Big Hand, plus a fit!

[Echognome]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa987hakdq6caqj43]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

3♠ - 4♣(1)

4♦(1) - 4♥(1)

4♠ - 4NT(2)

5♣(3) - 5♦(4)

5♠(5) - ?[/hv]

 

(1) Cue bids (1st or 2nd round control)

(2) RKCB

(3) 1 or 4

(4) Do you have ♠Q

(5) No

 

Your call?

[mike777]

Must admit as usual I would have just rkc over 2d for D, and bid 6d over one Keycard, over 2 would have made a grandslam try..... As usual little cuebidding and fast use of rkc.

 

You have alot more info in your longer, go slow and make a bunch of cuebids at the 4 level methods.

 

I assume if pard has 6D and 4s he would rebid 2d with good D and 4 poor spades, but rebid 2s with 4 good spades and 6 lousy D. In both cases pard may only have 10 or 11 hcp.

[Walddk]

Aren't be off 1 key card + trump queen, and do we not have exactly 8 trumps between us?

 

Pass and hope that it makes. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to bid 6NT when partner tables

 

K10xx

QJ

Kxxxxx

K

 

Roland

[keylime]

Matt,

 

I agree with Roland. Pard is on a minimum hand and hearing pard's 3S delayed support doesn't sound good at all - why did they not bid spades immediately (unless it's a reverse)?

 

With that said, I'd probably would have wimped out at 3NT hearing a minimum from pard. Yeah the Q♦ comes in but this is about the worse 20 hcp hand to think of slam on. Spot cards are weak. The club suit is potentially across from shortage.

[awm]

I'll go with 6NT here. Sure Roland's hand is a bad one, but I'm not even sure this is an opening bid (both stiff king and QJ tight are awful). Change the ♥J to the ♦J and 6NT is excellent (requires only a diamond break or additional squeeze chances). In fact most hands including the ♣K seem to give 6NT some play:

 

Jxxx

Qx

AKxxx

Kx

 

Kxxx

Qx

KJTxx

Kx

 

KJxx

Qx

Kxxxx

Kx

 

Even many hands with two small clubs give chances on the club hook (especially since a spade lead may not be that likely):

 

Jxxx

QJ

AKJxx

xx

 

Of course there are hands that make 6NT poor (usually involving QJ tight of hearts and/or only five diamonds, and small singleton club). But there's no reason partner has to have such a hand.

[flytoox]

Aren't be off 1 key card + trump queen, and do we not have exactly 8 trumps between us?

 

Pass and hope that it makes. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to bid 6NT when partner tables

 

K10xx

QJ

Kxxxxx

K

 

Roland

Pd cannt have this hand. Otherwise he would bid 4S after 4C.

[Wackojack]

Even worst case hands 6NT is possible. So if we need to bring in some imps I would look for the grand and bid 5NT. If partner bids 6clubs showing the king, I will bid 6 diamonds asking for the king of diamonds. If he has it he will bid 7 something according to agreement, and I will convert to 7NT. I will expect something like: J10xx, x, AKJxx, Kxx for likely 13 top tricks.

 

Sorry delete all the above. Partner's key card might well be King of spades. Just bid 6NT

[Codo]

6 NT, if he has the horible hand K10xx, QJ, Kxxxxx, K

 

you just need diamonds 3-2 and find the doubleton Diamond ace behind the King.

And just Kxxx,xx,KJTxxx,K makes slam laydown. And this is no strong opener either....

[cherdano]

I bid 6N and think Roland's construction must be a joke. It's not an opener, and my partners would never cue their own suit when it is that bad (would not cooperate with a slam try, in fact).

 

Arend

[Walddk]

OK, you don't open my hand, so let's try this:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

You pass this one too? Good luck to all the 6NT bidders. You only need ♣K singleton or doubleton on side, and diamonds 3-3 or 4-2. This chance is as good as Germany defeating Italy tonight.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

OK, you don't open my hand, so let's try this:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

You pass this one too? Good luck to all the 6NT bidders. You only need ♣K singleton or doubleton on side, and diamonds 3-3 or 4-2. This chance is as good as Germany defeating Italy tonight.

