[mw64ahw]

I wasn't sure how to bid this one from last night given various possible undiscussed esoteric approaches playing a basic SAYC?

---

[DavidKok]

2♣, though I don't hate 1♥.

[smerriman]

2♣, then jump to 3♥ and see if partner can contribute a spade control.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2022-April-26, 01:56, said:

2♣, though I don't hate 1♥.

2♦ response or 2♥ if you play an immediate negative
X or 2♣ if you open 1♥

[pescetom]

I wouldn't hold your breath until it happens again.

I'm not an expert but it looks like a clear 2♧ to me, at least if 3♡ then fixes trumps and requires control-bidding.

[mw64ahw]

smerriman, on 2022-April-26, 02:20, said:

2♣, then jump to 3♥ and see if partner can contribute a spade control.

Yes this works - I thought about this later and if partner takes the 3♥ as GF and shows K♠, but would be interested to know how to play if using 2♥ as a double negative.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2022-April-26, 02:26, said:

I wouldn't hold your breath until it happens again.

I'm not an expert but it looks like a clear 2♧ to me, at least if 3♡ then fixes trumps and requires control-bidding.

I bid 2♣, 2♣-2♦-3♥ is fine, but this is a hand where partner can have a 12 count where you can only make 10 tricks, or a 3 count where slam is cold so I don't want to go beyond 3♥ starting a cue bidding chain on my rebid if I can avoid it. If 2♥ denies a K, that's also fine and I can just bid 4♥, slam cannot be better than a finesse.

[DavidKok]

I don't play immediate negative over 2♣ (but I do play Kokish). Regardless, I'd bid 2♥ over 2♦, and then rebid 3♥ (or 3♣ in a swapped Kokish version).

If 2♥ is an immediate negative you have to bid 4♥, I think. Or open 1♥. The system does not allow for intelligent investigation of slam, and you just have to guess.

I think what it boils down to is that this is a one-in-ten-thousand hand (or however rare this is), and bidding systems are imperfect at the best of times. If you have a clever way to ask for the ace of clubs and/or king of spades you should go that route, maybe even never mentioning hearts! But personally I don't have a good or special way to bid this, and the 2♥ negative bid would make it even more challenging.

[mycroft]

As many are saying, 2♣, then 3♥. Suit set, demand control ask. I actually had a hand two weeks ago almost identical to this (9 solid, ♠K ♣AQx; when partner cued in spades, and then showed the ♣K I bid the grand).

If playing 2♥ immediate ultra-negative, we know partner doesn't have the ♣A or either pointed king, so slam is at best on a finesse. That's assuming we can get to dummy with (long) trumps (or if we're really lucky, dummy has two hearts and a singleton spade. Of course, if that happens, there's a decent chance we don't get to rebid 3♥, at least not as a jump...) So I'm happy to bail in 4 (of course the question is what do I do if they bid 4♠. But I have that question with a 1♥ opener, too.)

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-April-26, 08:47, said:

As many are saying, 2♣, then 3♥. Suit set, demand control ask. I actually had a hand two weeks ago almost identical to this (♠K ♣AQx; when partner cued in spades, and then showed the ♣K I bid the grand).

If playing 2♥ immediate ultra-negative, we know partner doesn't have the ♣A or either pointed king, so slam is at best on a finesse. That's assuming we can get to dummy with (long) trumps (or if we're really lucky, dummy has two hearts and a singleton spade. Of course, if that happens, there's a decent chance we don't get to rebid 3♥, at least not as a jump...) So I'm happy to bail in 4 (of course the question is what do I do if they bid 4♠. But I have that question with a 1♥ opener, too.)

I think it would be crazy to play 2♣ without the agreement that 3♥ works this way. Being able to fix trumps and demand controls at 3 level is the best bit of 2♣ and compensates for many weaknesses in other areas.

An immediate negative of 2♥ is ok as long as it denies even a King, otherwise it could really screw this situation.

In my best partnership we play that any single suit of partner goes through an immediate 2♠, so opener can still ignore it and bid 3♥ demanding controls as if nothing had happened (if balanced and/or interested in partner's suit he would have bid 2NT over which partner shows suit in transfer). So that would all be fine and dandy here.

If playing more normal natural suit responses then things look tricky if partner "interferes" unless either there is plain Blackwood or similar available over the minor suits (RKCB would be no help) or it is agreed that a jump to 4♥ fixes trumps and demands controls. OTOH A natural 2NT response (arguably a terrible agreement in general) would probably work out here, as opener could presumably Texas Transfer to hearts and then bid RKCB with decent chances.

