[akwoo]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 21:56, said:

It's unclear if South has the methods to show this hand, 1M 3M = 4 card support, invitational.

In old-fashioned standard american, this would be a 2C response followed by a 3H second bid.

Opposite any club values at all, I would not try for slam.

[jillybean]

 smerriman, on 2025-May-05, 22:03, said:

I was (probably pessimistically) concerned about not being able to make slam even if every point in South's hand was working.. knowing that they have at least some of their limited values in clubs makes things worse, so must surely be a 4♥ signoff now.


2♣ GF, maybe? Support, singleton in spades, and nearly 7 tricks in their own hand..

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

[mike777]

It is ok if South does not have the methods to show this hand

That makes it a problem, an interesting problem.

I had a lot of those the past 4 days.
It was interesting at first, frustrating after that, finally just irritating...

This one is pretty interesting. Flawed options.
INT planning to make a three card limit raise is one option, gf 2/1 in clubs is another.

I lean towards 2 clubs but..
.

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 22:11, said:

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

So 2clubs is fine then.

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 22:11, said:

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

Not following, if not playing 2♣ as GF then that makes it even easier to bid this.

[mw64ahw]

If you want to reach a slam then don't underbid is the answer you send back.

[mw64ahw]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 22:11, said:

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

2/1 versus standard makes little difference here as you have a GF in ♥ given the 7 modified losers.

An alternative if you want to restrict responders 2/1 to 10+hcp is to play KI5. Now
1♥-1♠ F1
2♦ 4♠-4♥
Now opener has a better idea of your hcp and knows you must have some shape with a singleton. If you really want to get into the weeds then 3♠ shows the singleton because a positive response to opener's 2♦ would be 2N. This is because 2♦ can be a multi allowing opener to show other shapes.

[akwoo]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 22:11, said:

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

Standard is fine - 2C is the right bid.

The way you make a 3 card limit raise in standard is to make a forcing new suit bid, then jump or raise to 3M.

In pre-Jacoby2N standard, 1M-3M was game forcing, so that was actually how you made any limit raise.

Much of the difficulty with standard american is simply that everyone who knew how to play standard american is now playing 2/1, and the only people who are left playing "standard" are the ones who were always playing substandard.

[Cyberyeti]

 mw64ahw, on 2025-May-05, 23:55, said:

If you want to reach a slam then don't underbid is the answer you send back.

Yeah, but it's only around a 50% slam opposite this monster, the worry is that partner might have void, Axx, QJxxxxx, xxx if he bids 2♥ on this sort of thing.

It's also massive undervaluing of the south hand while it needs a little more than ♥KQxxx and an ace because you can force the dummy to take away access to the clubs unless partner has Ax, I think I would be prepared to force to game looking at 3 hearts.

[mw64ahw]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-06, 02:00, said:

Yeah, but it's only around a 50% slam opposite this monster, the worry is that partner might have void, Axx, QJxxxxx, xxx if he bids 2♥ on this sort of thing.

It's also massive undervaluing of the south hand while it needs a little more than ♥KQxxx and an ace because you can force the dummy to take away access to the clubs unless partner has Ax, I think I would be prepared to force to game looking at 3 hearts.

By using the alternative approach above opener can identify that they have a max. of 25 hcp with responder having 3♥ and long ♣ given opener's void. Now throw in the 3♠ singleton bid (implies some good controls) and opener has a good picture of partners hand. Now suitably appraised opener has the option to progress further.

[Cyberyeti]

 mw64ahw, on 2025-May-06, 02:19, said:

By using the alternative approach above opener can identify that they have a max. of 25 hcp with responder having 3♥ and long ♣ given opener's void. Now throw in the 3♠ singleton bid (implies some good controls) and opener has a good picture of partners hand. Now suitably appraised opener has the option to progress further.

He can on this hand, but there are many hands the auction ends at 2♥ where game is solid

Also How does the 1♥-P-1♠ auction go when the next hand decides to bid 2 or 3 spades ? (particularly when partner doesn't have 4 and it may get raised)

[mw64ahw]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-06, 03:23, said:

He can on this hand, but there are many hands the auction ends at 2♥ where game is solid

Also How does the 1♥-P-1♠ auction go when the next hand decides to bid 2 or 3 spades ? (particularly when partner doesn't have 4 and it may get raised)

That depends on the strength of opener's hand, but even if opener passes responder will bid 4♥. I also put 5+♠ GI though 1♠ so some opportunity for penalties after 2/3♠, but it's surprising how often opponents are silent with ♠ advances

[DavidKok]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-06, 03:23, said:

He can on this hand, but there are many hands the auction ends at 2♥ where game is solid

Also How does the 1♥-P-1♠ auction go when the next hand decides to bid 2 or 3 spades ? (particularly when partner doesn't have 4 and it may get raised)

I'm of the opinion that a bunch of mw64ahw's methods are subpar, and only work if the opponents take a vow of silence and/or we have unauthorised information on partner's holding. The subtle inferences between sequences showing similar but slightly different hand types are beyond any system I've ever seen.

In the past I had a partner who would regularly claim that I should have a much better picture of his hand than I actually did. After some repeat occurrences I started keeping extensive system documentation, including notes like "On 2021-03-07 you said this bid promised 'good' diamonds - what is 'good' and what is the bid with the same strength and shape but 'bad' diamonds?". After a few months the claims stopped. Obviously the root cause wasn't my lack of understanding of the system but rather partner's wishful thinking having seen his own hand. Ever since I have been very cautious when people present undocumented inferences without a clear explanation on the alternatives.

As for the actual deal, do we want to be in slam? I might be missing something. On a trump lead do we have something better than the ruffing club finesse which also requires a favourable split in hearts? What's the line here in 6♥?

