BPO-007A

[mr1303]

Presumably partner could have bid something else without necessarily going past 3H if he had something else:

 

E.g. he wouldn't have something like:

 

xx

AKxxx

x

KQxxx

 

where he would most likely bid 3C? So therefore partner looks to have a balanced minimum, and opposite that hand I want to play in game. With only Ax as a spade stopper, it looks as though I need to have 9 top winners in NT unless partner has some help, so I bid 4H

[Finch]

Without revealing how I cast my vote, I would like to point out that 2♠ as limit+ is bad. I think it's paramount to be able to distinguish between a limit raise and a GF hand. One way of playing this is to let the cue bid be limit and keep 2NT as the GF raise. In other words: ignore the overcall and respond 2NT as you would have done without interference.

 

Reverse it if you like, but don't let 2♠ contain it all.

I agree that using 2S as limit+ with 3 or 4 trumps is too much. Personally my partner (and system writer) prefers to distinguish between 3- and 4-card raises, so we use 2S for a 3-card raise and 3C for a 4-card raise. I think this is particularly important when our suit is hearts and theirs is spades, as knowing the size of the trump fit is vital - often more so than HCP - when deciding how high to go.

 

It's not quite right to say "no reason to change your methods just because they have overcalled". Once they have overcalled, the odds that we have a slam on go down, and the odds that they are going to raise spades go up. Our priorities need to change accordingly.

 

(We prefer to keep 2NT as natural, and double as fairly 'pure' promising both minors. We don't feel very strongly about this, and we use 2NT as artificial after a 2D overcall or higher anyway.)

[Gerben42]

I bid 4♣ and here's why: To make slam a worthwile proposition, I need controls in ♠ and ♦ from partner. If he lacks one of them we will stop in time.

[Finch]

4.What is the best game after parter rebids 3H. (Answer = 3N) I ran a few simulations. 3NT looks to be a better proposition. 4H requires that the Hearts behave. 3N requires something good in Hearts or Diamonds.

This is interesting. We were discussing how likely it is that 3NT is the best spot, and thought it unlikely given how many aces we have. But we didn't do any simulations.

 

However I think that it's very unlikely that 3NT by us is right when Ax is our only spade stop. So if we are interested in playing in 3NT, we should bid 3S now. Partner will bid 3NT with e.g. Qxx because he didn't bid 2NT over 2S, so he can't have that much in spades.

 

I would be surprised to see that bidding 3NT now reaches the correct contract more often than bidding 3S and passing 3NT, so I would mark 3S strictly above 3NT.

[Walddk]

I bid 4♣ and here's why: To make slam a worthwile proposition, I need controls in ♠ and ♦ from partner. If he lacks one of them we will stop in time.

That doesn't look right to me. By cue bidding 4♣ you deny a spade control, so how do you want partner to figure out that you have one nevertheless? If he has ♦K and no spade control, he will sign off in 4♥, because 4♦ would confirm a spade control now that you denied one when you bypassed 3♠.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

If partner doesn't have a ♠ control, do I want to be in slam? I need to make 12 tricks without losing the lead in that case.

 

Since 2♠ was not GF and partner has shown a minimum (and will probably not have a ♠ singleton since they were not raised) it seems unlikely that he can then make 12 tricks without losing the lead.

[Walddk]

If partner doesn't have a ♠ control, do I want to be in slam? I need to make 12 tricks without losing the lead in that case.

 

Since 2♠ was not GF and partner has shown a minimum (and will probably not have a ♠ singleton since they were not raised) it seems unlikely that he can then make 12 tricks without losing the lead.

No, he doesn't have a singleton spade, more likely three small. That's fine, because (in my dreams at least) this is his minimum:

 

♠ xxx

♥ AKxxx

♦ KQx

♣ xx

 

He hates his spades opposite my limit+, so he signs off in 3♥ opposite a limit raise. If he gets 4♣ from you, he will obviously drop dead in a flash. If 3♠ is the bid he sees, he will surely co-operate.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

He hates his spades opposite my limit+, so he signs off in 3♥ opposite a limit raise. If he gets 4♣ from you, he will obviously drop dead in a flash. If 3♠ is the bid he sees, he will surely co-operate.