We also play that a 4NT opening asks for Specific Aces and then Specific Kings, which would work a treat here. But it's an awkward combination of moderate memory load and very low frequency and I would only trust one partner to remember it, especially with ♣A in question (EBU get to play open book online and would have no problem here).

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-April-26, 01:56, said:

2♣, though I don't hate 1♥.

2C and I truly, truly hate 1H.

[nullve]

pescetom, on 2022-April-26, 02:26, said:

I wouldn't hold your breath until it happens again.

I'm not an expert but it looks like a clear 2♧ to me, at least if 3<hamburger menu>♥ then fixes trumps and requires control-bidding.

FYP

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2022-April-26, 00:38, said:

I wasn't sure how to bid this one from last night given various possible undiscussed esoteric approaches playing a basic SAYC?

---

In a book of bidding quizzes, Terence Reese asked how to bid the hand with 13 clubs. Obviously it would be wonderful, he wrote, to declare 7♣ redoubled. But the practical goal is to be allowed to play in clubs at any level. (He recommended opening 4♣ . Then repeated club bids might sound like sacrifices.)

In the case of this hand, it may not be wise to sound confident.

Carl

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-26, 17:41, said:

In the case of this hand, it may not be wise to sound confident.

There is a monumental difference between this hand and a 13 card club suit. Trying to pretend you're weak when there is only one suit the opponents could possibly sacrifice in (as opposed to 3), and you have 20 HCP (as opposed to 10 HCP), and you aren't even sure if you're bidding/making slam (if you are and they sacrifice you're holding AKQ in their trump suit).. would be well past insane.

[Douglas43]

Must be 2♣ for me. I know very distributional hands sometimes go better with a suit opening, but we have 19hcp, so too much risk of 1♥ being passed out.

[AL78]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-26, 17:41, said:

In a book of bidding quizzes, Terence Reese asked how to bid the hand with 13 clubs. Obviously it would be wonderful, he wrote, to declare 7♣ redoubled. But the practical goal is to be allowed to play in clubs at any level. (He recommended opening 4♣ . Then repeated club bids might sound like sacrifices.)

In the case of this hand, it may not be wise to sound confident.

Carl

I got suckered with that once. LHO overcalled 2♠ holding all of them and kept bidding them, and we ended up doubling them at the four or five level.

[bluenikki]

smerriman, on 2022-April-26, 19:41, said:

There is a monumental difference between this hand and a 13 card club suit. Trying to pretend you're weak when there is only one suit the opponents could possibly sacrifice in (as opposed to 3), and you have 20 HCP (as opposed to 10 HCP), and you aren't even sure if you're bidding/making slam (if you are and they sacrifice you're holding AKQ in their trump suit).. would be well past insane.

Pretending you're weak doesn't come into it.

But dealing with a 2NT overcall after a 1♥ opening is way simpler than dealing with a 4NT. overcall of a. 2♣ opening.

[mycroft]

Trust me, I've had a world champion bid 4NT against my 1M opening. It happens.

And 1♥-2NT-X (defence interest)-5♦ (not in this suit, you don't) or 1♥-2♠-whatever-4♠ is just as hard to deal with as 2♣-4NT-p/X-5♦ or 2♣-2♠-p/X-4♠. Especially on this hand, where the right 7-count makes 6, and the wrong 10-count goes down in 4 [Edit: can't count. 4's good. 5 can go down.]

Add in 1♥-AP, which is a serious danger (which, I will grant if partner doesn't have the ♠K, might score very well), and add in the fact that 2♣ systems are designed around finding specific cards (especially specific aces and kings), and it tips the scales in favour of 2♣.

[nige1]

mw64ahw 'I wasn't sure how to bid this one from last night given various possible undiscussed esoteric approaches playing a basic SAYC?'
+++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 2♣ = ART Then 2♥
2. 2♣ = ART Then 3♥ and over 4♥, 5♦ asking in ♠
2. 6♥ = NAT PUNT
3. 4♥
4. 4N = Ace-ask
5 1♥

---

[akwoo]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned 2♣-2♦-3♥ for them shows 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts, game forcing.

(I don't play this in any partnership, but there are enough pluses that it's a reasonable agreement (and there are minuses as well, like this hand).)