[Kaitlyn S]

I've read all the replies and I still think that the best hand for this auction is either ---, xxx, AKQx, AKQJxx or xxx, ---, AKQx, AKQJxx. (up to Qxx in the bad suit.) Look at the upside. If the sacrifice is right, lefty has to bid 6H instead of suggesting it. If the opponents lead the right major and partner can't stop three rounds, you give up 200 against a part score, whereas if the opponents lead the wrong suit, you steal a small slam on a partscore hand.

What do you lose? If your opponents have methods to make forcing bids in a minor suit auction, and can find a first round control, you may lose 13 IMPs. How many pairs have these methods? Furthermore, if you don't (and I don't), you can't bid that grand anyway. Too many pairs bid first or second controls so 7 isn't that likely to be reached. Besides, they have to have a 13th trick (like a 6th diamond) because a grand on a 2-2 trump break is a bit much.

[Fluffy]

I will try to guess based on the info of high cards since otherwise it is too hard.

Partner is obviously void in spades, there is no other reason to preempt the bidding, a void in hearts would be shown with a splinter bid or exclusion blackwood aiming to grand. A spade void cannot be shown.
Partner has reasonably solid clubs, AK long is the least, but AQ could be enough gambing on ♣K not on left.

Partner has at most 1 loser in diamonds

Partner has at most 1 loser in hearts.


So it is easy to construct

-
x
Kxxxx
AQxxxxx

As the worst psosible hand. But I'd bet he has ♦KQ and ♣AKJ

[Fluffy]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-12, 21:25, said:

My actual hand was Ax-0-Kxxxx-AKQxxx. Partner had a tough problem with the Ace-King in hearts, diamond AJxx, and 3 clubs. At IMP, 7D seems possible. At MP, 6NT seems possible. Pass is probably right, though.

Was there any special rule in the game you were playing where you couldn't bid the same suit as opponents?

[apollo1201]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-12, 21:25, said:

My actual hand was Ax-0-Kxxxx-AKQxxx. Partner had a tough problem with the Ace-King in hearts, diamond AJxx, and 3 clubs. At IMP, 7D seems possible. At MP, 6NT seems possible. Pass is probably right, though.

Your hand reminds me a hand I opened 1D and (hastily) josephined to play 6 or 7 depending if pard had 2 our of 3 top trumps, my hand being

AK
Kxxxx
AKxxxx
-

There was no intervention but I am not sure it changes matters much.

I posted the topic on bbf (dunno how find it back though😡) on how to deal better because my Ds were not solid (xxx facing could result in a loser).

Here the Cs are solid and as you are driving anyway to 6, why not help patrner judge if he should bid 1 more?

As your hand is finally better than mine, maybe the jump to 6 is my hand it could be the minimum you should expect i.e. a reasonable chance of making but needing some extras in the opened suit and in trumps (2 majors stopped 1st round and strong 2-suiter but lacking top honors in both suits)?

What do you think? Not sure I'll see such hand again in my career though!

[billw55]

Fluffy, on 2016-August-15, 03:05, said:

Was there any special rule in the game you were playing where you couldn't bid the same suit as opponents?

I was thinking that too. Wouldn't 2♥ be a forcing diamond raise? And leave us room to nose around for grand as well. Downside is ... that ops may be able to find a paying sac in 6M? Perhaps, but then again, they might anyway.

[kenrexford]

In defense of my sequence. First if my call happens to describe my hand as people would expect then it seems like the right way to bid the hand. 2 sequences cannot logically show the same hand.

Bidding the hand slowly has two risks. First is a jump to four hearts, which kills any intelligent auction. Second is that the auction involving a minor is always a hot mess even if not contested. If I have a call The Fairly describes my entire hand in one bid in a minor oriented auction I like to take it.

Exclusion Blackwood was not available. A splinter was an option but it gave up on the chance for an incorrect lead like a heart lead if the opponent's don't know what 6 diamonds shows. For that matter it is sometimes difficult to show a void after a splinter especially when they agreed Trump is a minor. The Splinter also does not really show the nature of the club suit. I thought about a blast to 5 hearts but that seemed to have the same problem of leading the opponents down the right path on defense. I also I'm not sure what five Hearts means which seems right because no one has suggested a natural 5 hearts void call.

The big picture bottom line is that the auction would be wildly different if I were supporting a major. Supporting a minor is such a messed up garbled cluster that blasting picture bids seemed ideal if possible.

[manudude03]

Sorry if this seems like a hijack, but do people play a double of Josephine as suggesting a sac? Seems to me like it should, but it's not an auction I've ever seen or discussed before.