 

Roland

With this hand, I still don't think partner would cooperate with a slam try with only 8 working points. But anyway, chances are not quite as bad as you make it, since they usually won't lead a spade (unless dealt ♠KQJ). So we need ♦4-2, and ♣3-3 or ♣K doubleton onside.

 

But I still prefer my chances of Germany beating Italy tonight.

[hatchett]

If 2♠ is game forcing then some people may play that the raise to 3♠ shows at least some extras ( with an unsuitable rock minimum bid 4♠), in which case it is clear to bid 6NT.

[pbleighton]

"If 2♠ is game forcing then some people may play that the raise to 3♠ shows at least some extras ( with an unsuitable rock minimum bid 4♠), in which case it is clear to bid 6NT."

 

Yes, if 3S shows extras, which was my thought. Pd's subsequent bidding tends to deny this.

 

It is close, but I pass.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa987hakdq6caqj43]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

3♠ - 4♣(1)

4♦(1) - 4♥(1)

4♠ - 4NT(2)

5♣(3) - 5♦(4)

5♠(5) - ?[/hv]

 

(1) Cue bids (1st or 2nd round control)

(2) RKCB

(3) 1 or 4

(4) Do you have ♠Q

(5) No

 

Your call?

Unless your partnership opens extremely weak hands, when you think of opening hands with only 1 keycard and no spade Q you tend to believe the keycard is the diamond Ace. Furthering that assumption is the fact that partner cooperated in a slam try. (Note a lot of this depends on bidding styles/agreements). A more likely holding to me is one in which partner used his noggin' and decided that he held some pretty prime cards for slam so cooperated. If minimum, I would expect more like:

 

10xxx, Qxx, AKxxx, K or the like.

 

The call I'd prefer to make is 6D if our agreement is that this is to play and not some kind of grand slam try.

 

I'm surprised that Roland is arguing for pass here, as any of the hands he created would be a "good Roland slam". :huh:

 

Winston

[Walddk]

So we need ♦4-2, and ♣3-3 or ♣K doubleton onside.

Pray tell how you make 7 outstanding clubs break 3-3.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

guys, Roland is always a bit pessimistic :huh: He does have a point, in that some opener hands are bad for slam, but there are a also couple of layouts where it is good.

 

It boils down to tactical considerations. If you need points or feel lucky, bid it. If not, pass.

[Codo]

OK, you don't open my hand, so let's try this:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

You pass this one too? Good luck to all the 6NT bidders. You only need ♣K singleton or doubleton on side, and diamonds 3-3 or 4-2. This chance is as good as Germany defeating Italy tonight.

 

Roland

Roland you made my day :huh:

 

You predicted Germayn to loose against Sweden, then against Argentina and now against Italy. Up to now I really had a little fear, that our team may loose, but now I am confident again...

 

For the hand: Sure, there are many hands, which won´t make slam. but even opposite a weak opener there are many hands, which will make slam. I doubt that someone can simulate wheter slam is successfull often enough to bid it, so it is just a guess.

[mikeh]

The 'correct' answer to the problem depends, in my view, on a couple of partnership style points.

 

Partner rebid 2♦, not 2♠. For me, this means little, other than that he lacks any significant extra values: something that has become apparent anyway. More importantly, 2♦ (in my style) does not show extra ♦ length: it is a waiting noise, but I suspect that the vast majority of players use it to promise at least 5 cards in the suit.

 

Then partner cue bid, but below game. If the partnership style requires a return cue should one partner cue, then we can draw no inference from the 4♦ cue, other than that he has the ♦A.

 

If, however, the style is that the cue of 4♦ shows a hand of which he is not ashamed, then we can infer that he has a decent hand in context.

 

I prefer the latter style, and if that is in use here, we can infer that he holds the ♣K!

 

With J10xx Qx AKJxxx x, for example, he should NOT cue 4♦, in my opinion: bad trump are a huge warning sign and the lack of a fitting card in ♣ makes this a poor slam hand so he ought not to show interest. However, Jxxx x AKJxxx Kx is a very good hand in context, and now 4♦ seems clear. One can take away the ♦J if one wants B)

 

So IF 4♦ was a forced cue, we are guessing, and I claim no better guessing ability than anyone else. But IF 4♦ showed a decent hand in context, as I would play it, then 6N seems like the logical spot.

