missed slams

[hatchett]

Start of longish rant

 

 

Just bid 3C and see what develops (what should develop is a load of cue-bidding).

 

Why on earth should a load of cue-bidding develop of what could be false prefence on Jxx KJxx xxxx Jx?

 

Because you don't know yet what pard's intentions are. For all you know, he might prefer to try and play 3NT. To bid 4♣ here requires either a very distributional hand or a very, very slam-bound hand. The actual hand is strong & slam-bound but not that much.

 

Are you seriously telling me you are going to drop 3NT over 3♣?

 

4♣ here shows a slam try with good trumps Hxxx, which is exactly what you have.

 

If you bid 3♣ you are almost certainly going to bid 4♣ on the next round but it won't be clear to partner how good your trumps are.

 

Let me if you start with 3♣ how the bidding will continue over

 

3♦ hmm 4♣ maybe to confirm the trump suit. Is this a slam try or a hand with no diamond stop?

 

3♥ hmmm. 4♣ is this a cue for hearts or an attempt to confirm the trump suit.

 

3♠ hmmmm. 4♣ maybe to confirm the trump suit

 

3NT hmmmm how about 4♣ to show a slam try in clubs?

 

If you bid 4♣ over 2♠ you can bid 4♥ over 4♦ and 5♥ the next round, leaving nothing unbid.

 

I fail to see what advantage 3♣ has over 4♣ unless you like making the auction murky and showing one less trump than you have an advantage.

 

Rant over

[Codo]

In Hand 1 6 Club is a must to reach. I doubt, that Pd will bid 7 with the magic Kx, xx,xxx,AKQxxxx, but at least, we tried.

 

In opposite to the last posters I see no reason to waste bidding space in hand 2 with an awful 4♣ bid.

Easy reason: Even in a game forcing situation like here, good/bad or Lebensol 2 NT is on work. So 3 ♣ is clearly describing the hand well.

 

Of course, you can always discuss, if you play Lebensol in this and similar situations, but I see no reason not to do so.

[Finch]

I don't see any point in playing lebensohl in a game forcing auction.

But also, I see no point whatsoever in giving false preference on a doubleton club. I would just bid 4th suit forcing if I didn't have club support and didn't have a diamond stop.

[Chamaco]

Wow, you have a 10-card fit, opps have preempted you, you don't know the right level, and you worry about finding a better strain? You are ambitious, Caren :rolleyes:

I think Caren was not referring to her choice but to the info passed to his pard by the 5H cuebid that could leave NORTH wondering on the nature of South's hand:

the 5H cue, which effectively would be intended to help pard choose the level of the contract, could be confusing to HIM, not to Caren, because, while Caren KNOW that there is a club fit, pard can assume that S is looking for a slam in a suit BUT he has some trouble in determining the strain, since the club fit is still unexpressed.

 

For this reason, i tend to agree with those who would just bash into 6 Clubs rather than start with a 5H cue.

[whereagles]

I don't like this "intentions" thinking. Partner's 2S shows a very strong hand and good clubs. As partner has no clue what we have, how could partner be intending something? Talking about intentions sounds like you expect partner to be masterminding already.

 

2S is a descriptive bid, and so is 4C. 3C is not.

If anyone is masterminding here, it's those who bid 4♣. It is easy to see why: by bidding 4♣, you are virtually commiting the partnership to a slam. Pard, who has a strong hand, hearing 4♣, will never stop short of 6 unless two keys are out.

 

If you think your hand is strong enough for a slam, then 4♣ is of course fine. But if slam turns out to be a bad one, it is YOUR responsibility and pard will have none of that "I made a slam try with 4♣, now it's up to you to bid it or not".

 

3♣ and 4♣ are both good bids, but they reflect different personalities. 4♣ is a bit aggressive and unilateral, but hardly an overbid. I prefer 3♣ because in general it's better to let the strong hand decide where we're going. If pard has a mild 18, then a sure 3NT is probably better than a so-so 6♣. And if for some reason pard's 2♠ was already on the optimistic side, then 3NT might be the last stop.

 

You see, while I got the fame of being a masterminder, I know exactly when masterminding is warranted or not. I don't think this is one such case, unless pard is the Rabbit, of course.

