[Ranmit]

Playing 2/1, how would you find this (g)slam as NS?

---

I can see a grand slam in our system if we open 1NT, but this hand seems more of a 1S opening.

[awm]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-15, 05:50, said:

Playing 2/1, how would you find this (g)slam as NS?

---

I can see a grand slam in our system if we open 1NT, but this hand seems more of a 1S opening.

It seems pretty easy if the auction starts:

1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-4♣

If North decides not to game force things get a bit harder because South may try to stop in 3NT. If the auction starts 1♠-3♣ (natural invite)-3NT then North has to decide to bid 4♣; I think this is clear at IMPs because 5♣ will often be better than 3NT anyway and you might have 6♣, but at MPs it seems very difficult. Of course it's also possible South could decide to bid past 3NT, but a normal North hand like x Kxx Qxx KQxxxx offers little play for slam and 3NT seems a good spot.

[Ranmit]

awm, on 2024-December-15, 07:13, said:

It seems pretty easy if the auction starts:
1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-4♣

Not quite sure I follow. Would you game force with this hand? And given 2♣ shows 4+clubs (could even be 3+ if one plays 1M 2d promises 5+d), the 3♣ rebid could be a 5 carder (say 2-3-3-5 distribution)? So would S bid 4♣ with a dblton?

[awm]

Ranmit, on 2024-December-15, 11:38, said:

Not quite sure I follow. Would you game force with this hand? And given 2♣ shows 4+clubs (could even be 3+ if one plays 1M 2d promises 5+d), the 3♣ rebid could be a 5 carder (say 2-3-3-5 distribution)? So would S bid 4♣ with a dblton?

I would game force here. I also asked my wife about the North hand without telling her the South hand and she would game force here too. Of course this is a matter of judgment and could go horribly wrong if opener has a club void or something, but you really do not need very much from partner's opening bid to have a good chance at 5♣.

While it's true that 2♣ shows 4+♣ (maybe even 3+♣ since you need five hearts to bid 2♥ so 3433 is a bit stuck), you don't rebid 3♣ on five. The hands that bid 2♣ on five (or fewer) are normally balanced and will bid 2NT next (or raise spades on three, or raise hearts on four, etc). If you hear 1♠-2♣-2♥ and have absolutely nothing in diamonds you might try 2♠ on a doubleton honor or 3♦ "fourth suit forcing" (depending on style). So 2♣ followed by 3♣ is definitely at least six.

Opener knows there are eight-plus clubs between the two hands and he has a lot of extras in the form of aces and kings (this is much better than slow cards when in a slam auction). So 4♣ agrees clubs and looks for slam. North can cuebid or just bid keycard next (it will be surprising if partner doesn't have two aces for the slammish sequence).

[pescetom]

FWIW I would not GF with this hand opposite spades.
For me 3♣ describes the hand (unless you play a fitbid or some other oddity).
If South has the vision to raise to 4♣ then it is trivial to control-bid to 7♣, if he rebids hearts then it gets tricky and if he bids 3NT that is it.

With my partner of today I might have opened 1NT (no problem with the shape, but it's really too strong for 15-17, depends a bit on vulnerability and position) in which case it drops out automatically after 2♠ range-ask / clubs transfer.

[mw64ahw]

8-card suit, 2 Keycards, 9hcp, 6 modified losers no side 4-card suit.
I have two options
1♠-3♣ INV
3N-4♣
or
1♠-2♣
2♥-4♣
For me both sequences describe a self sustaining-suit (quality+length) with the above characteristics. After that moving to a slam is straightforward, but bidding the grand relies on North knowing South shape; i.e. the 10-card fit is key.

One way perhaps in the 2nd example is to use 2♠ as a shape asking relay such that:
2N 5422
3♣ 55xx (stronger than a direct 3♥)
3♦ 64xx
3♥ 5431
3♠ 5413.
Now after 2N you have an extra level to bid accurately. Do you have an issue after 3♥? probably not as you can use 3♠ forces 3N etc.

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2024-December-15, 17:24, said:

8-card suit, 2 Keycards, 9hcp, 6 modified losers no side 4-card suit.
I have two options
1♠-3♣ INV

How can North risk playing in a partscore?

Are you afraid your high-level forcing-pass agreements will trap you into doubling a cold game? Rethink those agreements.

[mw64ahw]

bluenikki, on 2024-December-15, 19:01, said:

How can North risk playing in a partscore?

Are you afraid your high-level forcing-pass agreements will trap you into doubling a cold game? Rethink those agreements.

I choose the 2nd option.

