I ran into an interesting sequence, in an interesting context, this weekend.
I was dealt J10xxx-Kx-QJxxx-A, and partner opened 1NT. This seemed to be a likely transfer-then-3NT sequence, until partner surprised me with a super-accept, in our methods 3C, which shows an unbalanced hand (relatively, some doubleton) and good controls. Envisioning the right AKAK, I decided to show my diamond suit. However, we had not discussed methods enough here.
In practice, I re-transferred, by bidding 3H, and after partner's 3S bid 4D, hoping without discussion that this would be taken as a long-suit slam try (especially having not cuebid 3D earlier). Partner hit me with a LTTC 4H, I declined, and 4H made.
We decided to change things. The re-transfer starts cuebidding now. Jumps are shortness tries. With a suit to show, we either bid 3D (diamonds) or 3NT (clubs). With both majors, we would have started differently.
The funny part of the story is Part II. After the auction, with alerts and explanations and all, the ladies we were playing insisted that Responder bid spades first. When we explained the auction, they screamed for the TD. The TD arrived and asked me what happened. So, as kindly as I could, I explained the actual auction, with caveats that this was solely our position. I then gave their proposed auction, namely that my partner had opened 1NT, I had bid 2H as a transfer, partner bid 3C as a super-acceptance, I had bid 3H as a re-transfer, partner had bid 4H as a cuebid, I had then made an insufficient bid of 4D that no one caught, partner had rebid 4H, this time as LTTC, and then I had signed off at 4S.
When the discussion looked to get heated, we conceded (we didn't really care). But, this gave me an idea. Cuebidding could be really effective if insufficient bids were allowed, eh? Last Train, followed by an insufficient start over to cuebidding, followed by another Last Train bid? I love it!
Post a Comment