Slam Try or no Slam Try?

[Kalvan14]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saha532dak872cqj3]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?[/hv]

 

2/1, and 2♦ is game forcing. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards, and denies 4 hearts. An immediate 3♦ would have shown extras. Same for 3♣.

 

You have available: 3♥, cue bid; 4♦, RKC; 4NT, quantitative. 3♠ would deny a 1st-round control in hearts, and might be a proposal of playing in spades.

Any ideas?

[mike777]

. We have a pretty good hand, I assume partner would not rebid 3d over 2nt with?

KQxxx...xx...xxx....AKx

 

If they do then I am not sure why 3h is a cuebid in your style and not just a probe for 3nt, game before slam?

 

If 3d in your style shows a better hand than above I would just rkc now.

[Guest Jlall]

I'll try 3H and see what develops.

[Kalvan14]

Same bid I choose. Your partner bids 3N. Do you feel up to another try?

[Guest Jlall]

I would pass now, though there are still hands that make slam good, I think bidding is more likely to get us too high.

[kenrexford]

When partner bids 2NT, notrump is, by definition, viable. After 3H, when he bids 3NT, I expect slam to be favorable. 4D makes life easy now -- with no club control, he signs off. (I assume 4D here to NOT be RKCB, but slam-going without a club control.) Otherwise, 4H should be RKCB.

[Guest Jlall]

He didn't bid 2N, you did.

[kenrexford]

No kidding. When you bid 2NT, your partner need not think that 3H is a notrump probe by you. Hence, from his perspective, HIS partner already expressed willingness to play notrump. Thus, 3H is unambiguous as a cue.

[Guest Jlall]

So when partner signs off over our unambiguous cue that makes it more likely that slam is favorable than had our 3H bid been a possible NT probe? I'm lost.

[Kalvan14]

4♦ would not be RKC, if bid after 3♥ (you cue-bid in hearts, pards does not make any forward move, and now suddenly you decide to ak for KCs: if you needed just that, it would have been better to ask for them the round before).

 

Otoh, after 3N I gave in: we should have a combined 30 HCP, without a good fit (except in diamonds).

 

Pard had KQT9x xx Qxx ATx, and it is not a "great". Still the 2 black Ts give you a reasonable chance. Obviously the diamonds were 3-2, the spades 4-3, with Jxx and the K♣ was on-side. Both 6N and 6♦ are on (even 7, if you are crazy enough to bid it :D )

[kenrexford]

I can understand why you are lost. Let me try more slowly.

 

When you cuebid 3H, partner needed a pretty good hand to take over and move toward slam. Unfortunately, however, he does not see your massive hand. He must rely upon you to describe your hand to him.

 

What does 3NT show? First, partner probably does not have two of the top three spades. This is not only not a problem, but a good thing. His values are not wasted.

 

Second, partner probably lacks good trumps. Meaning, two top honors. This should not be a surprise, as you possess two of these yourself.

 

Let us construct plausible hand types. As he did not simply raise to 3NT, he probably has an unbalanced hand. Perhaps Kxxxxx-x-Qxx-AKx? That would be a lousy hand for 3NT. Maybe QJxxxx-KQx-QJx-x? That would also be lousy. However, each seems good for possible diamond slams. True, the latter might be bad, but at least all we need is a spade finesse.

 

What about a balanced hand? QJxxxx-QJ-QJx-Kx? That looks to me like a 3NT call.

 

I hope that helps, Justin.

[Guest Jlall]

lol, ken, you are really funny when you try to be condescending. Perhaps I was confused by your posts because they are

 

A ) not clear

B ) idiotic.

 

You are an intermediate player that thinks he is a revolutionary. No matter how slowly you speak I will not understand your lunatic ideas on any aspects of bridge. Fortunately, that means I will be playing well.

[kenrexford]

I thought you'd like that. Mostly, it was the charming wit, right?

 

I'm not sure what makes you think that this particular line of reasoning is either (a) not clear or (:D insane. Create, please, oh please, some hand where this auction occurs and slam is remote. Then, I'll ask the person who taught my intermediate brain what he thinks. Who knows, maybe the professor is wrong. Hamman asks him what he thinks in a pinch, but maybe he's wrong too.

 

I suppose that getting some money from old folks to play with them makes you an authority? Great!!! Then, one would think that you could teach some I/N players like myself how this hand should stop on a dime with examples. I'll listen patiently. Really.

[Kalvan14]

The best example is the real hand: slam is playable (even if below 50% chance) because the black Ts are worth almost like Qs.

Give him the Q♥ (2 HCP more) and take away the Ts: no play for the slam.

 

Responder hand is unlimited: it would be quite unusual that the stronger hand is disclosed rather than the weaker. Opener hand is quite limited: minimum, with fit in diamonds (which he has to give, rather than going directly to 3N; if pard had bid 3N, there would be no discussion of slam tries).

Over 3♥, 3N denies the ♠A certainly; it also denies a hand which might be willing to go forward (a hand with a shortness maybe: 5-1-3-4, or 6-1-3-3).

 

So here we are again: likely distribution 5-2-3-3 or 5-3-3-2; 11-13 HCP; no ♠A.

Which is what he had, you cannot fault his bidding :D

[mike777]

"Pard had KQT9x xx Qxx ATx"

 

funny enough if playing more Bergen/Crane and less Hardy?Lawrence you can just bid 3D with this hand over partner's 2D. It does not show extras but shows more than xxx in D. :D.

