MPs. 5CM, strong NT system, we were not playing 2/1 GF or inverted minors. 1♦ is at least four.
What do you do here?
#1
Posted 2022-September-23, 14:06
MPs. 5CM, strong NT system, we were not playing 2/1 GF or inverted minors. 1♦ is at least four.
#3
Posted 2022-September-23, 15:18
But given that Im playing a method that doesnt allow for simple constructive bidding, I have to jump to 4D. Surely in any rational method this is a slam try in diamonds.
Btw, Im not giving up over 5D
Now, I hope Im not going to learn that not only do we not play a raise to 3D as forcing but we also dont cue second round controls over 4D.
If we are playing such a primitive method, then Ill just bid 4N over 2D (were not likely to be playing kickback in those circumstances)
AKxxx in diamonds and literally nothing else gives us play for slam, so we have to push hard here.
#4
Posted 2022-September-23, 15:27
#5
Posted 2022-September-23, 15:34
DavidKok, on 2022-September-23, 15:27, said:
It usually promises 5 because if you lack the strength to reverse you may have a 4 card major too.
1♦-2♣-2♦ we could start with, but using 2♥ artificial here allows opener to clarify, lacking that I'd start with the SJS.
#6
Posted 2022-September-23, 15:37
mikeh, on 2022-September-23, 15:18, said:
But given that Im playing a method that doesnt allow for simple constructive bidding, I have to jump to 4D. Surely in any rational method this is a slam try in diamonds.
Btw, Im not giving up over 5D
Now, I hope Im not going to learn that not only do we not play a raise to 3D as forcing but we also dont cue second round controls over 4D.
If we are playing such a primitive method, then Ill just bid 4N over 2D (were not likely to be playing kickback in those circumstances)
AKxxx in diamonds and literally nothing else gives us play for slam, so we have to push hard here.
Yes we are playing primitive methods. 3♦ would not be forcing.
#7
Posted 2022-September-23, 15:49
AL78, on 2022-September-23, 14:06, said:
I would have started with a strong diamond raise. We've already found our fit, so why not let partner in on the secret. In fact, in my current serious partnership we cannot show this hand here, and 1D-2C; 2D-3D is probably slam interest with strong clubs.
#8
Posted 2022-September-23, 23:09
#9
Posted 2022-September-24, 01:18
Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-23, 15:34, said:
1♦-2♣-2♦ we could start with, but using 2♥ artificial here allows opener to clarify, lacking that I'd start with the SJS.
Assuming SJS means Strong Jump Shift, we play weak jump shifts.
#10
Posted 2022-September-24, 01:32
I did hesitate for a long time over my second bid and would have liked to investigate slam in diamonds, but didn't want to end up in 5♦ (damned matchpoint scoring) so bid 3NT making 10 tricks. The full deal:
Ugly I know and I would have liked to have bid this better. In the event we got 11/16 MPs when five out of the other eight tables played in 5♦. One pair found the slam.
#11
Posted 2022-September-24, 01:41
#12
Posted 2022-September-24, 03:10
#13
Posted 2022-September-24, 03:53
AL78, on 2022-September-24, 01:18, said:
You play a fairly primitive system with no forcing raises and then take out the way that system normally deals with some of the strong responding hands.
You can disambiguate somke of the hands if you add some artificiality over 1♦-2♣-2♦ but that doesn't seem your style, ours is a home hashed version of Bourke relays.
#14
Posted 2022-September-24, 06:25
My systemic unbalanced ♦ approach ends up signalling the SI at 3♦ from where control bidding etc. becomes standard.
#15
Posted 2022-September-24, 07:00
i think yesterday playing A "primitive acol " with a random partner
I open 1 Spade with a 6=2=4=1 distribution
WITH SOMTHING LIKE
♠ AkQ xxx
♥ A Q
♦ A xxx
♣ K
PARTNER ANSWER 3♣
I SUSPECT IT IS WEAK SO BID 3♦
PARTNER BID 4 ♣
REALIZING THAT 3♣ IS WEAK
I BID 4 NT THAT I THINK HE WILL TAKE AS A NORMAL B/W AND I SEND HIM TO PLAY 6♣ AND HE MADE IT
HE HAD ♠X ♥J xxx ♦x ♣A Q xxx xx
it was pure lack to ask no sofisticated auction ..
Michel
#17
Posted 2022-September-24, 09:41
mw64ahw, on 2022-September-24, 07:55, said:
It scored well but that isn't satisfying in itself. We had three hands with slams on our way. One wasn't biddable but the other two were, and when I have a session in which I spend over half the time passing and following suit, missing out on the hands our way is bad. It seems the simplicity of the system tramlined us somewhat along with the nuisance MP strategy that punishes you for ending up in 5♦ after a failed slam investigation. At imps, I would probably have risked Blackwood and settled for 5♦ in the event of no key cards opposite, content this should be ok.
I need to check with my partner that 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ - 4♦ will be interpreted as a slam try and not invitational to game in diamonds.
#18
Posted 2022-September-24, 10:43
AL78, on 2022-September-24, 09:41, said:
Answer:
"As an invitation to bid 5♦ if holding extra values".
This means if I had bid 4♦ after responding 2♣ we may well have played there and got a stonking bottom.
I need to discuss this with her as this effectively means our system lacks the ability to make a slam invite in a minor, which to my mind is absurd.
#19
Posted 2022-September-24, 11:08
AL78, on 2022-September-24, 10:43, said:
"As an invitation to bid 5♦ if holding extra values".
This means if I had bid 4♦ after responding 2♣ we may well have played there and got a stonking bottom.
I need to discuss this with her as this effectively means our system lacks the ability to make a slam invite in a minor, which to my mind is absurd.
Is 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♣ forcing ?
If so 4♣ instead of 3♣ can be this hand