[42]

I think Caren was not referring to the info passed to his pard, that could leave NORTH wondering on the nature of South's hand:

the 5H cue, which efectively would be intended to help pard choose the level of the contract, could be confusing to HIM, not to Caren, because, while Caren KNOW that there is a club fit, pard can assume that S is looking for a slam in a suit BUT he has some trouble in determining the strain, since the club fit is still unexpressed.

Exactly.

Even if I out myself one more time as idiot: why can I be SURE that a slam (--> 1.) will make (let us simply assume that you DON'T see opener's hand. Double dummy I am able, too, to reach the best contract :rolleyes: ). I was simply scared of loosing a ♠ and a ♦. My doubts were: I have 3 first round controls and a long suit with a tenace, so far so good. IF partner doesn't have the ♠K, is 50% for the finesse enough to bid the slam when she doesn't hold the ♦ and/or ♠K. If they attack ♦, do I still have enough entries to develop the ♠s for ♦ discards? When I count only HCP, we have perhaps less than we need for a cold slam, so it is the distribution which counts. What, if too many values are waisted in ♥? Is a slam on or shall we defend ♥? When I count tricks we have perhaps: 6 in ♣, ♠ + ♦ A, 2-3 ♥ ruffs in dummy = 10-11, so I NEED 2 or 1 more, based on hope or knowledge? That is what I wanted to discuss here :)

When I make a "pro" list with arguments for the slam it looks like

• good trump fit (here in clubs)
  
• first round controls
  
• long side suit which (might/will) produce the needed missing tricks
  

What did I forget?

[hatchett]

I think the two camps will have to agree to disagree here :rolleyes:

 

I don't see why 4♣ commits to slam though, if partner can't control diamonds you will play in 5♣, if that is in jeopardy partner doesn't have a 2♠ call.

 

I would bid 3♣ with xxx AKxx xxx Kxx, I just think 4♣ is more descriptive showing good trumps.

[42]

To slam 2:

does anybody play 4♣ always as minorwood when bypassing 3NT and/or being unlimited? I do but I am not 100% sure if it is a good agreement (I remember an auction where partner passed, I bid a semiforcing in ♣ and he bid 4♣, meant as minorwood).

So: in which cases do you recommend playing 4m as minorwood, where is it just preparing a cuebid sequence?

[hotShot]

Optical Illusions tell us, that once our mind is focused on something, it is hard to see what is realy there. So if you what an unfocused view, you should only post your hand and the bidding.

How would your partner bid holding:

[hv=v=b&s=s63hkqdq2caqj9654]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

or holding :

[hv=v=b&s=s63hkqdq2caqj9654]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

What masterbid will your partner find with:

[hv=v=b&s=s63hkqdq2caqj9654]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

and what about

[hv=v=b&s=s63hkqdq2caqj9654]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

I bet at the other table they play 6♠.

 

Seeing only your cards, you don't know that partner

holds 7♣,

only 2 cards in each his side suits,

holds AKQ of ♣.

[Finch]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The hands you quote suggest driving to slam is correct, but your comments imply you disagree.

 

How would your partner bid holding:

[hv=v=b&s=s63hkqdq2caqj9654

 

 

partner can't have this hand, we have the j10 of clubs. but take away the cj and on a heart lead slam is on clubs 1-1 or the sk onside. on a diamond lead it is on clubs 1-1 or the dk onside. seems pretty good to me.

 

same when he holds kx hearts.

 

what masterbid will your partner find with:

dealer: ????? vul: both scoring: imp]133|100|Scoring: IMP ♠ 63 ♥ K9x ♦ KQ2 ♣ AKQ96  [/hv]   I don't know. He might have opened 1NT (I would have done). But if he does have this hand 6C seems pretty solid.   Dealer: ????? Vul: Both Scoring: IMP ♠ K3 ♥ K9 ♦ Q2 ♣ KQJ96543   I bet at the other table they play 6♠.   Again removing the CJ (which also has the benefit of making it a 13-card hand), slam is cold on a heart lead and very good on a diamond lead. It's quite a fun play problem on a diamond lead: do you run it, or do you rise and play spades at once? Running it needs the DK onside. Rising needs spades 3-2 plus clubs 1-1 with the CA with the shortage, or any doubleton spade on declarer's right.

