[TheoKole]

♥ AQJ1097542
♦ AJ102

Recently on BBO I was dealt this hand on a practice table.

All other players were robots and partner dealt and Passed in first position. Right hand opponent opened the bidding at 1 ♣.


I actually laughed out loud and stared at this hand for a few minutes, wondering how I would bid this hand in live bridge in an established partnership. I have to admit that with over 30 years of playing I can't figure out a way to have an absolutely forcing auction establishing ♥ as trumps (and do I really want to do this)? Maybe partner has KQxxx ♦ and a void ♥.

Other than slipping a note under the table and asking partner, "Do you have the Kx ♥ and Kx ♦?" (just kidding) Is there any way to bid this hand in any bidding system in existence?

PS. At the table I just bid 6 ♥. What and how would you bid?

Cheers

[apollo1201]

I think that even if I had the tools to construct the perfect sequence, opps are likely to sneak a few S bids in the sequence so I probably couldn’t bid properly.

Instead of aiming at 6H, my goal would be to convince opps to defend 5HX. Starting with 1H could do that. Hoping partner can X the S in case I’m outwitted after playing I’m the smartest guy around the table vs a brutal high-level H bid like you did.

[pescetom]

I would start off with double.
Partner might even respond diamonds...
if not then we have plenty of options, psychic and not.

[nige1]

TheoKole writes 'Recently on BBO I was dealt this hand on a practice table.All other players were robots and partner dealt and Passed in first position. Right hand opponent opened the bidding at 1 ♣.I actually laughed out loud and stared at this hand for a few minutes, wondering how I would bid this hand in live bridge in an established partnership. I have to admit that with over 30 years of playing I can't figure out a way to have an absolutely forcing auction establishing ♥ as trumps (and do I really want to do this)? Maybe partner has KQxxx ♦ and a void ♥.Other than slipping a note under the table and asking partner, "Do you have the Kx ♥ and Kx ♦? (just kidding) Is there any way to bid this hand in any bidding system in existence?PS. At the table I just bid 6 ♥. What and how would you bid?'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 4♥ = NAT. On hands like these, often the main goal is to win the auction in a playable contract.
2. 1♥ = NAT. Unlikely to end the auction.
3. 3♣ = ART. Assuming that you have the agreement that this shows a good hand and good suit. Asking for a stop, in the 1st instance.
4. 6♥ = NAT. Brave.
5. Double = T/O. Risks partner converting to penalties, with good ♣s

---

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2019-March-09, 08:32, said:

5. Double = T/O. Risks partner converting to penalties, with good ♣s

It's a risk I would run.
There is also the option of 2NT if the RA would allow it with 9-4.

[TheoKole]

Thank you for the suggestions proposed. I admit that I thought about a lot of these while looking at this hand.

One point that no one pointed out is that these rare goulash type hands are not really conductive to any type of constructive bidding agreements.

Remember my partner passed in first position so I believe that I can safely rule out that he has a goulash type hand also. Right hand opponent could have a very strong goulash type hand; I would rule out a weak goulash hand by his 1 ♣ opener. My real fear is left hand opponent. Where are the ♠?


1 ♥ bid - logical and certainly gives the most chance to find out with partner what "magic" cards they hold ie. K ♥and K ♦. I believe that I would be more likely to choose this approach if my ♥ were ♠ instead. I agree that the bidding is most unlikely to die out at the one level. The problem that I see with this bid is wondering what I'm trying to accomplish. Do I believe that I have a chance of accomplishing my goals with keeping my bidding low? I know the ops have a ♠ fit, the only question is how good of a ♠ fit.

4 ♥ bid - sorry it just feels sooooooo weak to bid this. If this is our hand I'll kick myself for bidding this and making 6 and if it is ops hand I'll kick myself for bidding this on my first opportunity if left hand op bids 4 ♠

3 ♣ (Unusual 2NT) bid - 2 suiter on a 9-4... - I admit that I didn't think of this bid. Probably partner will prefer ♦ given my difference in suit lengths. OK what next, do I take it as an act of faith that this shows a real fit? Can't partner have 3-1 in ♦ ♥?

In a perfect world I would be able bid X for take out, cue bid ♣ to show a strong hand and bid ♥ to show my ♥ suit and a game-force hand. Afterwards I guess I could have an asking bid in ♦ to find out about the KQ of ♦. I can't figure out a way to do this under the 6 level, even without any interference from ops in ♠ or ♣.


Thank you all sincerely for all the replies.

[pescetom]

TheoKole, on 2019-March-09, 13:12, said:

1 ♥ bid - logical and certainly gives the most chance to find out with partner what "magic" cards they hold ie. K ♥and K ♦. I believe that I would be more likely to choose this approach if my ♥ were ♠ instead. I agree that the bidding is most unlikely to die out at the one level. The problem that I see with this bid is wondering what I'm trying to accomplish. Do I believe that I have a chance of accomplishing my goals with keeping my bidding low? I know the ops have a ♠ fit, the only question is how good of a ♠ fit.

