[xeno123]

So playing in a robot tournament, I was dealt the following freak hand:

---

Results were all over the place, from my unfortunate down 2 after GIB leaped to 7♣ after my 5♣, to 7NT by South doubled and making (BAD, BAD GIB for not leading its Ace!). Opening 1♣ generally seemed to work best. The players that jumped to 6♣ quickly generally made with an overtrick.

So what's the best way of finding out if partner has the relevant controls here? Or does one just leap to 5 or 6♣ and hope for the best?

[Fluffy]

2♣ + 4♣ says: We are playing clubs, cuebid whatever king you've got. So 4♣-4♦-4♥-5♣-pass is the right continuation if you pick to open 2♣ (wich is wrong IMO)

[xeno123]

 Fluffy, on 2014-June-11, 09:55, said:

2♣ + 4♣ says: We are playing clubs, cuebid whatever king you've got. So 4♣-4♦-4♥-5♣-pass is the right continuation if you pick to open 2♣ (wich is wrong IMO)

Makes sense. So you prefer to open 1♣? Seems like that increases the chances of the opponents finding a massive major fit someplace. I assume the hand is too good to open 5♣.

[Fluffy]

We had long debates about that, I don't want to go lengthy, lets just say that the rule for 2♣ opener: more defensive winners than losers is very far from being meet on this hand.

[gszes]

At these colors (if the colors were reversed a 5c opener
is pretty darn accurate showing ten tricks)---7c is the only
"preempt" that matches your trick taking ability at MP anyway
--yet that bid just seems unreasonable since we have little
to no reason to assume the opps can make anything.
Any other preempt you choose is merely another form of gamble
so that leaves us with grumble 1c which I loathe to do with quite
possibly zero defense but what can one do:)
I will then listen to the bidding and see what course of
action appears to be the best.

[ArtK78]

There are two different issues here:

1) How do you bid these cards in real life?

2) How do you bid these cards in a Robot game with a Robot partner?

In real life, unless you have an explicit agreement with your partner that this type of hand can be opened with a 2♣ call, I would never open 2♣. You will find it difficult to put on the breaks if partner has controls such as North held in this hand.

With a Robot partner, once you opened 2♣, the grand slam bid was virtually inevitable.

You were somewhat unlucky that so much of your Robot partner's values were wasted. Just switch the ♥A and any of the spades in the North hand and 7♣ is cold (thanks to North's fortuitous possession of the ♣9 as an entry in the event of a spade lead).

[chasetb]

Answering ArtK78's two questions:

1.) In real life, using my system, I open this kind of hand 4♣ - forcing to 5♣ or them playing it doubled. Fluffy has the continuation right - we cuebid with a bigger hand like North's.

2.) If I am lucky, I open it 6♣. If not, then 5♣.

[xeno123]

 Fluffy, on 2014-June-11, 10:09, said:

We had long debates about that, I don't want to go lengthy, lets just say that the rule for 2♣ opener: more defensive winners than losers is very far from being meet on this hand.

I understand that, but here opening 2♣ and jumping to 4♣ as you suggest seems to me most likely to have us end up in the right contract - you'll at least find out about partner's controls. Hard for me to imagine a similar sequence starting with 1♣ given the fair chance the opponents have points and a fit someplace and are unlikely to be silent. Your next bid might well need to be at the four level after your 1♣ opening, so pretty hard then to set clubs as trumps and find out about controls.

[Fluffy]

I don't want to go into this debate again, yes, 2♣ is tactically best, but I am of the opinion, and I am not alone, that a 2♣ opener has an unfair preemptive effect on opponent's and shouldn't be used on hands like this, since you could stop opponents from bidding a cold slam in a major for something that I consider "missdescribing" my hand (and this is not allowed in many jurisdictions for artificial openings).

playing against robots I suppose there is no such problem so 2♣ looks fine.

[blackshoe]

Against robots folks can do whatever they like, so I would not oppose a 2♣ opening here. IRL, 2♣ seems too much like a psych - which in my jurisdiction is illegal. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it even if the director told me I could. And any preempt seems wrong because the hand is too strong for a preempt. I would hope for methods that would allow me to open the bidding, set trump, and then ask for spade controls below game. Barring that (which I would expect to be the case), I would open 1♣ and see what happens. I can't imagine it would get passed out.

[steve2005]

freak hand - don't have the tools to find your off AK♠, tho I must say after the original 2♣ auction you might suspect.

All you have to do is convince GIB that not mentioning ♠ might indicate some losers.

playing precision 1♣- 2♠ any 4441 8+ hcp (or whatever bid your using for 4441) I'm sure the relayers can come up with an auction to get to 5♣ when right, even handling interference.

