[mikeh]

I have given the hands further thought and suspect that I probably would join Justin in not reaching the grand on the 1st one. I can find the 4-4 fit, but I don't think it is logical for my subsequent auction to allow us to count 13 tricks.. because the showing of the 4 card side suit does not show precisely 2=5=2=4. We show the 4 card suit, rather than a stiff, if the 4 card suit is suitable as a slam-level trump suit. With Kxxx in clubs, we'd normally show a stiff, but with KQxx or better, we'd trot out the suit, because the 4=4 fit may well play a trick better and we are going to focus on getting to the best small slam rather than the perfect grand slam, on the grounds both of frequency and of size of swing. Bidding and making 6♣ while the opps fail in 6♥ is a bigger swing than playing and making 7♣ while the opps play and make 6♥.

BTW, let me add my concern that most of those who state that they would respond 2♣ rather than a forcing raise are (in my view) probably influenced by knowledge that partner has AKJx of clubs. This responding hand of Ax AKJx Axx Qxxx sure looks like the type of hand for which game force raises were invented.. .rather than an immediate call in my weakest suit in preparation for a try for slam or grand.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Sep 11 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

BTW, let me add my concern that most of those who state that they would respond 2♣ rather than a forcing raise are (in my view) probably influenced by knowledge that partner has AKJx of clubs.

This is a very fair criticism, for those who want 2♣ to be "legitimate." Perhaps this may be a hand that is more difficult for many because of stylistic choices. When 2♣ could be a call made with 3+ clubs, however, trhe value of the call starts to increase.

Granted, I would NOT make that call with Qxx unless my diamonds were shorter, because the cuebidding costs may be too high -- partner has difficulty cuebidding a stiff or void in that suit, what I may need to hear about most. However, the 4-card suit is very appealing if partner can raise.

[skjaeran]

With methods I used with my previous partner we'd have a chance at these hands.

All sequenced would start:
1♥ - 2NT
3♣ - 3♥
3NT - 4♣

Where 3♣=natural non-minimum, 3♥ ask for singleton and 3NT denies.
To be able to learn what side king opener holds, responder would then have to fake a 4♣ cuebid.

Bidding would proceed with ♦K:
4♦ - 4NT
5♣ - 5♦
6♣

Responder would thus be able to bid 7♣ holding ♠Ax opposite the ♦K and ♠Axx opposite ♠K and play 6♥ on the other combinations. Opener need a king in a pointed suit to show more than minimum.

I don't claim we'd actually bid like this at the table. But it's a possibility. In my current methods we'd not be able to bid this, unless opener elected to show this hand as a 15-17 5422 - which wouldn't happen.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Sep 10 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

Opener has, on wto consecutive deals, the exact same hand:

♠Jx ♥Qxxxx ♦Kx ♣AKJx

Responder, on these two consecutive deals, has almost identical hands:

♠Ax ♥AKJx ♦Axx ♣Qxxx
♠Axx ♥AKJx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx

Obviously, the partnership can make 7C fairly easily on the first, but 7C has no prayer on the second.  The problem seems to be rather simple to resolve (how to get to 7C on the first but stop at 6C/6H/6NT on the second), but few could on RGB.

One noted pro piped in with some gibberish nonsense.

I expect that this issue is not all that difficult for the folks here, so I thought I'd share it.

BTW -- as a bonus.  Switch Opener's diamonds and spades (♠Kx, ♦Jx) and then bid the hand with each of Responder's hands.  I found that the most  difficult to handle was this switched-pointeds for Opener and Responder with Case #1, but with a very interesting solution to that problem.

"dang, what are the odds of that happening?

First two hands....

1H 2C game force
3C 4D kickback
4NT (2) 5H heart King
6D DK 7C (figuring to make 7C worst case you gotta fetch the heart queen)

Second two hands....


1H 2C game force
3C 4D kickback
4NT (2) 5H heart King
6D DK 6NT (figuring to make 6NT worst case you gotta fetch the heart queen)


The first hand responder knows he can ruff a pointy card in pard's hand....

In the second case, he cannot know that, and combined with the slight chance there is a heart loser, he stays out of the grand..opting for the very reasonable and not-to-be-misinterpretted 6NT.

Don't tell me responder is more likely to make a forcing heart raise so that clubs never has a chance for being the final spot....While true, it makes the quiz impossible....It's more fun when you know what both hands are, so you can dream up a great auction to have...."

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Sep 11 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

I still don't understand why these hands are such a mystery to handle. If they are a mystery in anyone's approach, then the approach seems flawed, IMO. These are not strange, exotic hand combinations. 5422 opposite 4432 seems rather mundane, and yet problems seem to abound.

These hands are hard to handle because there are no extra values by way of either distribution or shape. Most grands are bid either when one hand can count 13 tricks (often when there is a long suit) or by simple force of high cards. The example here has exactly one jack to spare, and has no long suit.

I agree with justin that I would expect most top pairs not to bid this. The hands happen to work well with our relay methods after a forcing raise - but we have been playing these methods for about 17 years and so far they have generated exactly two big swings that I can remember (one from bidding 6NT instead of 6M, and once from staying at the 4-level with the 5-level off). The rest of the time they just mean we get to the same contract as the other table with more certainty that it's right, or we play in 4+1 against 5 making.

If we were starting again as a partnership now I doubt we'd bother learning and playing them because other partnership things are so much more important. But back then he was a keen system-writer.

Quote

BTW -- no one has taken up the challenge of the change in Kx's (spades instead of diamonds).

I did

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 12 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Quote

BTW -- no one has taken up the challenge of the change in Kx's (spades instead of diamonds).

I did

Me too, but possibly after Ken's post.