[han]

Here are some hands that I had yesterday in the Bonn Cup, playing with cherdano. I left the hand records in Germany, so these are all from memory.


Hand 1.

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

Hand 2.

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

What is your lead?

Hand 3.

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

1D showed 4+ hearts, 1S promised an unbalanced hand, and 3S shows slam interest. What is your plan?

Hand 4.

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

[jdonn]

Are you sure it wasn't the Donn Cup? Because by golly it should have been.

[Poky]

1) 2♠ - pushing opps to 3♦
2) ♣K
3) 5♥ - intending to bid 7♠ if I hear for a club control
4) Pass - hoping this will make

[han]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 12:47 PM, said:

Are you sure it wasn't the Donn Cup? Because by golly it should have been.

I see, someone has been selected for the US junior team and immediately thinks that tournaments should be named after him .

[MickyB]

Hand 1 - Pass. 2♠ has -200 written all over it.
Hand 2 - K♣, but I tend to be braver about not leading our suit away from the table
Hand 3 - Need to think about this one some more. What would 3NT by you have been?
Hand 4 - I need to know more about your style here, but probably pass.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 07:47 PM, said:

Are you sure it wasn't the Donn Cup? Because by golly it should have been.

Well, you are invited to file a petition to change my home town city's name to Donn. However, I suspect getting a 3N Namyats DD (Donn defense) approved for midchart might be an easier way to fame.

Arend

[jchiu]

1. Pass. Having hid my four spades last turn, I will not come in with 2♠ here.
2. ♣K. Aggressive fearing the spade suit.
3. 4♥. Q for spades, cannot possibly be to play.
4. Pass. Partner may not necessarily be bidding to make. There is little chance of finding out about the four missing keycards below 5♥, which can even be too high.

[Blofeld]

1. Pass. I can't really imagine bidding here ; possibly this means that I don't play enough matchpoints.
2. ♣K
3. Yes, what would 3NT have been? At any rate I'm not cueing 4♥ with a void in the suit. 5♥ looks quite good if it isn't voidwood, else I think I'll bid 5♦.
4. Pass

[whereagles]

1. Pass. It's their hand and they're playing it in a minor. Love over gold

2. ♣K. Not a situation to try and be 'clever'.

3. I don't have a plan! Maybe 5♥ and hope pard can figure out this is a void..?

4. Pass. Pard's 4♥ is ambiguous.

[Joe de Balliol]

1. I go with 2S. Can't bear to watch them play in 2m on a competitive hand.
2. ♣K]
3. I blasted 6S the previous round so I don't have this problem. I bid it now.
4. Pass with an annoyed look at partner, all ready to watch him wrap up twelve tricks. But I just hate going off in 5M when I didn't have to look.

[pclayton]

1. Double. I can't sell out here. Double gets us to 4-4 spades or 5-3 hearts.

2. KC. Diamond is pointless and can wait since I have trump control. Small club is attractive if I'm looking for a top.

3. 5D. 5H is possible if its read as exclusion, but I think pards minor honors are more important than finding out about key cards.

4. Pass. 5 level isn't safe and I have no idea how good pards clubs are or if my spades can be used as enough pitches for pards clubs.

[Echognome]

1. I pass. If I were going to show spades, I would have done so with a double of 1♠. I agree with the decision not to, but now I'm going to be consistent.

2. Prospects look bleak. I think ♣K looks the obvious lead, but then you always find AJx in dummy and give declarer an easy time.

3. 5♥ for me. I trust partner to figure this out.

4. I pass. It's MPs. I imagine getting to game after opponents open is enough. I can just envision a slam that has this start, but it's very unlikely. No reason to hang partner.

[Codo]

Had been nice to meet you there Han, and funnily, I do remember exactly none of these hands...
1. pass wtp?
2. King of clubs
3. 5 H exclusion, else 4 H.
4, pass, I do not believe, that pd has SI opposite this hand, he was just jumping to stop opps. And I will try to hold to the rule: Bid two suiters with weak or strong hands but not with in between hands, so that I won´t have this problem any more.

[Echognome]

Codo, on May 28 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

4, pass, I do not believe, that pd has SI opposite this hand, he was just jumping to stop opps. And I will try to hold to the rule: Bid two suiters with weak or strong hands but not with in between hands, so that I won´t have this problem any more.

Marshall Miles has long been a proponent of wide ranging Michael's bids. The idea being that we don't always get to the right level, but we are more often in the right strain.

Sabine Auken says in her book that she used to play weak strong, but now play wide ranging as well. She discussed it with Meckstroth who also changed. The reasons given where to tell partner immediately that you have a two suiter and it helps him preempt to the limit of the hand immediately.