I think it was pretty obvious the actual hand was going to be something that could be bid another way, but sometimes gadgets are overrated.

[billw55]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-15, 16:19, said:

A splinter was an option but it gave up on the chance for an incorrect lead like a heart lead if the opponent's don't know what 6 diamonds shows.

I learned something from your post, but this bit concerns me. If your partner knows what 6♦ shows, the opponents should too. I certainly expect them to ask about such an unusual bid.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-August-16, 06:43, said:

[/size]
I learned something from your post, but this bit concerns me. If your partner knows what 6♦ shows, the opponents should too. I certainly expect them to ask about such an unusual bid.

6♦ just showed a desire to play that contract, partner is expect to just pass. Anything else about the hand is only an inference. If partner has the ♥A, he can figure out that you must have heart shortness, but he doesn't have to tell the opponents that because it's based on his hand, not an agreement. If he doesn't have that card, the bid could be based on heart shortness or stiff A.

[kenrexford]

billw55, on 2016-August-16, 06:43, said:

[/size]
I learned something from your post, but this bit concerns me. If your partner knows what 6♦ shows, the opponents should too. I certainly expect them to ask about such an unusual bid.

No one asked. The lead was a heart.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 08:24, said:

6♦ just showed a desire to play that contract, partner is expect to just pass. Anything else about the hand is only an inference. If partner has the ♥A, he can figure out that you must have heart shortness, but he doesn't have to tell the opponents that because it's based on his hand, not an agreement. If he doesn't have that card, the bid could be based on heart shortness or stiff A.

But Ken's argument seems to be that 6♦ should in fact show a fairly specific hand type. And if his partner knows this, then it should be disclosed if asked. OK, the first time it happens, there is no agreement and nothing to disclose. But subsequent times?

kenrexford, on 2016-August-16, 08:25, said:

No one asked. The lead was a heart.

Well if they won't ask, I suppose you will get some surprise value from many bids.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-August-16, 08:56, said:

But Ken's argument seems to be that 6♦ should in fact show a fairly specific hand type. And if his partner knows this, then it should be disclosed if asked. OK, the first time it happens, there is no agreement and nothing to disclose. But subsequent times?

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 09:08, said:

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

Yes, for sure very rare, probably never relevant.

[Kaitlyn S]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 09:08, said:

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

It's funny that you would say that in light of a hand I held yesterday on BBO. I opened 1C and partner, who had just entered the room and answered no system questions, bid 6D.

I held: AKxx, Axxx, K, KJxx. Am I supposed to "just pass"?

[Kaitlyn S]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-16, 08:25, said:

No one asked. The lead was a heart.

In my experience, nobody asks because they do ask, the answer is in a snarky or condescending tone, "Just bridge".

Also, it would be incredible to think the opponents have an agreement on this auction.

In several hundred hands, I've only asked a question about an auction once. A pair that seemed to have their stuff together had a 2/1 auction that started 1D (P) 2C (P) 3H (several cue bids to 6C.) On lead, I asked if the 3H bid showed shortness. "It's supposed to!" was the answer. I led and dummy hits with H-AQJxx. So, even if a pair has an agreement about an unusual situation, they might not both have remembered it.

[billw55]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-August-16, 09:42, said:

It's funny that you would say that in light of a hand I held yesterday on BBO. I opened 1C and partner, who had just entered the room and answered no system questions, bid 6D.

I held: AKxx, Axxx, K, KJxx. Am I supposed to "just pass"?

I would bid 7♦. If it isn't cold, partner is a lunatic.

[kenrexford]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 09:08, said:

I think it shows that hand type simply due to process of elimination, not explicit (or even implicit) agreement.

And the hand type (a freak) is probably sufficiently rare that you don't have to think much about subsequent times. It might come up once a year, and probably not with the same partner.

Thank you for pointing this out. I mean, what partnership would discuss this without it coming up? For that matter, are there a lot of options to consider, like a Hardy 6D quadruple jump raise vs a Lawrence quadruple jump raise?

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-August-16, 10:41, said:

I would bid 7♦. If it isn't cold, partner is a lunatic.

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

Well, you'll remember this implicit agreement for the next time this random happens to drop in across from you.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 13:56, said:

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

Pretty sure I covered that option

[Kaitlyn S]

barmar, on 2016-August-16, 13:56, said:

Only to discover that he plays this as a "super splinter" raise, showing shortness in both diamonds and a major.

Well, you'll remember this implicit agreement for the next time this random happens to drop in across from you.

I don't think this random will ever drop in across from me again. His chat when he saw dummy makes me think that there is now a lunatic out there who has commented in my profile "Don't play with this one again!"