Assign the blame

[mr1303]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqj9hqj10xxxxdxcxx&s=saxhakxdak10xcak10x]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding proceeded:

 

2♣ 2♦

2♥ 2♠

2NT 3♦

3♠ 4♦

4♥ pass

 

Opener used the Kokish relay to show a balanced 25-26 hand. 3D was a transfer to hearts, 3S was a cue super-accepting in hearts, 4D was undiscussed.

 

Who was more to blame for missing this laydown slam.

 

For a bonus point, how do you play 7♥ on the lead of the Q of diamonds

[Finch]

i) North

ii) I imagine I take the spade finesse, eventually

[Impact]

North 100% (more if that was possible).

 

North holds an internally solid 7 card suit opposite a known fit (and in fact a superfit presumably if the 3S bid means anything albeit once you have shown 25+ the auction must be presumed to be GF).

 

He also holds (counting merely HCP a 6 count opposite what is at least 25HCP).

 

Responder could hold a blitz eg xxx xxxxx x xxxx and should still bid this way as after all opener could be AKx AKQx xxxx AKQ (or better by making the small S a C) and conceivably (?) an A or more ....

 

 

As for the play, presumably you draw trumps and eliminate suits in case either minor sut has QJx falling- and assuming nothing good happens fall back on the S finesse...

[Flame]

North 100%

The play is interesting, we can assume the lead was from QJX(XX) and therefore there is no need to take the spade finnese cause if it works so does the spade diamond squeese on west.

We can add the chance of diamond club squeese on west.

So take the A of diamond, drow trumps, take the A of club, play A of diamond and ruff a diamond, if the J didnt fall, take all but one trumps out now, if west has the K spade or HXXX of club you make it.

[Finch]

The play is interesting, we can assume the lead was from QJX(XX) and therefore there is no need to take the spade finnese cause if it works so does the spade diamond squeese on west.

We can add the chance of diamond club squeese on west.

So take the A of diamond, drow trumps, take the A of club, play A of diamond and ruff a diamond, if the J didnt fall, take all but one trumps out now, if west has the K spade or HXXX of club you make it.

I don't understand any of this.

You can't squeeze West in the minors, he is discarding after you.

If the spade finesse works, East has the SK and you can't squeeze West in spades and diamonds.

 

If West has the SK you can't squeeze him in spades and diamonds, your entries don't work.

 

The only squeeze I can see that would work is a spade/club squeeze on either hand; but given West has QJ to length in diamonds the spade finesse is better odds.

[SoTired]

dbl sqz. D-A. draw trump. DK and ruff diam, AS, run hearts. pitching Cx, Sx, and finally D10. Works when West has KS or when East has CQJ, or when East has 5 clubs. This is more chances than just spade finesse.

 

100% North. 4D was re-transfer. North should not settle for less than 6H. More fear missing grand then 6 not making. Maybe North was confused by 3S. North should not bid 3D, but 4D and then 4N RKC. After North finds all keys, North bids 5N, and when South bids 6C, North bids 6H which asks South to bid grand holding KS.

[Finch]

I seem to be repeating myself.

When the diamond menace is on your left, as suggested by the opening lead, this doesn't work.

After three rounds of diamonds, the ace of spades and all but one of the trumps you will come down to this ending.

 

Q

x

-

xx

 

-

-

10

AK10

 

 

i) East has the SK. Now there are various squeezes that work, but you could have taken the spade finesse.

 

ii) West has the SK.

West's last four cards and the SK, the DJ and two clubs.

East has (say) 4 clubs.

You lead the last trump from dummy. East discards a club. West is going to discard a club. And what are you planning to throw from hand?

 

These squeezes ONLY work on a non-diamond lead; you need to keep the diamond entry to hand. Give dummy 2 diamonds and a singleton club and now the double works as long as East has 5 clubs or both club honours. Alternatively on the actual hand a non-diamond lead will allow you to play a double squeeze as long as you can isolate the club menace with one ruff.

[SoTired]

Sorry, I thot East lead the DQ...

[Flame]

sry i thought north was playing and ment to sqeese east not west.

[awm]

I think south takes a lot of the blame here. North has cooperated with the slam try by cuebidding 4♦. This is not a re-transfer: south has already bid hearts and it makes little sense for an undiscussed 4♦ bid to be a retransfer when bidding 4♥ will already allow the strong hand to declare.