[jdiana]

I agree that North's hand is too good for 1♠ - 3♣. I don't think we had a jump rebid by responder in our arsenal. If you play Minorwood, would 4♣ count as Minorwood here? If so, it might go

1♠-2♣
2♥-3♣
4♣ (Minorwood) - 4♠ (2 KC w/o the queen)
6NT

I wouldn't be picturing North's hand if I were South, but 6NT should work out as long as clubs are 2-1.

[smerriman]

jdiana, on 2024-December-15, 21:08, said:

If you play Minorwood, would 4♣ count as Minorwood here?

For some, maybe, but if I were playing Minorwood it wouldn't be; there are too many hands where South may want to agree clubs but not be in a position to ask for keycards.

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2024-December-15, 19:01, said:

How can North risk playing in a partscore?

Are you afraid your high-level forcing-pass agreements will trap you into doubling a cold game? Rethink those agreements.

Which game do you want to be in opposite KQ10xx, KQJx, xxx, x ? You won't even make 3♣ most of the time, this is a good hand but not a great one unless partner has aces.

[Zelandakh]

jdiana, on 2024-December-15, 21:08, said:

If you play Minorwood, would 4♣ count as Minorwood here? If so, it might go

When both 4m bids are available to agree a minor, I think it is clear for 4♣ to be some kind of slam try (CKCB, cues with Frivolous 4♦, etc) and for 4♦ to be the pure key card ask. It is not significantly more complex than Minorwood and offers more options.

[mycroft]

NOT Ranmit said:

Playing 2/1, how would you find this (g)slam as NS?

---

How about

---

"self-sustaining suit (quality and length)"? Okay, yeah, length I'll grant you.

Yes, it's a Minor/RedWood situation; yes, strong, experienced partnerships will have agreements about this. Those of us who don't play Redwood because "if pros can have a RW screwup in the finals of a WC, it's too hard for me to get right" pay for it in "don't get to some 26 HCP minor-suit slams". We know that. Hopefully we get it back when the opponents misguess in a "is 4♦ support/'my suit', or is it RW? is 4♥ a control cue, or is it RW (or is it Exclusion, because 4♦ is RW)?", or when the time and energy they spend on disambiguation discussions we spend on getting our competitive agreements better, and so we're the same percentage better on 10 (a fifth!) % of competitive hands rather than the 1 or 2% (total) of non-spade slam hands (many of which boring 4NT handles equally well).

Nothing I've seen here makes it trivial to stop in (the hopefully making, it could be AQJ offside) game with these, and bid 6 (or, yeah, 7) with OP's hand. Some, I guess, would lead to KC, and hopefully it's the right hand that has it available, but it's not clear.

Going back to OP's hand, the opponents have 2 eight-card red fits and tricks to burn in spades if you don't take "their" diamonds first (granted, you get two kicks at it, but you can block yourself too...) The chance this auction goes quiet is not nearly 100%; if it goes 1♠-p-3♣-X, are you sure both players are going to guess right? What about with the Yeti's hand? What about something in the middle - A-empty spades and club fillers and KQ or KJ hearts?

What about 1♠-(2♠)-? Now we all should have a way to show "good clubs" vs "competing clubs", but now when they jump, or take the 5red sacrifice, have you shown your hand? Does partner know your defensive strength?

It is, I agree, an "interesting bridge hand". It's great to see it posted, and the thoughts around it. But part of what makes it interesting is that resulters go +440 at the table, discuss how to get it right looking at 26 cards, and proceed to go 6♣-1 (or better yet, 7♣-1) on the next one that looks like this, but isn't.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-December-16, 10:08, said:

"self-sustaining suit (quality and length)"? Okay, yeah, length I'll grant you.

Yes, it's a Minor/RedWood situation; yes, strong, experienced partnerships will have agreements about this. Those of us who don't play Redwood because "if pros can have a RW screwup in the finals of a WC, it's too hard for me to get right" pay for it in "don't get to some 26 HCP minor-suit slams". We know that. Hopefully we get it back when the opponents misguess in a "is 4♦ support/'my suit', or is it RW? is 4♥ a control cue, or is it RW (or is it Exclusion, because 4♦ is RW)?", or when the time and energy they spend on disambiguation discussions we spend on getting our competitive agreements better, and so we're the same percentage better on 10 (a fifth!) % of competitive hands rather than the 1 or 2% (total) of non-spade slam hands (many of which boring 4NT handles equally well).

