What's going on here?

[han]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxxhkqj9xxdkxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1NT (14-16), the bidding proceeds:

 

1NT-2D

2H-3NT

4D

 

What's going on here? (advanced players please hide your answer)

 

BTW, do you agree with 3NT?

[plaur]

I guess 4♦ is a cue. But can the limited hand make a slam try in this auction? I guess he is strong, 4 hearts and many controls. Something like

Ax

Axxx

AQxx

Qxx

BUT then why didnt he superaccept?

 

 

I would not bid 3NT but 4♥. Playing Texas isnt 2♦ followed by 4♥ a mild slam try?

[inquiry]

Here goes...

 

 

1NT opener is MAXIMUM, with three card support for hearts. Why 3 cards? No super accept, why maximum? Cue-bid on way to game.

 

Can north hold the club king? Is he showing the diamond ACE? Can this be "last-train"

 

Let's start with obvious, this is not last train. If he doesn't pass or bid 4HEARTS he is showing maximum, no need for last train even if you play that. There isn't enough room for him to be showing cue-bids per se, he is showing a source of tricks, a maximum, and three card heart fit.

 

I predict he holds something like this (15-17)...

 

S-KQx

H-ATx

D-AQJxx

C-xx

 

or

 

Ax

ATx

AQJxx

Jxx

 

This is only 16 hcp, but with a good 5 card diamond suit, he would have upgraded to 18 and not open 1NT. You can count lots of tricks if ♠ are controled, cue-bid 5♣ and find out....

 

[han]

Here comes back...

 

 

 

Yep, that's correct Ben. I actually only had AQx Axx A10xxx Qx. 5C would get you to 6H, which makes. Arend just bid 6H, saying that anything else would be an insult to partner.

 

I would have superaccepted with 4 hearts and a good hand, so I must have only 3.

 

 

[mike777]

Ok since no one else asked I will bite :). Assume you play texas tfr so why does partner not bid 4h over 2h as mild slam try? :).

[han]

I don't know Mike, perhaps partner will read this and explain.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with the analysis of the 4D bid, but I'll also say I don't understand the 3N bid. With 6 good hearts, good controls, the hand is not only worth a slam try but will most likely play better in hearts.

[luis]

I hate the 4♦ bid. I hate it a lot.

Assuming you have a good pd either you pass 3NT or bid 4♥, there's no need to inpoint the lead to the opponents on your way to 4♥.

 

Of course the way responder bid his hand is in my opinion wrong, the hand is worth a mild slam try in hearts for example:

1N - 2♦

2♥ - 4♥

 

Playing 4 level transfers this encourages open to continue when he has a good hand with controls.

 

Luis

[pbleighton]

I agree with Luis:

 

4D is a bad bid.

 

4H was responder's best rebid.

 

Also - this hand is a good argument for super-accepts.

 

Peter

[han]

You sometimes superaccept with 3-card support Peter?

[whereagles]

My guess is

 

Ax

xxx

AQJxx

KQx

[pbleighton]

"You sometimes superaccept with 3-card support Peter?"

 

Never. Well, maybe with AKx or KQJ :)

 

It is still nice to know that pd has a max and good trump support, and an 80% chance of a doubleton. With this holding, if pd super-accepted, wouldn't you make a slam try?

 

Peter

[luke warm]

in general i dislike bidding again after i've described my hand with a limited opening, especially 1nt... as responder i think i'd have bid 4D to begin with, or maybe 2D then 4H

[mikeh]

 

 

 

3N was a bad bid, as pointed out by the other posters who commented on it. The hand should either texas immediately or jump to 4♥ after the transfer. I agree with 2♦ rather than texas; this is a hand with potential.

 

Opener clearly has a super max and is making a courtesy cue on the way to 4♥. This is potentially costly (altho I really doubt that the cue will influence the lead very often) and is unlikely to help, since responder really cannot hold the hand he has :rolleyes:

 

My guess would be Axx Axx AQJxx xx

 

I do not think that he should be missing first round control in two side suits nor should he have bad trump. So I place him with the ♠A and a source of tricks. He has hit a home run! On my construction, we have 13 top tricks.

 

Can we get there, if I am right, without getting too high when I am wrong?

 

I think this is one of those very, very rare cases (in fact, this is the only case I have seen) where the player who signed off in 3N can bid 4N as keycard!

 

If partner shows me 3 keycards, I would like to bid 6♦ to show the ♦K and assure partner that we are missing no keycards. This would allow grand if he holds 5 or 6♦ to the AQJ.

 

However, on my auction to date, he is likely to (and in my view should) take 6♦ as a choice of slams: I might be x KQxxx Kxxx Axx for this... yes, I might bid 3♦, but maybe not with such a poor second suit. ♦ will play better than ♥, if ♥ are 4-1.

 

So I think I give up on grand and just jump to 6♥ rather than risk his passing 4N or a later 6♦.

 

Note how I assume that 4♦ is a source of tricks as well as a cue.. this is in line with comments made recently by (amongst others) Justin, about cue-ing in slamming auctions.

 

BTW, I do not like super-accepts with only 3 trump, so my construction makes sense on that front, anyway :D .

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gerardo to add the closing /HIDDEN. Mike: pls edit again to the original meaning, thanks.

[cherdano]

Hehe, I wondered how much praise this auction would get on BBF :)

 

I thought this hand his a tad light for a slam try opposite 14-16 (if partner cannot superaccept). Of course slam can be laydown, but I also suspect that partner would often drive to slam opposite an invite where slam has no play (e.g. AKxx Ax Qxx Kxxx). I may be wrong, given the consensus here.

 

About playing 3NT vs 4♥: Let's say if partner has the ♥Ax, we have a running suit, 27-29 hcp and two balanced hands -- isn't that the kind of hand that is often safer in 3NT than in 4♥? Well I don't want to defend my 3NT too much (I see now that the controls make a ruff against 4♥ unlikely), I am aware I was taking a view there.

 

Naturally, I liked Han's 4♦ bid, as it made up for the view I had taken :) Seriously, I think if you have an exceptionally good hand, a bid like 4♦ makes sense. (It is like a raise to 3♥ after the auction 1m-1♥-1NT-2♥ -- textbooks should forbid such bids, but with exceptional hands there is a case for it.) Since ♦ may well be the best lead for opponents (and nobody can double for the lead), I also don't see how it can cost.

If you trust that partner makes unusual bids only with unusual hands, I think the only alternative to bidding 6♥ is trying for 7. In particular I thought Blackwooding to check he has 2 aces would be insulting...