[TylerE]

♠ Txxx
♥ Axx
♦ KQxxx
♣ x

♠ -
♥ KQxx
♦ AJxxx
♣ Axxx

South deals. MP, all white.

Making 7 on the crossruff.
However, we had stopped in a partscore. +190 was actually worth a few match points.

Brand new partnership, playing a very simple SA type system, e.g. not even explicitly playing NMF (other than NS by UPH F1).

I'd like to see auctions to get to game or slam. It's a real problem set of hands, especially not playing advanced methods, especially since responders 1♠ response over the usual 1♦ opener puts the brakes on.

Auctions please.

[TimG]

I don't think it is resulting to suggest raising diamonds with KQxxx rather than introducing spades on Txxx. I'd expect to get to slam after that start.

[pclayton]

Can't imagine how you stopped in a part score Tyler.

I would imagine +190 is beating some pairs that stumbled into 3N.

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - ?

I really think this hand is too good for 3♦ at this point/ Lets's try 2♥.

.....2♥
3♥ - ?

Wow, I'm glad I upgraded. Suddenly this hand looks like a 17 count.

.....4♦
4♥ - 5♣

6♦ will be reached from this point, and we'll sniff at 7.

[TylerE]

Out actual auction was 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♦ AP

Partner should certainly bid more than 2♦, but even given that...

3♦ would have been our strong raise (I said simple SA didn't I? *g*)

After 1♦-3♦-3♥-4♦ (Denying spade stop) I can perhaps see some auctions to 6. This wasn't really a what should we have done, I was more curious to see legit natural auctions to slam on these cards.

[Codo]

I would never ever suppress spades in the bidding.

So I would start with
1 ♦ 1 ♠
2 ♣ 2 ♥

Responder hand is MUCH stronger then the 9 HCPS. You have normaly a 10+ card fit, you have a shortness and you have prime values. In SEF this hand is worth 9+2+1+2 = 14 points, so a clear game forcing.
I am not convinced to reach slam after this start, but 5 Diamond is it at least.

[pclayton]

TylerE, on Mar 6 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Out actual auction was 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♦ AP

Partner should certainly bid more than 2♦, but even given that...

3♦ would have been our strong raise (I said simple SA didn't I? *g*)

After 1♦-3♦-3♥-4♦ (Denying spade stop) I can perhaps see some auctions to 6. This wasn't really a what should we have done, I was more curious to see legit natural auctions to slam on these cards.

I don't play SAYC enough to know if 3♦ is forcing after 1♦-1♠-2♣. My guess is it isn't.

I'm pretty sure 1♦-3♦ is typically limit in yellow card.

I think it's plain wrong to suppress spades at the 1st round of bidding.

[jdonn]

1♦ 1♠
2♣ 3♦
3♥ 4♠ (BLUHMER!!!)

It could go a lot of ways after that but slam will certainly be reached, and in fact it's hard to stop short of the grand that you don't even want to be in necessarily lol.

I do not think north has a game force after 2♣. Opener could fit a LOT worse.

Agree with Phil I would never supress spades, unless I was playing I could make an inverted minor raise with a four card major (I sometimes do.) But of course then I'm not supressing them, I'm just following my system.

[P_Marlowe]

TylerE, on Mar 6 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

♠ Txxx
♥ Axx
♦ KQxxx
♣ x

♠ -
♥ KQxx
♦ AJxxx
♣ Axxx

South deals. MP, all white.

Making 7 on the crossruff.
However, we had stopped in a partscore. +190 was actually worth a few match points.

Brand new partnership, playing a very simple SA type system, e.g. not even explicitly playing NMF (other than NS by UPH F1).

I'd like to see auctions to get to game or slam. It's a real problem set of hands, especially not playing advanced methods, especially since responders 1♠ response over the usual 1♦ opener puts the brakes on.

Auctions please.

1D (1) - 1S (2)
2C (3) - 3D (4)
5D (5)


(1) SA style
(2) what else? 1D could be a 4 carder,
and the most likely is 4S
(3) what else?
(4) what else?, limit raise, the club shortage
is nothing to cheer about
(5) at IMPs this is clear, playing MP
you may pass, in view of the spade
values

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Mar 6 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

1♦ 1♠
2♣ 3♦
3♥ 4♠ (BLUHMER!!!)

This would definitely be the most common expert auction.

[han]

I also like jdonn's auction, I think pclayton and jlall are seriously overbidding with 2H.

[inquiry]

♠ Txxx
♥ Axx
♦ KQxxx
♣ x

♠ -
♥ KQxx
♦ AJxxx
♣ Axxx

South deals. MP, all white.
Using Chris Ryall's three suited method that I like, the bidding would be....

2♣ 2♦
2N 3♣
3♥ 3♠
4♦ 4♠
4N 6♦
pass, or

same upto 4NT then
4N 5♠
6♣ 6♦




2club = a variety of strong hands, including three suiter with at least 5 controls and 5 or fewer losers

2d = at least one trick, semipositive or better

2N = three suiter, any short suit

3C = relay

3H = 1444 or 04(54) (short spade), 4 or 5 losers

3S = relay

4D = spade void, 5 losers

4S = relay

4N = five controls

5S = bid first suit missing a queen -- he can not bid past 6♦ since responder has diamond queen.

6C = no club queen

At this point, responder knows opener holds either...

♠ - ♥ KQxx ♦ Axxxx♣ Axxx
♠ - ♥ KQxx ♦ Axxx ♣ Axxxx
♠ - ♥ Qxxx ♦ Axxx ♣ AKxxx, or
♠ - ♥ Qxxx ♦ Axxxx ♣ AKxx

There could be, and should be, a jack or two in there on each hand as well. I can't imagine bidding seven here. As matter of fact, I think I would have bid 6♦ directly over the 4NT (five control) response...

[Fluffy]

I can be a little biased for seeing everything, I think North has to make a decision between 2 and 3 diamonds, and south also has another decision to make if he fails to bid 3.

So I suggest 3 biddings

1♦-1♠
2♣-2♦
pass

1♦-1♠
2♣-2♦
2♥-3♠
4♠-5♣
6♦


1♦-1♠
2♣-3♦
3♥-4♠
5♣-6♦

[han]

Some hands:

Kx Qx AJxxx Kxxx... no game.

Jx Kx AJxxx Axxx... 5D cold.

- KQx J10xxx AJxxx... good chances for 6.

Qx xx AJxxx AQxx... no game.

x KJx AJxxx KJxx.... 5D good.

x Jx AJxxxx KQxx.. no game against best defense.


I give up. It is almost impossible that we miss a good 3NT but 5D is often very good and partner won't know when to accept and when to decline. Darn.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Mar 6 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

FWIW I think it would be terrible to ever pass 3N in any auction with the 5 diamonds/stiff club and weak majors.

Agree with that, we have 3 weak sidesuits and it's almost impossible partner has all three covered well but that 5♦ won't still make.

[Fluffy]

Well, I think you are forgetting about the 1345 and the 1444 hands, they don't make game very good. Maybe for you or for Tyler one or both of them are impossible, but at least for me they can be there, and given my 5-1 distribution in the minors I'd say they are even likelly.


Anyway, after reading and thinking some more I drop my intention to bid 2♦ as an option, it is plain wrong.

[han]

I included 1354 I think and 1444 is not possible for me.

[Fluffy]

I meant 1345 with 5 clubs