[jdonn]

I don't like this "intentions" thinking. Partner's 2S shows a very strong hand and good clubs. As partner has no clue what we have, how could partner be intending something? Talking about intentions sounds like you expect partner to be masterminding already.

 

2S is a descriptive bid, and so is 4C. 3C is not.

If anyone is masterminding here, it's those who bid 4♣. It is easy to see why: by bidding 4♣, you are virtually commiting the partnership to a slam. Pard, who has a strong hand, hearing 4♣, will never stop short of 6 unless two keys are out.

 

If you think your hand is strong enough for a slam, then 4♣ is of course fine. But if slam turns out to be a bad one, it is YOUR responsibility and pard will have none of that "I made a slam try with 4♣, now it's up to you to bid it or not".

 

3♣ and 4♣ are both good bids, but they reflect different personalities. 4♣ is a bit aggressive and unilateral, but hardly an overbid. I prefer 3♣ because in general it's better to let the strong hand decide where we're going. If pard has a mild 18, then a sure 3NT is probably better than a so-so 6♣. And if for some reason pard's 2♠ was already on the optimistic side, then 3NT might be the last stop.

 

You see, while I got the fame of being a masterminder, I know exactly when masterminding is warranted or not. I don't think this is one such case, unless pard is the Rabbit, of course.

4♣ is NOT masterminding. Bidding 6♣ would be masterminding, bidding 4♣ is descriptive. The difference should be obvious.

 

Why does 4♣ commit you to slam? You can easily avoid it off diamond control. If partner cuebids but skips over diamonds then you stop. In fact the main purpose of the 4♣ bid is to immediately enter a cuebidding auction. That is as opposed to 3♣, which enters an auction in which the first priority is to search for the best strain, not to mention the best level and controls. You KNOW what the best strain is, and you have a good idea what the best level is! All you are concerned about is controls, that no suit lacks control and that you don't lack two keycards. All this talk about Lebensohl in a game forcing auction, or random versions of minorwood, they are missing the point. Aside from not being standard agreements (or frankly even good agreements, arguably) they are crutches for players who don't know what 4♣ means or what this hand is worth.

 

I agree with every post by both Hannie and Hatchet on this topic.

[whereagles]

4♣ is NOT masterminding. Bidding 6♣ would be masterminding, bidding 4♣ is descriptive. The difference should be obvious.

 

Why does 4♣ commit you to slam? You can easily avoid it off diamond control. If partner cuebids but skips over diamonds then you stop. In fact the main purpose of the 4♣ bid is to immediately enter a cuebidding auction. That is as opposed to 3♣, which enters an auction in which the first priority is to search for the best strain, not to mention the best level and controls. You KNOW what the best strain is, and you have a good idea what the best level is! All you are concerned about is controls, that no suit lacks control and that you don't lack two keycards.

1st paragraph: I disagree. Unless you have detailed agreements as to what 4♣ would be in such a sequence, that bid is in no way descriptive; it is a general slam try. I'll give in that it shows good trumps and a fair hand, but other than that it says nothing about the hand. It could vary from a distributional hand to a (semi)balanced hand with good hcp count (more or less the case at hand, but perhaps a queen stronger or so).

 

2nd paragraph: it seems we give 3♣ different meanings. To me 3♣ definitely agrees clubs and is already a mild slam try by itself. If to you 3♣ has a somewhat different meaning, I guess you're kinda endplayed into bidding 4♣, which might turn out right... or wrong.

 

I say 4♣ commits you to slam because in practice 99,9% of the time you'll be in slam unless some suit is uncontroled. And I don't see it as guaranteed that slam will be good even if all suits are under control.

 

Again, if you believe slam will be a good one by all means bid 4♣, but I reiterate it's your responsibility for being in it and a mild mastermind because you, the weak hand, took a decision which pard would probably be better placed to take.

[hatchett]

2nd paragraph: it seems we give 3♣ different meanings. To me 3♣ definitely agrees clubs and is already a mild slam try by itself.

 

Hi Whereeagles. Some questions. Do I assume from this comment you are playing 2NT as Lebensohl in this sequence. This is a very non-standard agreement that I can't remember anyone ever playing, is the implication that 2♠ is not absolutely game forcing?