 

South has all controls, has made a slam try, and partner has cooperated. Why now try to sign off in 4♥? The only explanation could be weakness in the fourth suit:

 

AK

AKx

AKQx

QJxx

 

In fact there is a small possibility of even:

 

AK

Axx

AKQJx

QJx

 

(yes I know it's only 24 high, but there's a good five card suit...)

 

Perhaps north can make one more try in view of the total high cards, but the 4♥ bid seems like a strong warning about a club problem.

[winkle]

I think south takes a lot of the blame here. North has cooperated with the slam try by cuebidding 4♦. This is not a re-transfer: south has already bid hearts and it makes little sense for an undiscussed 4♦ bid to be a retransfer when bidding 4♥ will already allow the strong hand to declare.

 

South has all controls, has made a slam try, and partner has cooperated. Why now try to sign off in 4♥? The only explanation could be weakness in the fourth suit:

 

AK

AKx

AKQx

QJxx

 

In fact there is a small possibility of even:

 

AK

Axx

AKQJx

QJx

 

(yes I know it's only 24 high, but there's a good five card suit...)

 

Perhaps north can make one more try in view of the total high cards, but the 4♥ bid seems like a strong warning about a club problem.

I don't think south can superaccept without a club control.

[whereagles]

Both guilty of failing to rise to their responsibilities, as far as I am concerned.

 

A 25-26 balanced hand has about 8 cover cards, so North knows the partnership is in GRAND slam territory. Besides, North knows South is control rich because he's looking at QJ QJ in the majors, so those cover cards will surely be there. North cannot pass 4♥, period.

 

On the other hand, South knows North has a moderately interesting hand because otherwise he wouldn't have bid 4♦ (I don't think xxx xxxxx x xxxx warrants a 4♦ cue, btw), so, with that plethora of controls which makes his 25 hcp the best 25 ever, he should have tried for something rather than de-responsibilizing himself with a tame 4♥.

[mikeh]

I think south takes a lot of the blame here. North has cooperated with the slam try by cuebidding 4♦. This is not a re-transfer: south has already bid hearts and it makes little sense for an undiscussed 4♦ bid to be a retransfer when bidding 4♥ will already allow the strong hand to declare.

 

South has all controls, has made a slam try, and partner has cooperated. Why now try to sign off in 4♥? The only explanation could be weakness in the fourth suit:

 

AK

AKx

AKQx

QJxx

 

In fact there is a small possibility of even:

 

AK

Axx

AKQJx

QJx

 

(yes I know it's only 24 high, but there's a good five card suit...)

 

Perhaps north can make one more try in view of the total high cards, but the 4♥ bid seems like a strong warning about a club problem.

I think it wrong to blame a player for not guessing what an undiscussed bid means. The guesser has to guess what his partner thinks the bid means, which is not always the same as what it 'should' mean, in bridge logic.

 

As an example, maybe North thinks that there is a difference in the way he should bid a 'game-only' hand and a 'slam interest' hand: should one raise to 4♥ while the other re-transfers.. thus buying an opportunity to make another move?

 

Bear in mind that I am not saying how a S should guess: merely trying to point out a possible meaning other than '4♦ cue bid'. Once such a meaning is plausible (even if not, from your p.o.v., best) guessing becomes extremely hazardous.

 

As it is, I think North was guilty of pessimism. I can understand not committing to slam BEFORE the 3♠ bid, but it has to be hard to construct a hand opposite which there is no 5 level safety, and (obviously) S would co-operate over any move.

 

BTW, if N thought that the undiscussed 4♦ was a move, I still think he was being pessimistic.

 

So I give a basic 50% of the blame to North for being pessimistic and I make NS share the remaining 50% for not having a shared partnership agreement/philosophy on this auction or type of auction.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

On the other hand, South knows North has a moderately interesting hand because otherwise he wouldn't have bid 4♦ (I don't think xxx xxxxx x xxxx warrants a 4♦ cue, btw), so, with that plethora of controls which makes his 25 hcp the best 25 ever, he should have tried for something rather than de-responsibilizing himself with a tame 4♥.

My thoughts, ... until I realized that one possible meaning

of 4D could be retransfer, and South has to bid 4H, if

he takes 4D as retransfer.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: awn has a point, that in the given seq. retransfer does not make sense,

but being a simple sould, I would view the given seq. a similar to the seq.

 

2NT - 3D

3S - 4D

 

when 4D is a retransfer.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[neilkaz]

90% of the blame is North's. I cannot imagine a 25-26 HCP hand that can superaccept with a spade Q-bid, that is not safe at 5H opposite North's 7 carder with spade help. North should move on after 4H and not hang South for possibly be confused about 4D being a retransfer.

