 clubs).
5 times in 8 partner does not hold ♠J; then 2 times in 7 they have the ♣J and we make 68% of the time (3-2 spades).
25 times on 56 partner holds neither and we make 46% of the time (3-2 for both).

I am sure there are some extras to be added but if the answer is 80% then I made a serious error somewhere. I am not considering cases where both black jacks are held since that is impossible on my auction. That might be possible for yours of course and would alter things somewhat.

[Mbodell]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-18, 06:52, said:

The numbers are:-
3 times in 8 partner holds the ♠J and we make 68% of the time (3-2 clubs).
5 times in 8 partner does not hold ♠J; then 2 times in 7 they have the ♣J and we make 68% of the time (3-2 spades).
25 times on 56 partner holds neither and we make 46% of the time (3-2 for both).

I am sure there are some extras to be added but if the answer is 80% then I made a serious error somewhere. I am not considering cases where both black jacks are held since that is impossible on my auction. That might be possible for yours of course and would alter things somewhat.

Ah, ok. Both 3-2 is closer to 48 than 46 % so that's probably why I didn't recognize it (one suit breaking 3-2 makes the other slightly more likely). I was thinking of my construction where you could well have both black J, as well as having the matching red Q (which makes the 4-1 club split survivable) or the non-matching red QJ (that gives you a finesse or very unlikley stiff K to survive) amongst others. So then I agree it probably isn't 80% (that was using your numbers as being P(make|not both 3-2)) but I think it is going to be nearer 70% than 57% (given my conditions of no knowledge of minimum). Still not great if the field is in game.

[Cascade]

I think there is a good case for north moving after

1♣ 1♠
4♠ ?

Especially if this shows 4=2=2=5 which will be the case if more balanced hands go through some other route. This is the case for us where south could open 2♣ with 18-19 balanced. Therefore there is an inference that south's black suits are reasonably good and that south does not have no trump type holdings in the red suits.

Opposite good suits north can count 5 or 6 spade tricks and 5 club tricks and there are still at least 5-6 hcp in the red suits. I am getting very close to being able to imagine the exact south hand.