 

If you do not play Lebensohl in this sequence then 3♣ could be just a five count with some club support.

 

 

To me 3♣ definitely agrees clubs and is already a mild slam try by itself.

 

I am interested if you bid 3♣ and partner bid 3NT would you bid again with this hand? If you wouldn't then I suspect we have different standards for a 2♠ call.

 

I've tried to write down some hands opposite with a diamond control where slam is worse than a finesse and to be honest I'm struggling.

 

AQJx x KQx AQxxx

KQJx QJ KQ AQxxx ! but this is a clear 5C sign-off

 

and there are countless fairly suitable minimums where slam is very good

 

AKxx xx Ax AQxxx not really a game force

AKxx Qx Ax AQxxx add the heart Q and the grand is good

[whereagles]

2nd paragraph: it seems we give 3♣ different meanings. To me 3♣ definitely agrees clubs and is already a mild slam try by itself.

 

Hi Whereeagles. Some questions. Do I assume from this comment you are playing 2NT as Lebensohl in this sequence. This is a very non-standard agreement that I can't remember anyone ever playing, is the implication that 2♠ is not absolutely game forcing?

 

If you do not play Lebensohl in this sequence then 3♣ could be just a five count with some club support.

 

 

To me 3♣ definitely agrees clubs and is already a mild slam try by itself.

 

I am interested if you bid 3♣ and partner bid 3NT would you bid again with this hand? If you wouldn't then I suspect we have different standards for a 2♠ call.

 

I've tried to write down some hands opposite with a diamond control where slam is worse than a finesse and to be honest I'm struggling.

 

AQJx x KQx AQxxx

KQJx QJ KQ AQxxx ! but this is a clear 5C sign-off

 

and there are countless fairly suitable minimums where slam is very good

 

AKxx xx Ax AQxxx not really a game force

AKxx Qx Ax AQxxx add the heart Q and the grand is good

Hi hatchet,

 

2NT as Lebenshol: well, most people play 2♠ as game forcing and I'm no exception. In my notes do I play 2NT as a sort of Lebenshol just for memory's sake (i.e. since I play Lebensohl after a normal, non-jump reverse, I extend this to any reverse to keep it simple). To be quite honest, I don't even know what my exact Lebensholish agreements are(!!), but I can tell you 3♣ is definitely a positive, slam bound bid.

 

Over pard's possible 3NT: I'd either pass or bid a quantitative 4NT (yes, I have agreed 4NT isn't blackwood :P).

 

Constructing a hand where 6♣ with controls is bad: well... if you're having trouble making one, then perhaps my slam judgement of the situation isn't so good as I thought :) (and consequently jdonn is right with his 4♣.. lol)

 

EDIT: I tried constructing a hand as well and it's almost impossible to build a normal 2♠ hand where 6♣ with controls isn't a good slam. Kudos to jdonn; his evaluation of the situation is correct and 4♣ is a good bid.

[temp3600]

About hand 1 :

 

When I make a "pro" list with arguments for the slam it looks like

• 
   
  
• good trump fit (here in clubs)
   
  
• first round controls
   
  
• long side suit which (might/will) produce the needed missing tricks
   
  

What did I forget?

If you have all three, slam is likely to be good - and you have them here.

 

When I count tricks we have perhaps: 6 in ♣, ♠ + ♦ A, 2-3 ♥ ruffs in dummy = 10-11, so I NEED 2 or 1 more, based on hope or knowledge?

I don't think that's the best approach. I see it this way : we are likely to have 6 in clubs, 4+ in spades, DA, possible ruffs and maybe some high cards (DK) in partner's hand, so obtaining 12 tricks won't be difficult. The real problem I think is not losing 2. So, in my view, we only have to estimate how likely we are of losing two tricks. It would be nice to check how good partner's clubs are, or what his spade holding is (does he have the K ?). Unfortunately, opponent's preemption has denied us that possibility. But because of the richness of our hand in controls, I think slam is a big favorite.

 

As a side note, i don't like opener's 1C-followed-by-3C description. After 1C, and the 2H intervention on opener's right, I find 3NT way better than 3C. (I also like a direct 3NT opening with this hand. I don't think it wrongsides 3NT that much, but I'm digressing).