[mw64ahw]

 DavidKok, on 2025-May-06, 05:03, said:

I'm of the opinion that a bunch of mw64ahw's methods are subpar, and only work if the opponents take a vow of silence and/or we have unauthorised information on partner's holding. The subtle inferences between sequences showing similar but slightly different hand types are beyond any system I've ever seen.

In the past I had a partner who would regularly claim that I should have a much better picture of his hand than I actually did. After some repeat occurrences I started keeping extensive system documentation, including notes like "On 2021-03-07 you said this bid promised 'good' diamonds - what is 'good' and what is the bid with the same strength and shape but 'bad' diamonds?". After a few months the claims stopped. Obviously the root cause wasn't my lack of understanding of the system but rather partner's wishful thinking having seen his own hand. Ever since I have been very cautious when people present undocumented inferences without a clear explanation on the alternatives.

As for the actual deal, do we want to be in slam? I might be missing something. On a trump lead do we have something better than the ruffing club finesse which also requires a favourable split in hearts? What's the line here in 6♥?

Scepticism often shows a lack of understanding.


I find in both simulation and at the table with/without interference the system results tend to be towards the top if not the top of outcomes. If not then I consider what tweaks can be made without affecting the system more generally.

You have challenged me before on sequences after interference and I believe I came up with the goods. Was this what you refer to on 21-03-07?
You also mention UI and I was humorously challenged on this in a concurrent thread. As I explained my statement on that topic was probability based. Are my bids skewed by seeing both hands?; again as indicated previously: generally no given my output comes from a home grown bidding system which is able to quantify inferences.

What I do find to be subpar is the human element, including myself, such that some of the subtle inferences are missed when the pressure is on. At the table I aim to go through the list of alternative bids available compared to what was bid so that I get a better picture of what the hand is not like thus narrowing down what the hand should be like.

As to this deal given I don't have the simulator to hand, I suspect that it doesn't reach a slam, but I may be wrong.

[DavidKok]

The entire paragraph containing the marked date is an anecdote about a previous partner of mine. It does not refer to discussions here.

I am surprised to hear that you think you would not bid slam, especially in light of the GF heart raise you suggested earlier for responder.

In previous discussions on your methods I've disengaged not because I was satisfied, but because I thought longer discussion was not productive. Personally I disagree with your suggestions more often than not, but I wanted to avoid hostility.

[mw64ahw]

 DavidKok, on 2025-May-06, 06:34, said:

The entire paragraph containing the marked date is an anecdote about a previous partner of mine. It does not refer to discussions here.

I am surprised to hear that you think you would not bid slam, especially in light of the GF heart raise you suggested earlier for responder.

In previous discussions on your methods I've disengaged not because I was satisfied, but because I thought longer discussion was not productive. Personally I disagree with your suggestions more often than not, but I wanted to avoid hostility.

I may bid the slam, but I'm not sure where the simulator gets to at this stage once it's factored in responses. There are some negatives and positives.

What bugs me is your passive labelling of methods as subpar without anything constructive/evidential behind the statement. I will and have happily taken identification of potential flaws in the past and adapted accordingly.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-05, 22:11, said:

South is playing a basic system, 2♣ would be 5+ clubs, 10+ hcp.
It's hands like this where I wish all newcomers were taught 2/1 not std.

No bidding system is perfect. Some hands just don’t fit whatever your method’s criteria are. One has, on such hands, to decide whether to be optimistic or pessimistic.

On the given responder hand, x A109 xx KQJ108xx, I’d force to game in 2/1.

This is the sort of hand that, opposite an average 1H opening bid, will most often ‘belong’ in a heart partial, a heart game, or a club partial.

Aiming to play in clubs means ignoring A109 in hearts and means being extremely pessimistic about that strain. Aiming to play in hearts, leaving it to partner whether that be in game or lower, is making partner guess without in any meaningful way giving him any real idea of your holding.

You could, for example, show a limit raise. But it’s trivial to construct hands where partner will or should bid game when game is terrible or where he won’t or shouldn’t bid game where game is ok.

I love 2/1. I can’t imagine playing a method where a 2C response wasn’t gf…but here bidding 2C then bidding hearts, to show long clubs and invitational values, would be far better than either 1N or a gf 2C.

I’ve often said that ‘show me your methods and I’ll show you a hand you can’t handle well’. This is an example of that for a 2/1 method.

However, pessimistic bridge players rarely do well in the long run. I’d definitely bid 2C, on the basis that this is less of a distortion than any sequence I can imagine that starts with 1N.

Btw, not only may game be good even opposite a hand that would reject a game try, but game will sometimes make on a poor opening lead or later mis defence. Bridge is rarely played double dummy and defence is by far the toughest aspect of play.

[jillybean]

My hand evaluation needs a tune up, holding the South cards I am not considering stopping in a partial.

Had South started with a non gf 2♣ the auction (playing std) would be?

---

14 tables played the hand, no one in 6

[Cyberyeti]

We would start:

1♥-2♣ (not GF)
2♠ (reverse GF but limited by failing to bid a different way)-3♣
3(♥/N)-?

Probably resting in 4♥, might get to 5, not getting to 6

[akwoo]

 jillybean, on 2025-May-06, 09:21, said:

My hand evaluation needs a tune up, holding the South cards I am not considering stopping in a partial.

Had South started with a non gf 2♣ the auction (playing std) would be?

With a non-gf 2♣, the auction should start

1♥-2♣
2♠-3♥

Note 2♠ shows extras and is forcing to game, and 4♥ instead of 3♥ would be fast arrival. Now I think it should go

3♠-4♣
4♦-4♥

and opener can quit having shown extras and not liking partner's lack of enthusiasm beyond a worthless club control.