 

How do you distinguish your dream minimum from not-so good minima that will bid the same way, for example with ♣Q or even ♠Q instead of ♦Q?

 

Either you will reach slam on too many hands, or you choose to give up on slam on your dream minimum without ♠ control.

[hrothgar]

This is interesting. We were discussing how likely it is that 3NT is the best spot, and thought it unlikely given how many aces we have. But we didn't do any simulations.

 

However I think that it's very unlikely that 3NT by us is right when Ax is our only spade stop. So if we are interested in playing in 3NT, we should bid 3S now. Partner will bid 3NT with e.g. Qxx because he didn't bid 2NT over 2S, so he can't have that much in spades.

 

I would be surprised to see that bidding 3NT now reaches the correct contract more often than bidding 3S and passing 3NT, so I would mark 3S strictly above 3NT.

I admit to being surprised as well because my thoughts were very much similar to yours:

 

Aces argue for a suit contract...

Ax in Spades argues for a Spades contract...

 

but there were also a lot of hands where partner tables weak hearts and good diamond

[pclayton]

4♥.

 

Its hard to construct a hand for partner that can't bid game where slam is odd-on. Specifically, pard needs a diamond fit or a stiff spade (I'm believing my oppponents too). Maybe this is a good reason to try 2♦ in the 1st place.

 

2♦ shouldn't deny a heart fit. If my diamonds were better, the hand looks like a fit jump.

[Al_U_Card]

A nice hand that had nice aces but poor intermediates and no real source of tricks. The opps have exchanged info so I too will opt for a quiet 4H.

[mikeh]

I think any move towards slam that doesn't involve 3♠ is in error. Your hand is not strong enough to venture beyond game if you bid 4♣ and he bids your hoped-for 4♦. You would have to bid 4♥ and he cannot go further without a ♠ control, even if he has xx AKxxx KQx xxx.

 

It is close as to whether to move towards slam: I chose to do so via 3♠, but if he cues 4♣ I sign off. I only move further if he cues 4♦. I doubt that he can hold a hand adequate for slam purposes if he has the ♥AK and the ♣K and yet rejected my invite. He could not likely hold KQ♦ and even Kx is not enough, since I don't like slams that depend on 3-3 breaks (at best).

[inquiry]

It has been fun reading the different treatments and concerns on such a simple auction, and likes and dislikes of our members. The panel feel into two groups, with one odd man out. Let's start with Gabor (ng), the single panelist who voted for 4♥. He explained his bid this way. "I think 2♠ is invitational or better with heart support. Partner has a minimum hand, his 3♥ was sign off. This hand is good but not good enough to go on. Slam is an illusion here: bad five card suit, 7 loser hand with an almost sure spade loser, so I brake."

 

Agreeing to play in hearts, but with perhaps, greater goals in mind than ng was luis and Alain. This group all choose to cue-bid 4♣s. Luis explained his choice this way: "4♣, looking for the diamond king or a singleton. With a diamond loser after a spade lead our slam chances might be inferior but if the diamond suit has no losers then the values that pd should have for his opening bid will probably be enough for a slam. 4c intending to pass 4h or bid 4NT if pd bids 4d.

 

Joker_Gib also bid 4♣, saying "Even if 3♥ is likely a minimum (2♠ was ♥ fit and limit or better I suppose), I have a lot more than promised (16 and 3 aces) and i'll show my first cue. I'm not used to play "serious 3NT" but I suppose it does not apply here as 3NT would be a choice of games."

