How will this hands be bid ?
#21
Posted 2019-April-16, 19:42
So our bidding would be:
1♦-3♣
3♥-3♠
4♣-4♥
4♠-6♦
Without interest or without an available cue over 3♥ responder could bid 5♦ or 3N with suitable hand.
#22
Posted 2019-April-16, 19:42
So our bidding would be:
1♦-3♣
3♥-3♠
4♣-4♥
4♠-6♦
Without interest or without an available cue over 3♥ responder could bid 5♦ or 3N with suitable hand.
#23
Posted 2019-April-17, 11:32
On the other hand its a borderline 2C bid and if responder bids 1NT all roads lead to 3NT.
#24
Posted 2019-April-17, 12:37
nige1, on 2019-April-15, 11:55, said:
I have seldom heard such nonsense in all my life. Although I admit that both hands have to take very optimistic views of their holdings it is a million miles away from anything even remotely close to cheating. My partner of choice and I, playing 2/1 GF, could bid the hands as follows:
1♦ - 1NT
3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)
3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)
4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)
6♦ - P
Not so hard really was it?
#25
Posted 2019-April-17, 13:16
mrt2000, on 2019-April-17, 12:37, said:
1♦ - 1NT
3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)
3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)
4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)
6♦ - P
Not so hard really was it?
It's hard because at MPs if partner doesn't have a heart cue or has 2 losing or potentially losing clubs, you may struggle to get out in a number of NT you can make, and end up playing 5♦ for a bottom once you blast past 3N. There are lots of variances from the actual hands which make the slam bad with the same auction
#26
Posted 2019-April-17, 13:53
mrt2000, on 2019-April-17, 12:37, said:
1♦ - 1NT
3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)
3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)
4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)
6♦ - P
Not so hard really was it?
How would your auction differ if North had one more card in either major?
#27
Posted 2019-April-17, 14:01
mrt2000, on 2019-April-17, 12:37, said:
1♦ - 1NT
3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)
3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)
4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)
6♦ - P
Not so hard really was it?
Great bidding looking at both hands. If I look at all 4 hands, I can also bid to contracts that depend on very lucky breaks, and avoid contracts that go down on bad or awful breaks.
#28
Posted 2019-April-17, 14:03
mrt2000, on 2019-April-17, 12:37, said:
1♦ - 1NT
3♦ - 3♥ (Cue bid agreeing ♦)
3♠ (Q) - 4♦ (No ♣ control)
4♥ (Q) - 4♠ (Q)
6♦ - P
Not so hard really was it?
No, it's not so hard if opps' silence convinces North that South has 0-1 clubs and not e.g. ♣Kx. But North might feel more confident about that after
1♦-1N (NAT unBAL or 20-22 BAL \\ 0-12, NAT)
2♦-2♠ ("16-18"*, any \\ GF relay)
2N-3♣ (4+ H or 1-suited \\ relay)
3♦-.... (1-suited \\ ---)
in my system: Here are are 100 random deals consistent with South's bidding (modulo finer points of hand evaluation) and North having the above hand:
Now take a look at the EW cards on the deals where South has 2-3 clubs. Don't you think opps would interfere over 1♦ or 1N on the vast majority of those deals?
Btw, I believe my auction at IMPs would continue
....-3♥ (--- \\ relay)
4♦-4♥ (3361 \\ key card ask with diamonds agreed)
4♠-4N (even # of key cards \\ trump Q ask)
5N-6♦ (trump Q, ♥K, ♠K, no ♥Q \\ contract)
P.
It's harder at MPs, of course, since belly-landing in 5♦ after e.g.
....-4N (--- \\ trump Q ask)
5♣-.... (no trump Q \\ ---)
is not really an option.
* or more precisely: meets the rule of 25 (like the unbalanced part of a Precision 1♣ opening), but not the rule of 28
#30
Posted 2019-April-17, 15:01
1 ♦ - 1 NT
3 ♦ - 3 NT
would be most probable.
Playing K-S (2/1, weak NT, 5cM), after 1 ♦, responder has a choice of 2 bids -- 2 C which isn't a GF or 2 NT. 1 NT is defined as only 5-8 in this system to provide an escape with a poor hand with no 4cM opposite a "strong NT" type hand. Whichever response is chosen again probably leads to 3 NT at MPS.
Probing for a slam that makes because of a perfect mesh of the hands might be an academic exercise, but probably isn't going to happen in the real world.
MsJeniffer's deal is of the kind that authorities might flag in an effort to diagnose and prosecute collusive cheating.
Bidding double-dummy, cheats might well reach 6♦
Admittedly, rarely, a lucky innocent pair might also bid and make the slam.
But evidence of consistent success on such flagged deals, would corroborate cheating suspicions.