It's consistent with system but I'm not sure it gives the most chance of anything, unless you have the agreement that a later 4NT by you is RKCB for your own suit.

TheoKole, on 2019-March-09, 13:12, said:

3 ♣ (Unusual 2NT) bid - 2 suiter on a 9-4... - I admit that I didn't think of this bid. Probably partner will prefer ♦ given my difference in suit lengths. OK what next, do I take it as an act of faith that this shows a real fit? Can't partner have 3-1 in ♦ ♥?

2NT would show hearts and diamonds for most of us, I think. He can't have hearts and is free to raise diamonds with 3-card support, which is all we need to get in there and find out those elusive red honours. Assuming that he will not blindly reconvert a hearts slam to grand in diamonds of course.

[gszes]

With a HUMAN partner I would start with 2n since I can convert all diamond bids to hearts. With a bot forget about it because if the bot holds more diamonds than hearts it will convert to diamonds again no matter how high the bidding sigh. Since the bots do not bid very well I would begin with a mere 1h and take it from there since the bidding is unlikely to die there:))))))

[BillPatch]

A human player would also be able to understand, that since 9-12 hearts are out, and opener presumably has 2 quick tricks, that bidding 1 ♦ now and 5 ♥ on the next round is natural suggesting playing at 5 or more hearts rather than exclusion or a cue bid forcing to 6♦. Why would the opponents fail to bid a 5 card suit at one level, if they had it? Why would I start with a non-forcing bid and then force to slam? By bridge logic, we do not have enough to force to slam or 5NT, and the only logical place we could play below slam is our major suit. Also, since we bid diamonds and hearts, any K in those suits will give a play for slam, and also the diamond Q with adequate trump support for either suit.

[TheoKole]

For anyone wondering, Partner had ♠Jxx ♥K86 (OMG) ♦xx ♣KQxxx so 6 ♥ was laydown.

Thinking about the hand again, I believe that I would have started with a 1♠ bid if I had ♠♦ in hand instead of ♥♦, mainly because I would know that I can always outbid the opponents (if I choose to do so) whether or not I am bidding to make or as a sacrifice.

[pescetom]

TheoKole, on 2019-March-10, 11:35, said:

For anyone wondering, Partner had ♠Jxx ♥K86 (OMG) ♦xx ♣KQxxx so 6 ♥ was laydown.

Still wondering... what did opener have?

[TheoKole]

pescetom, on 2019-March-10, 14:49, said:

Still wondering... what did opener have?

4-0-4-5 I believe with ♣AJ ♦K ♠AQ

[apollo1201]

TheoKole, on 2019-March-10, 15:19, said:

4-0-4-5 I believe with ♣AJ ♦K ♠AQ

Was 6SX better for them than 5H+1?

[nige1]

TheoKole, on 2019-March-09, 13:12, said:

4 ♥ bid - sorry it just feels sooooooo weak to bid this. If this is our hand I'll kick myself for bidding this and making 6 and if it is ops hand I'll kick myself for bidding this on my first opportunity if left hand op bids 4 ♠

6♥ is a reasonable gamble. There's a reasonable chance that opponents sacrifice, even when 6♥ is unmakeable. There 's a complementary danger that partner holds ♥K and dutifully raises to 7♥ (with, say, ♠ J x x ♥ K x x ♦ x x ♣ K Q x x x).

Terence Reese posed a relevant bidding problem: Suppose you hold all 13 ♣s, vulnerable, as dealer. What would you open in 1st seat? Terence advises that your main aim is to win the declaration. He suggests that you walk the dog with a pre-empt of 4♣ or 5♣. If opponents compete and you bid again, opponents may not realize that you are on a cinch. If you open with anything lower, and continue competing, then opponents might be more suspicious and they have plenty of space to discover their fits. If you open with 6♣ or 7♣ trusting opponents are likely to sacrifice.

[TheoKole]

Quote

6♥ is a reasonable gamble. There's a reasonable chance that opponents sacrifice, even when 6♥ is unmakeable. There 's a complementary danger that partner holds ♥K and dutifully raises to 7♥ (with, say, ♠ J x x ♥ K x x ♦ x x ♣ K Q x x x).

In an untried partnership I would agree that yes this could be a danger. In a practiced partnership, in which each partner knows the others tendencies I believe this would be eliminated. My partner would know, that I had already have placed him with 1 and only 1 "magic card", to give a reasonable chance to make the contract. A 6 ♥ bid is basically asking partner to shut up and pass. A 4 ♥ bid would have done the same thing, this type of bid should be extremely rare. As long as partner knows and trusts your judgement and knows that you have a very good reason(s) for shutting him out of the auction, then they should pass.

If I had 12 solid tricks in my hand I would not be making a 6 ♥ bid, I would either bid 7 ♥ or have some other bidding sequence. In any experienced partnership with me my partner would know this.

[TheoKole]

apollo1201, on 2019-March-10, 16:13, said:

Was 6SX better for them than 5H+1?

They would have lost 1 ♣, 2 ♦ and probably 1 ♠ in any spade contract so would have gone down -800 at most in 6♠X