[lamford]

---

Last board of the BB. A little bird tells you that you need to bid and make grand and have the opponents go off in grand to win the title. The first part happens when Moss and Grue go off in 7S with no miracle in clubs. Sadly, you do not have Robson and Gold in your team, who bid as above in the transnationals. Was this the best auction of the year and could you honestly replicate it with your favourite partner?

[kenberg]

Last question first. No, I could not bid the grand in diamonds. That being acknowledged, the auction is logical and requires no exotic tools. Playing with my clone, the auction indeed would start 1NT-2H-3S-4C. But offering the choice of grands and then realizing that there is a possibly crucial ruff available playing in diamonds, increasing the trick total by one, so we play it there? Neither I nor my clone is up for that.

The BB was terrific, it generally is. On bd 31 we want to be the small heart slam because the diamond Quack is a Q while on board 32 we want to stay out of 7S because the club Quack is a Jack. With a little bit of blooming luck I might, or might not, reach 6H on 31 an/or stay out of 7S on 32, but getting to 7D on 32? Never happen with me.

What a finish! And to what a match! Thanks to all.

[The_Badger]

lamford, on 2017-August-27, 02:19, said:

---

Last board of the BB. A little bird tells you that you need to bid and make grand and have the opponents go off in grand to win the title. The first part happens when Moss and Grue go off in 7S with no miracle in clubs. Sadly, you do not have Robson and Gold in your team, who bid as above in the transnationals. Was this the best auction of the year and could you honestly replicate it with your favourite partner?

I'm really glad you have posted this hand as it is a classic. A Moysian slam. World class bidding from two world class players. 3-3 trump split 36% + 4-2 split 48% = 84% or thereabouts grand slam. Great odds!

(Though I have a lot of sympathy for all those pairs that played in the unmakeable 7♠ too.)

[Cyberyeti]

Whenever I bid one of these, diamonds are 5-1 and Q♣ drops

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-28, 05:06, said:

Whenever I bid one of these, diamonds are 5-1 and Q♣ drops

Is that what they mean by the expression "virtue has to be its own reward" or is it "Murphy's Law"?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2017-August-28, 06:25, said:

Is that what they mean by the expression "virtue has to be its own reward" or is it "Murphy's Law"?

Sorry, a little bitter and twisted after we bid 2 thin excellent slams scuppered by 4-1 with the singleton not being J or 10 and 4-0 offside trump breaks in a recent session.

[eagles123]

Not really that challenging, I'm sure Fantoni - Nunes would have got there easily

[eagles123]

double post

[Zelandakh]

eagles123, on 2017-August-28, 16:06, said:

Not really that challenging, I'm sure Fantoni - Nunes would have got there easily

This seems like one for the Doctors' system, identifying the ruffing feature efficiently at a low level.

[gnasher]

I'd expect to have an equivalent auction up to 5♥, with opener having shown a maximum with four spades.

At that point, if you try constructing some hands, 6♣ is clearly the right bid.
If opener doesn't accept, then you know you have a club loser, unless he has a hand like AJxx AKQx Kx xxx.
If opener does accept then:
- Holding a low doubleton club, he has to have ♥K or ♦Q to make up his maximum.
- Holding ♣Q, the worst he can have is AJxx AQ Kxxx QJx or AJxx AQx Kxxx Qx

After 6♣, the difficult bit is thinking of bidding 7♦. Once you've thought of it, it's clear to do it.

After 7♦, it's clear to pass, because you can write down opener's hand.

So I think I should have this auction. Of course, the chance that I'd actually have it is about 1%.

[dokoko]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-29, 02:50, said:

This seems like one for the Doctors' system, identifying the ruffing feature efficiently at a low level.

talking of "forcing cough" system?

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2017-August-30, 16:01, said:

At that point, if you try constructing some hands, 6♣ is clearly the right bid.

Is it? Does that not depend on the meaning? According to Kantar, the closest to a standard that I know of, the meanings over 5♥ are 5NT = SKA; 6♣♦♥ = SSAs; others = sign-offs. 6♣is here surely not the right bid and West bidding 7♦ over a club SSA would in turn be bizarre. A 6♦ SSA looks like a more logical approach but that would not result in a 7♦ contract.

To my way of thinking, the better solution is to go right back in the auction to 3♠. A 2NT or 3♦ superaccept provides both extra space and more information about Opener's hand. In particular, 3♦ in the flag method makes reaching 7♦ in safety easy regardless of the system of RKCB follow-ups in use.

[yunling]

I recall a somewhat similar but more extreme hand, played in 2013:
N
♠KJx
♥KQJx
♦Axx
♣Axx

S
♠AQxxx
♥Axx
♦Qxxx
♣x

Madala(S) opened 1♠ then showed 5341, after which Bocchi drove to 7♥,making.
The other room went down in 6♠.