 

The other six panelist all bid 3♠'s. Reisig bid it without comment (he only sent his bids in this time, so i will just list his bids in other post without comment). Agreeing with ng that slam is out of the question after 3♥ was Beto. But rather than bidding 4♥, he uses 3♠ as a gentle game exploratory bid, saying: 3♠. Partner's 3♥ shows a MIN hand and i also believe it denies a 4-card minor suit, so slam is out of question. As partner's hand tends to be balanced, maybe it is easier to make 9 tricks in NT then 10 in hearts if we play 3N from the right side

 

The Frances and Jeffery's answer sort of falls close to this same group. They said "3S. We strongly prefer 2S to 2D, particularly in our own methods where that shows exactly 3-card support. But even in BBO-advanced we don't like 2D on Axxxx as it will not help partner to evaluate later in the auction anyway.

 

3S has two ways to gain: if partner bids 3NT we might pass (we haven't decided yet) - how about the magic Kxx AKxxx Qx xxx opposite, when a club lead will be fairly terminal against 4H? Alternatively, partner might get enthused and bid 4-minor over it. It is worth thinking about what partner's 3H bid showed. For example, how would we have interpreted 2NT over 2S? We think that should show a minimum soft hand - no more values than 3H, but suitable for NT. We also think that a hand such as xxx AKxxx KQx xx is worth 3D game try over 2S as it's so pure. That makes us feel a bit wary of making slam tries.

 

All the other 3♠ bidders feel directly into the slam might still be possible pool. Each's explainations is good, with maybe the best being Fred's who said " 3♠ - We could still belong in slam so I am obligated to bid something other than 4♥. The concept of bidding my diamonds now has some appeal and I might choose that call with a regular and trusted partner. However, a random expert might not read 4♦ as "natural" (and he might be right). His likely lack of a spade control and the fact that 4♦ could easily be interpreted as denying a spade control, make this an unattractive choice in my view. (just note, no one tried 4♠, but the same thought that a 4♣ bid might cause partner to think we are off two spade tricks has to be considered-inquiry).

 

Roland said: 3♠. I suppose 3H is a sign off opposite a limit hand, but that can't stop me from investigating slam. I need very little opposite. 3NT would have been "serious" but would also deny a spade control, so I must start with a cue bid.

 

MikeH says, The system notes suggest, but do not clearly state, that if I bid 3♠ here, partner can bid 3N with a slam-suitable minimum: he has already shown a minimum by his rejection of my cue-bid. Of course, he may have downgraded the ♠K, which he can now upgrade after 3♠. I choose 3♠, regardless of what 3N would mean by him: but I would like to know.

 

If he bids a natural 3N, I sign off in 4♥. If he cues 4♣, I will signoff as well, even tho I have the ♦A: I do not think he can have the right cards for slam if he has the ♣K: I'd need the ♦KQ and the ♥AK, and he cannot hold that. Only if he bids 4♦ will I be interested. I would then use keycard, with some trepidation. I hope he knows that he should not be stretching to bid 4♦ with a soft hand.

 

With 6 votes, 3♠ is a clear winner. One wonders if the 4♣ bidders expect their partners to cue-bid 4♦ if they lack a spade control. So the scoring for this question is.

 

3♠ = 100

4♣ = 50

4♥ = 20

4♦ = 10

[luke warm]

yeee haaaa my first zero :P

 

ben, can you tell us the table result as you post the scores? (if you know them) thanks

[inquiry]

yeee haaaa my first zero :P

 

ben, can you tell us the table result as you post the scores? (if you know them) thanks

Sorry Jimmy, i don't think the table results are actually all that relevant, and didn't keep track of them anyway (i could go back through my vugraph hands on my computer and find them i guess). The key point here is to probe the expert thinking on the hand... I remember this one.. one table signed off game the other made a slam try and ended in slam.

[luke warm]

hey, no problem... i've already taken some good natured ribbing about my bids this set, along the lines of i've never met a slam i didn't like :P

[cherdano]

The majority of the panel is making a slam try. I still find it unconvincing. Let's see, some want to force to slam when partner cue-bids 4♦ over 3♠. However, what if partner doesn't have the ♦Q?