Note on this hand, partner has jumped to 4♥. Imagine that the auction had gone (1♦) - 1♠ - (3♦/4♦) - P - (P) - ? Would you know whether to bid?

[mike777]

Echognome, on May 28 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

Codo, on May 28 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

4, pass, I do not believe, that pd has SI opposite this hand, he was just jumping to stop opps. And I will try to hold to the rule: Bid two suiters with weak or strong hands but not with in between hands, so that I won´t have this problem any more.

Marshall Miles has long been a proponent of wide ranging Michael's bids. The idea being that we don't always get to the right level, but we are more often in the right strain.

Sabine Auken says in her book that she used to play weak strong, but now play wide ranging as well. She discussed it with Meckstroth who also changed. The reasons given where to tell partner immediately that you have a two suiter and it helps him preempt to the limit of the hand immediately.

Note on this hand, partner has jumped to 4♥. Imagine that the auction had gone (1♦) - 1♠ - (3♦/4♦) - P - (P) - ? Would you know whether to bid?

Ya and thing both sides have a big debate going on the wide ranging vs the narrow almost never bid Michaels debate. I think the jury is still out on this debate but at least on bbo I think most play wide ranging while I strongly prefer the narrow almost never bid it. That means you more often just end up bidding your suits.

I could understand Michaels on this hand but I would have started 1s and rebid bid 4H but at least this hand is closer than most random Michaels bid I see on bbo or in print.

[Codo]

Echognome, on May 29 2006, 04:01 AM, said:

Marshall Miles has long been a proponent of wide ranging Michael's bids. The idea being that we don't always get to the right level, but we are more often in the right strain.

Sabine Auken says in her book that she used to play weak strong, but now play wide ranging as well. She discussed it with Meckstroth who also changed. The reasons given where to tell partner immediately that you have a two suiter and it helps him preempt to the limit of the hand immediately.

Note on this hand, partner has jumped to 4♥. Imagine that the auction had gone (1♦) - 1♠ - (3♦/4♦) - P - (P) - ? Would you know whether to bid?

After 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 34/5 ♦ I had no problem in bidding 3, 4 or even 5 Heart if I had too.

I am a big fan of the named persons.
I believe, that they will have some well defined system after their wide ranging Michaels bid to cope with these situations.
I doubt, that Han and Arend had this tool, else, there had been no question, because 4 Heart had been a well defined bid.
But even, if I had just discussed: Michaels bids are not limited, I would doubt, that 4 Heart is a strong bid. There is 4 Club or 4 Diamond or double avaiable.
If Pd had looked at Kx, xxxx,Ax,Axxx, he may had found another bid.

[FrancesHinden]

1. Pass. It's the wrong vulnerability, and I don't have an obvious call. If I was going to act I should have doubled 1S last round. (I think double of 2D here is penalties).

2. CK. Obviously didn't work or you woudn't be posting it as a problem! A diamond is essentially a passive lead, and with Kx of spades this doesn't feel like the best time to be passive. It's not obviously going to be the field contract, and it's not obviously cold so I should try and beat it, which means a club lead.

3. Depends on our cue-bidding style. Would partner cuebid the DK before the HA?

4. Pass seems obvious. If we're making slam then either partner has misbid or this wasn't a systemic 2D bid.

[han]

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

I doubled, for us this is a clear take-out double. Maybe that's not the optimal agreement, but it was helpful here. I was confident that Arend would play me for this shape (although likely a little stronger). I won't have 4 hearts or 4 clubs, and with longer diamonds I would just sell out.

Arend bid 2H, and the opponents competed to 3D. This went down 1, an excellent matchpoint score. 2H would also have been down one.

Arend told me afterwards that LHO plays for the German women team. I'm glad I didn't know at the time, I might not have been as brave.

Quote

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

What is your lead?

Yes I did lead a club, and it worked out very badly, extra credit to Frances. They were in a very high contract, and a passive diamond lead sets the contract. A spade lead even sets it two tricks!

Quote

Scoring: MP

p-(1D)-Dbl-(1S)
p-(2D)-p-(p)
??

---

We do play that Michaels is bid with either good or bad hands, but we didn't have a clear agreement about what constitutes a good hand. I thought that this was just enough for the good hand. Partner's 4♥ can be bid on a fairly wide variety of hands. Slam is good opposite as little as Kx xxxx xxxx Axx (I know, perfect cards), so I thought I needed to make one more try. Wrong! 5♥ was down one.

[mike777]

Hand one sounds like it deserves it's own thread. Could you start one up and give us the deal?