Nothing I've seen here makes it trivial to stop in (the hopefully making, it could be AQJ offside) game with these, and bid 6 (or, yeah, 7) with OP's hand. Some, I guess, would lead to KC, and hopefully it's the right hand that has it available, but it's not clear.

Going back to OP's hand, the opponents have 2 eight-card red fits and tricks to burn in spades if you don't take "their" diamonds first (granted, you get two kicks at it, but you can block yourself too...) The chance this auction goes quiet is not nearly 100%; if it goes 1♠-p-3♣-X, are you sure both players are going to guess right? What about with the Yeti's hand? What about something in the middle - A-empty spades and club fillers and KQ or KJ hearts?

What about 1♠-(2♠)-? Now we all should have a way to show "good clubs" vs "competing clubs", but now when they jump, or take the 5red sacrifice, have you shown your hand? Does partner know your defensive strength?

It is, I agree, an "interesting bridge hand". It's great to see it posted, and the thoughts around it. But part of what makes it interesting is that resulters go +440 at the table, discuss how to get it right looking at 26 cards, and proceed to go 6♣-1 (or better yet, 7♣-1) on the next one that looks like this, but isn't.

I agree about the inconsistency of the suit: for the rest I think you may be overstating things here.
I for one did not result, count the ifs in my auction starts: when I say it then gets trivial I mean it, though.
As for the contested auction, yes West with 5 card hearts might make things harder for us. I somehow don't see them bidding their diamonds.
OP did not give vulnerability and position, but say favourable to us then the opps would do well not to come in 2♠ (1100 in the air).

As for Redwood, I would bet that the vast majority of screwups by pros occurred when diamonds were trumps, not clubs.
I see Redwood as the combination of a near-essential and low risk method (diamonds as the ask over clubs) and a useful but invasive and high risk method (hearts as the ask over diamonds). I've played diamonds as the clubs ask for many years, with rarely any problem in disambiguating it (not even yesterday, with a partner who turns up once a year and somehow always has a clubs slam). I prefer to only play hearts over diamonds in a few specific convention developments where there is no ambiguity and 4NT would ruin symmetry with clubs developments. Otherwise 4NT 1403 will usually do the job, with due discipline about who is asking.

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-December-16, 04:03, said:

Which game do you want to be in opposite KQ10xx, KQJx, xxx, x ? You won't even make 3♣ most of the time, this is a good hand but not a great one unless partner has aces.

Will opener pass 3♣ _only_ with a bare minimum misfit? If that is your explicit agreement, then fine. Otherwise ....

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2024-December-16, 15:52, said:

Will opener pass 3♣ _only_ with a bare minimum misfit? If that is your explicit agreement, then fine. Otherwise ....

I don't play 2/1 GF or 3♣ inv, we would start (and very likely end) 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣ with the minimum and start 1♠-2♣-2N(gf not necessarily bal)-3♣-3♥ with the actual hand, whether we got past 3N is not totally clear, and I would guess would depend whether partner or I had the clubs.

[mycroft]

Maybe I am overstating it, but a lot of the discussion certainly felt like it was aided by knowing "aces and support" in the South hand. I don't think it's as easy as it looks looking only at the North hand; especially when not mentioning possible competition.

per Kickback, most of the problems I've seen have been not in diamonds, but in hearts (which I know isn't "red"wood).
4♠ -1 with 6♥ on, or 5♥-1 with 4♠ making (and intended), or 4♥= with 4♠+1 but "can't be bid" (but of course it could and would, at least partner will *say so* after). Yes, it's a useful tool, and allows for ace-asking in many situations normal KC players will have to either guess or hope; but my partners aren't inured to "oopsies" in slam auctions, and will remember the one mistake to the 5 wins (and the 30 didn't matters). And so will I. And again, it's worth putting the effort of "disambiguating auctions" into the 10 competitive auctions we get a session rather than the maybe 0-2 keycard auctions, even if 90+% of *those* are unambiguous to the kibitzer over there at the poker table.

[mike777]

Getting to game or 6 or 7 is very easy per previous posts.
Now whether it makes is another issue.
I expect protection at the other table.

If partner opens and your style allows responder to stop at the partscore 3 level with an 8 card suit and an outside Ace, you earned your imps.
😊

[thepossum]

Even in 2/1 I am reluctant to bid 1NT as North
Hopefully slam clubs can be found but could be risky

[fuzzyquack]

Ideal hand for strong ♣. In 2/1 it is a nightmare unless you play 1M-3m invitational. With x,x,Axx,KQT9xxxx bidding 2♣ GF would seem clear but 2♣ with the actual hand is clear only when you see the opener's hand.