 

On the other hand my example hand of:

KQxxx..xx...xxx...AKx or even

KJxxx...xx...xxx...AKx is a real problem hand :).

 

2s=6 spades or much better 5 card spade suit

3d should be more than xxx

2nt with no hearts is ugly but..I guess I bid that.....

At least we know partner has 14hcp for 2/1 if we open on this junk. :).

 

I just think this is another example of minor suit slams be very hard to bid without the hcp or extra shape?

[kenrexford]

I do not understand why Opener bids 3D and then 3NT with some of these hands, or the actual hand. Responder only has a problem if Opener bids weird.

[han]

In my book partner is likely to be quite minimal, I think I'd pass 3NT. The actual hand is close to what can be expected.

 

 

Mike777 said:

 

"Pard had KQT9x xx Qxx ATx"

 

funny enough if playing more Bergen/Crane and less Hardy?Lawrence you can just bid 3D with this hand over partner's 2D. It does not show extras but shows more than xxx in D.

 

In his 2/1 workbook Lawrence writes that you need extra for 3D, either in terms of HCP or distributional extras. I think that Lawrence does not consider this extras.

[kenrexford]

Opener had several opportunities to slow down a diamond slam.

 

First, he declined to bid 3D over 2D. However, this may be because of a simple sixth spade.

 

Second, he could have bid 3NT after 2NT. This would seem to be the proper call with xxx in diamonds.

 

Third, he could have bid 3C after 2NT, to suggest a misfit. This admittedly only has slight inferential value.

 

Finally, he could bid 3NT after the 3H cuebid.

 

It seems to me that the late 3NT, after an initial 3D, suggests poor spades (no cooperative cue after raising diamonds for some reason) and low, but not no, slam interest.

 

With most hands where slam is against odds, and 4NT in jeopardy, would not partner simply bid 3NT after 2NT???

[mike777]

In my book partner is likely to be quite minimal, I think I'd pass 3NT. The actual hand is close to what can be expected.

 

 

Mike777 said:

 

"Pard had KQT9x xx Qxx ATx"

 

funny enough if playing more Bergen/Crane and less Hardy?Lawrence you can just bid 3D with this hand over partner's 2D. It does not show extras but shows more than xxx in D.

 

In his 2/1 workbook Lawrence writes that you need extra for 3D, either in terms of HCP or distributional extras. I think that Lawrence does not consider this extras.

yes that was my point, in hardy/lawrence 3d over 2d shows extras in crane/bergen many play it does not.

[luke warm]

I suppose that getting some money from old folks to play with them makes you an authority?

well it (and his accomplishments) makes him more an authority than i am.. btw, since we're checking bonafides, what makes you an authority? just askin'

[kenrexford]

The question as to my credentials misses my point. I will claim no credentials, and would claim none in support of any argument, as credentials are a pitiful substitute for a logical analysis. Not all of the bridge world elects to pursue a career in bridge, and not all of the bridge world has the opportunity to play with the right partners to enable "top" results.

 

I may very well have the requisite "credentials," unmentioned. How about discussion of theory instead? Do you really want to discuss each issue from the perspective of who has the most masterpoints or who played on which winning team at what contest? Or, do you like theory discussion using logic?

[pbleighton]

The point is, Ken, that you were condescending (or did an excellent impersonation of it) to someone who has won a world championship, albeit a junior, and who's a lot better than you (or I) is likely ever to be.

 

Your "old folks" comment was idiotic. You don't have to bow and scrape to Justin, Roland, Fred, etc., and may disagree strongly with them, but don't be a jerk.

 

Peter

[Finch]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saha532dak872cqj3]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1S - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2S - (P) - 2NT - (P) - 3D - (P) - ?[/hv]

 

2/1, and 2♦ is game forcing. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards, and denies 4 hearts. An immediate 3♦ would have shown extras. Same for 3♣.

 

You have available: 3♥, cue bid; 4♦, RKC; 4NT, quantitative. 3♠ would deny a 1st-round control in hearts, and might be a proposal of playing in spades.

Any ideas?

"An immediate 3D would have shown extras"

 

What was partner to do over 2D holding

KQxxx

xx

Q10xx

Ax

 

which not only doesn't have extras, is close to not being an opening bid?

 

I'm just wondering, because all the discussion about partner's possible hands for the 3D bid have only 3 diamonds.

[luke warm]

Do you really want to discuss each issue from the perspective of who has the most masterpoints or who played on which winning team at what contest?

not really, no... but you started that line, not me

[mikeh]

After reading the fascinating posts re various personalities, I got back to the original problem.

 

This hand is too good to let it go after 3N. But it is certainly not good enough to drive to slam or to take control. I opt for the middle ground of 4N.

 

I think that this bid should give partner some chance to get us to the right spot (assuming that 3N was not the last 'right spot', of course).

 

We can all construct hands that justify our chosen call on auctions like this, but surely we can agree both that this is probably not an 8 trick hand in notrump and that partner might have a chunky hand but be unwilling to move beyond 3N due to a lack of keycards. After all, he should be able to count on us to keep the auction alive if our hand warrants it.

 

Much depends on style: playing 2/1 gf, your 2N was unlimited and your 3♥ a slam try, but his hand was also relatively unlimited at the stage that he bid 3♦. Thus he may want to slow the hand down with 3N, catering to you having, say, a king less.

 

So I bid 4N, and miss the slam. Not for the first time nor the last, I am sure.

 

However, give him the same hand with the addition of the ♠J and we'd get to slam and rightly so. Should he bid 3N with that hand? I think so.