Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree that ♠AKJ3 ♥762 ♦832 ♣AK8 has reasonable chances.
But if South is bidding slam opposite any strong NT, then sometimes it will be ♠AKJ3 ♥QJ2 ♦832 ♣AJ10.
I wouldn’t upgrade by a full point, but I think that this hand is worth a small plus factor, not a downgrade!
Look at the honours supporting each other in the round suits. I agree that Jxx is not a great holding, but J9x is an encouraging holding in each of the pointed suits.
Sorry – there seem to be two instances of this post.
It might be awkward if trumps are 4-1. But it is a slam that I would want to be in. The sequence tells North that South has a game raise based on a good quality diamond suit. The king of diamonds should look like a great card to North.
Hi Bruce, I agree that there are other possible solutions. Another idea is to play fit-jump responses, so this auction would start: 1♥-3♦, but then you lose the standard meaning for a jump-shift response.
I am simply suggesting that a DGR can still be useful sometimes if playing standard Jacoby responses.
Hi Charles,
The 2S response doesn’t feel right for two reasons:
- With 10 HCPs we are a bit strong. Yes, I know that it is 4333, but with two aces and three-card support there are positives too.
- I prefer to have four-card support for the raise – particularly as there are no ruffing possibilities.
Thanks Charles. I wasn’t sure, but chose to take it as forcing.
I don’t know the E/W methods. But Michaels usually shows equal length or one card difference (6-5). Books don’t usually recommend it on 7-5. But it wouldn’t be the worst bid in the world and might help here.
Another possibility is that they might play Michaels as split range and judge this hand to be in the intermediate range.
Yes, all of parts 1, 2 and 3 have been suit contracts. Bernard did apologise for this at the start.
Is it too late to re-label these?
It is also worth mentioning that a jump response in the minors (such as 1NT-3♣) is also a slam try.
Now opener’s rebids are interesting. I believe that it is standard that the only negative rebid would be 3NT. So 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ are all cue bids suggesting some suitability for slam rather than showing stoppers for no trumps.
Julian’s answer is excellent.
Your question also asks whether the bid is “legitimate” and the title mentions “Fair Play”. If you have concerns about whether the bid is ethical, David Stevenson should be able to confirm this and you might post this in his forum.
I think that the computer sometimes deletes what it thinks are “unnecessary” spaces. So maybe you were trying to ask about:
If my guess is wrong, then please ignore this. But if this is the auction then my comments would be:
- North knows pretty accurately what South holds (a balanced hand with 12-14 points), whereas South has almost no idea what South holds (zero to a poor 11-count, any shape). So South has no reason to bid at all and would normally leave things to partner and would need an exceptional holding to bid. Three hearts is not an exceptional holding!
- Some players (including me) play that a sequence such as 1NT-2♥-Dbl is takeout and in this case, it would be consistent to play that 1NT-1♥-P-P-Dbl is for takeout. I would expect a holding such as ♠AK74 ♥64 ♦AQ9 ♣J1095. It would be even more unusual for opener to make a takeout double if the right-hand opponent makes an overcall, because partner still has a bid.
- Bernard plays that 1NT-2♥-Dbl is for penalties, in which case it would be consistent for a double by opener to also be for penalties. This would be a very unusual action, given that partner might have nothing! I suppose that a penalty double might be possible after 1NT-P-P-2♥-Dbl with a hand such as: ♠A104 ♥AQ1097 ♦KJ9 ♣76. But Bernard doesn’t like opening 1NT with a strong five-card major! So I would say that a double by opener is an impossible bid playing Bernard’s methods.