[the hog]

In a weak field I woulod try 2C followed by 4C. Calling 2C a psyche is a joke. This might be enough to dissuade the Caspar Milquetoasts from bidding. In a good field i would just open 5C.

[1eyedjack]

 xeno123, on 2014-June-11, 09:47, said:

Results were all over the place, from my unfortunate down 2 after GIB leaped to 7♣ after my 5♣, to 7NT by South doubled and making (BAD, BAD GIB for not leading its Ace!).

Disappointed that GIB is still steadfastly refusing to lead an Ace v 7N. This is an old and well known issue hat should have been fixed well before now.

Slightly encouraged that at least it has learned to double, even if it does let it through. At least at the level of 7N its partner can't pull the double

This point may not be seen by Georgi because the thread is not in the GIB subforum.

EDIT

the point has been repeated in GIB forum. sorry, just read this one first.

[Zelandakh]

 chasetb, on 2014-June-11, 14:16, said:

1.) In real life, using my system, I open this kind of hand 4♣ - forcing to 5♣ or them playing it doubled. Fluffy has the continuation right - we cuebid with a bigger hand like North's.

Your 4♣ opening is a natural strong preempt? Do you do this with any of the other opening bids - seems unusual.

 blackshoe, on 2014-June-11, 17:15, said:

IRL, 2♣ seems too much like a psych

It is not a psyche if it is systemic (which may or may not be legal) and if it is systemic it needs to be explained correctly. If it is explained correctly it is not misdescribing the hand.

[xeno123]

I don't know if this discussion from 2005 is still "good law", but here are examples of permissible and impermissible 2♣ openings with long suits and low point count. (Note that my hand has a 4 losing trick count perhaps making it eligible for a 2♣ opening).

Quote

Not all holdings are created equal or treated as equal. The ACBL has defined a 2 Clubs opening bid in the following manner and the following is a quote is from both the ACBL and also Mr. Rick Beye, Chief Tournament Director for the ACBL.

ACBL regulations and the General Convention Chart do not permit players to employ the 2 Clubs opening bid with holdings that contain long strong suits, but which also have very little outside strength.

In the June 2005 issue of The Bridge Bulletin, page 38, the reader will find an explanation of Mr. Rick Beye, Chief Tournament Director of ACBL. It is a direct response to this condition as set forth by the ACBL, and is quoted below.

The most common example we give of a 2 Clubs opening that is not allowed is a hand such as:

KQJxxxxxxx
J
J
K
This clearly is not a 2 Clubs opening bid. We do allow something like:

AKxxxxxxxx
x
A
x
While both of these hands contain 11 high card points, any bridge player can see the true playing strength in the second hand. Similarly, bridge players should be able to realize that the first hand is one that would cause concern to a tournament director.

Hands that fall in between the two examples constitute a gray area, in which a tournament director must try to make a judgment as to the bidder's intent. If, as in the first case, it is clear that the intent has been to fool the opponents, some penalty would usually be levied.

http://www.bridgeguy...pening_bid.html

[helene_t]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-June-11, 22:49, said:

Disappointed that GIB is still steadfastly refusing to lead an Ace v 7N. This is an old and well known issue hat should have been fixed well before now.

Could the problem be that an unsupported ace in a non-systemic lead against NT? It is not my impression that GIB refuses to make non-systemic leads but maybe it has a bias against them.

[gszes]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-12, 08:52, said:

Could the problem be that an unsupported ace in a non-systemic lead against NT? It is not my impression that GIB refuses to make non-systemic leads but maybe it has a bias against them.

It is quite easy to write a subroutine to overcome even the strongest bias by checking
first to see if the lead of the ace will set the contract:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
hard to imagine this flaw has been around for too long a period of time.

[neilkaz]

 gszes, on 2014-June-12, 10:12, said:

It is quite easy to write a subroutine to overcome even the strongest bias by checking
first to see if the lead of the ace will set the contract:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
hard to imagine this flaw has been around for too long a period of time.

Hard to imagine that this flaw was ever around.

[steve2005]

Its strange that GIB led A♠ against 7♣ there could easily be K♠ in dummy and a void in declarers hand, so it might be wrong.

Against 7N A♠ cant be wrong and if its good for 7♣ its even better for 7NX

[mathduck]

If you were playing bizarro transfer, you open 3♥, partner now knows you have a long club suit. They would probably bid 6♣, now opposition needs to find the lucky lead to defaet the contract.