Round Robins, Shanghai.
Compare the three auctions -- the two that occurred and the one using my methods:
Indonesia: 1S-2S-3C-3D-3H-4C-4H-6C. Not bad. I'm not exactly sure what the inferences were, but the write-up in the Shanghai Daily Bulletin suggests that Responder used good judgment.
Brazil: 1S-2S-3C-4C-4S. I have no idea why anyone would sign off without a stab with that Opening hand and a club raise, whatever that means.
My techniques are a tad better.
First, Responder has the option of bidding 3NT to show four clubs and 2-3 cover cards. 4C, instead, would show five clubs and 2-3 cover cards. You cannot miss the slam after that sequence, and you are even checking on a grand.
Second, had Responder only held four clubs, this slam would have been easily bid when Responder accepts by bidding 3NT. Opener could then, if desired, bid 4C to agree clubs for slam purposes and asking for the control count (4S = minimum; 6C = maximum; cue new side King; splinter; etc.).
If using the constructive raise version, the auction is slightly different. As Responder does not have 3-4 cover cards, he cannot bid 3NT. However, the 4-level raise in this version shows an unbalanced 2-cover raise with shortness somewhere. In that approach, 4C is the call. Opener will again have no problem finding this slam.
Post a Comment