 

If partner has ♦Kxx, we have pretty much lost (unless by some magic he has the black queen of the suit where opening leader led away from his king). If he has ♦Kx, we need a lot of luck. E.g. if he has ♠xxx ♥AKxxx ♦Kx ♣Qxx, we need diamonds 3-3 and ♣K onside (or diamonds 4-2 and ♣K doubleton onside).

It looks to me like the magic ♥AKxxx ♦KQx is the only combination the makes slam good. But as pointed out by Frances/Jeffrey, this is certainly close to a game try over 2♠, and partner will make a slam try over 3♠ with less. (Certainly having ♥AK and another K feels very good slam-wise after having shown a minimum opening.)

 

Btw, among the slam tries, I like Fred's 4♦ best. I don't think this can be a cue-bid, how could I be interested in slam opposite a minimum opener with no controls in two suits?

 

(Still I like 3♠ with the idea to pass 3N and bid 4♥ over anything else.)

 

Arend

[mike777]

This was my favorite hand of the set, in that it raises a number of interesting questions: Most notably:

 

1.What is the minimum strength necessary for a 1M and 1m opening playing BBO Advanced? This isn't specified anywhere in the system (moreover it needs to be).

 

2.What did partner's 3H bid mean? Clearly partner has a minimum hand. He is rejecting game opposite a limit raise. However, what would 3C or 3D by partner mean? Can we assume that partner is flat?

 

3.Is game a reasonable gamble after partner rebids 3H (Answer = yes. Hell, slam can make opposite some perfect minimums but we gave up on intelligent slam exploration when we decided to bid 2S rather than 2D. From my perspective, Diamond support is critical to find good slams)

 

4.What is the best game after parter rebids 3H. (Answer = 3N) I ran a few simulations. 3NT looks to be a better proposition. 4H requires that the Hearts behave. 3N requires something good in Hearts or Diamonds.

 

5.Here's the kicker... Can we play in 3NT? We have established an eight card major suit fit with at least game invitational values. (If we bid 3NT “to play”, this strongly suggests that we were holding enough point to force to game). In short, is 3NT natural or “Serious”.

 

I'm generally pretty comfortable using the whole “game before slam” philosophy. Given that partner has rejected a game try, I'd like to be able to bid 3NT to play rather reserving it for Serious 3NT. However, it will be interesting to see other opinions.

Has anyone addressed Richard's issues?

1) are we opening many balanced 11?

2) are we opening many balanced 12?

3) are we opening many balanced 13?

4) are we only opening 13+ with 3QT and a decent rebid?

[pclayton]

I remain unconvinced by the panelists comments on 3♠.

 

If someone where to contrive some hands where slam is odds-on, yet pard opts for a signoff of 3♥, I will listen. Roland cites xx, AKxxx, KQx, xxx; but this is a very specific hand with the side diamond fit. Other 7 loser hands have no play for slam and are in danger at the 5 level.

 

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

 

Fred's suggestion that 4♦ is more than a cue - more of an 'interest' bid is a concept that has been discussed in MSC a few times, but I havent seen anyone actually use it. I think it has merit.

 

Again, I'm not seeing a lot of downside to 2♦ initially.....

[Walddk]

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

In that case you must read mikeh's comment a little more carefully, Phil. Quote:

 

Of course, he may have downgraded the ♠K, which he can now upgrade after 3♠.

 

Roland

[fred]

I remain unconvinced by the panelists comments on 3♠.

 

If someone where to contrive some hands where slam is odds-on, yet pard opts for a signoff of 3♥, I will listen. Roland cites xx, AKxxx, KQx, xxx; but this is a very specific hand with the side diamond fit. Other 7 loser hands have no play for slam and are in danger at the 5 level.