 

PS: Roland's hand is NOT one that warrants a 4♦ cue in my preferred style: it seems as if he is of the school of mandatory cues... I respect that school but do not agree with it, and this type of sequence is precisely why.

[Walddk]

PS: Roland's hand is NOT one that warrants a 4♦ cue in my preferred style: it seems as if he is of the school of mandatory cues... I respect that school but do not agree with it, and this type of sequence is precisely why.

I am indeed. What if a diamond control is the only thing responder is worried about? Over 4♣, 4♠ denies a red suit control in "my" school. How else is responder to know if opener has:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

or

 

KQJx

QJx

Jxxxx

K

 

A 4♦ cue bid with the first hand doesn't suggest that we must get to slam if we are not off 2 key cards; it's merely being co-operative below game level.

 

Roland

[luke warm]

doesn't the bidding show 4 card support without the queen (and maybe the king)? give partner the ♠K, now the opps have the ♦A... i think i'd just sign off

[Winstonm]

I'm not a fan of the Mandatory cue-bidding style either. IMO it takes too big of hand to initiate. I prefer to call cue bids below game level as slam tries, indicating an interest but also asking if partner can cooperate.

 

I wonder if in the sequence shown it might be right to still use 3N as "serious" requiring a cue bid.

[cherdano]

PS: Roland's hand is NOT one that warrants a 4♦ cue in my preferred style: it seems as if he is of the school of mandatory cues... I respect that school but do not agree with it, and this type of sequence is precisely why.

I am indeed. What if a diamond control is the only thing responder is worried about? Over 4♣, 4♠ denies a red suit control in "my" school. How else is responder to know if opener has:

 

10xxx

QJx

AKJxx

x

 

or

 

KQJx

QJx

Jxxxx

K

 

A 4♦ cue bid with the first hand doesn't suggest that we must get to slam if we are not off 2 key cards; it's merely being co-operative below game level.

 

Roland

Roland, please show a single hand that is only worried about a diamond control for slam, but leaves partner room to have the second hand.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

Roland, please show a single hand that is only worried about a diamond control for slam, but leaves partner room to have the second hand.

 

Arend

A987

AK

Q6

AQJ43

 

The actual hand! Step 1 must be for responder to find out if we are off ♦AK or not. If we are (no diamond cue bid), there is no need to bypass game level.

 

By the way, you still owe an explanation as to how you make the 7 outstanding clubs break 3-3.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

Roland, please show a single hand that is only worried about a diamond control for slam, but leaves partner room to have the second hand.

 

Arend

A987

AK

Q6

AQJ43

 

The actual hand! Step 1 must be for responder to find out if we are off ♦AK or not. If we are (no diamond cue bid), there is no need to bypass game level.

 

By the way, you still owe an explanation as to how you make the 7 outstanding clubs break 3-3.

 

Roland

With both hands, you don't want to be in slam, and may be down in 5S, so it works best if opener rejects to cue 4D. Excellent example to prove my point, thanks.

 

Arend

[kenrexford]

The posed question assumes that this sequence was best and/or required by partnership agreement. Assuming this, what next? I cannot imagine slam not being the call, and at IMP's I want to be in the "best" slam. That seems to be a minor. I cannot rule out partner holding 4153, or even 4243/4144. After the negative answer to a queen ask, I like for 5NT to be a choice call, allowing 6C, 6D, or even 6S, to be chosen by partner. His choice will probably be best.

 

The secondary discussion concerns approach theory. Obviously, style and agreements are critical. It seems to me that 3S unambiguously agreed spades, as many other options were available. Hence, in my style, 3NT would be Serious, and extremely useful here. I get to hear about partner's club King, or lack thereof, which is huge. If he cues 4♦ instead, I know that he lacks club help but holds AK of diamonds (I only cue my own suit immediately with unexpected strength, meaning two of the top three; one top honor would be expected). This approach would enable better placement later.