 

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

 

Fred's suggestion that 4♦ is more than a cue - more of an 'interest' bid is a concept that has been discussed in MSC a few times, but I havent seen anyone actually use it. I think it has merit.

 

Again, I'm not seeing a lot of downside to 2♦ initially.....

When constructing hands for partner, it seems natural to start with the ♥AK, and I agree that when you start this way you need something pretty specific opposite to make slam a good bet.

 

But if you take away one of this cards there are plenty of awful hands for partner where 6♥ is at least a reasonable contract. For example:

 

Kxx K10xxx Kx Kxx

 

or:

 

Kx A10xxx QJx Kxx

 

I do agree with you that it is not especially likely that partner has a hand that produces a good slam. I also think that it is going to be hard for partner to know when he has such a hand. However, there is not much downside to 3♠ in my opinion. You can signoff in 4♥ next and leave the rest up to partner. I think that, if his judgment is good, you will reach making slams more often than you will go minus at the 5 or 6-level.

 

But I do think this is a close call and that a signoff in 4♥ is far from unreasonable.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[reisig]

I didn't comment - but ..if I had the right minimum for slam ..I'd ask "why do you take me out of the bidding with 4♥?" Clearly - a cue bid of 3♠ doesn't commit us beyond 4♥ and allows opener (having shown a min hand) to make a useful cue bid or simply sign off again.

[pclayton]

In a casual expert partnership using BBO-ADV agreements, I would expect that 3N is NOT serious in this auction. Opener has made an effort to sign off opposite a limit raise. Accordingly, any cue bid by responder should be a slam try in the context of the actual auction.

 

This is where I break from 3♠ bidders. A 3♠ cue is not 'free'; it signals an interest in slam opposite a hand that cannot make a move toward game. I would argue that this hand, while the controls are nice, does not justify this action because of the lack of a trick source and the 7 losers.

 

If I were opener looking at the ♥AK, another King and a bit more, to me, this is the type of maximum for the auction to date that warrants a move past game.

 

3♠ tries to pass captaincy onto Opener. Certainly Opener can volley the ball back to us with a 4♦ Last Train call. But Opener should also be expected to take charge with certain types of hands that itch to bid 4♥ initially but can't.

 

Wouldn't you want pard to take charge with the following hands?:

 

1. Kx, AKxxxx, Qxx, xx?

2. Kxx, AKxxx, Kxx, xx?

3. xx, AKxxxx, Kxx, Kx?

 

Slam hopeless on all these with the right lead. If I was in Heat 1, I'd charge to game with 1 and 3 after a limit raise anyway, so perhaps these aren't even relevant hands for a 3♥ signoff.

 

By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and the rocks we are turning over in the process.

[HeartA]

......

 

Wouldn't you want pard to take charge with the following hands?:

 

1. Kx, AKxxxx, Qxx, xx?

2. Kxx, AKxxx, Kxx, xx?

3. xx, AKxxxx, Kxx, Kx?

 

Slam hopeless on all these with the right lead. If I was in Heat 1, I'd charge to game with 1 and 3 after a limit raise anyway, so perhaps these aren't even relevant hands for a 3♥ signoff.

 

By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and the rocks we are turning over in the process.

Except Brd 1, I want to be in slam with boards 2 and 3. If every slam you reach has to stand the worst lead (or best for opps), then you will miss a lot slams.

 

As for board #1, it not only requires a good lead, but also DK on side (or lead from DK, or DKx and declarer guess right). I agree that would not be a good slam.

 

I enjoy the discuss as well. ;) ;)

[luis]

This was a very interesting problem to me.

I thought that the key question for a slam was the diamond suit, so with 4♣ I intended to discover the diamond K or a signleton in pd's hand. Even when 4♣ denies a spade control pd will then cuebid 4♦ only with the spade control and diamond control which is exactly what we need for slam.

I completely accept the score but I have the idea that 4♣ might work better than 3♠ what do the others think about it?