 

Seriously, everyone, lets assume that you are playing with a semi-regular PD (two online sessions a week for the last 3 months). Do you really think that both of you would realize that 4D is a Q-bid rather than a retransfer ? It really is possible to have forgotten that 2H was bid in the Kokish relay.

 

Anyhow..I cannot imagine passing out 4H with the north hand opposite 25-26 HCP with a spade control and good trump support. So how do we find out if opener has a club control ? RKCB works nicely on this hand since opener has 5 keys so there is no doubt. Opposite 5 keys we have a decent shot at a grand. However, if opener has only 4 keys, then perhaps clubs can be wide open...not likely, but perhap. But I'll just bid 6H and that is that and perhaps clubs aren't lead and I can pitch one.

 

Now what if N bids 5H rather than 4NT RKCB ? Well, I think 5H should ask about the unbid suit (clubs) since the transfer and superaccept would seem to imply that Hearts are the issue. After 5H, South can respond 6C showing that clubs are nicely under control and hinting at a grand.

 

North simply needs to probe for slam, and really shouldn't be satisfied with less than 6H here.

 

South, for his faux pas, really cannot hold a much better hand for his bidding. Can the 5 level really be unsafe after 4D whether it is retranfer or not ? So, South, lets apply a little imagination and Q bid 5C rather than 4H. Now it is slam time.

 

Anyhow...lets look at the bidding from North's side. What if he bids 3NT rather than 4D ? After having a transfer superaccepted, can 3NT be anything other than Serious 3NT ? Serious 3NT is a wonderful convention and here, it tells South to start Q-bidding. South cooperate by Q-bidding 4C and then it is slam time.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[kenrexford]

Personally, I cannot place any true blame without knowing more about the system parameters. I can guess at them and place blame according to my guesses.

 

First: Is 2D GF?

Second: What is the "minimum" for a super-acceptance?

Third: Is 3NT Serious by North here, and, if so, showing what?

 

I would assume that, post-Kokish, the Super-Accept promises at least six covers. Worst case is AK of spades, AK of hearts, and AK of diamonds. Add in the QJ of diamonds and QJ f clubs, and would this be a super-accept? If so, how can North be blamed for inviting a slam if clubs are controlled and partner declines.

 

The answer to this is the re-transfer business. IF re-transfers stay on even after the suit is bid already, a weird treatment, then 4H would have taken the position of a 4D cue, presumably. Thus, the fourth question is as to partnership agreement here.

 

My assumed answers:

 

1. 2D is GF

2. Minimum super-accept is 6 covers

3. 3NT would be serious

4. 4D is a cue here.

 

Using these parameters, South is 100% to blame. He has clubs contyrolled well, and seven covers.

 

Any other blame assessment relies upon different answers.

[microcap]

I blame Rex just out of habit... <_< :unsure:

[neilkaz]

Ken is correct in saying that, once again, it is difficult to respond to a question involving a 2C opener without knowing what 2D means. If 2D is GF, then South, even if he somehow felt 4D was a retransfer, really needs to push onward with 5C.

 

However, if North has a choice between a Serious 3NT and 4D Q, why not bid Serious 3NT and then find out about clubs from opener's likely 4C call, then you can Q bid 4D and leave nothing in doubt as to clubs and then insist on slam ?

 

In the olden days, this hand was opened 3NT and responder put the partnership quickly into 6H and let the opps figure out what to lead.

 

Modern methods are usually better, but require considerable partnership discussion since so many great hands get messed up in the bidding.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[HeartA]

North 200%.

[kenrexford]

Why not bid Serious 3NT here?

 

Again, this goes to partnership parameters. A bid of 3NT as "serious" is defined by context. Assuming a six-cover minimum for a Super-Accept by a super-strong 2NT opening, Responder seems to need about a seven or eight-loser hand to be "serious" about slam. Assuming a bare 5332, there are 11 losers from pattern. Thus, you need at least three covers to reduce the LTC to 8, right?

 

Thus, the "normal" Serious 3NT might feature three important cards, perhaps xx-AQxxx-Kxx-xxx.

 

This seems a tad rich opposite a super-strong balanced call. Perhaps the "better" analysis is a more patterned hand, with losers lost to shape. Something like xx-AQxxxx-xxx-xx? Or, xx-Axxxx-Kxxx-xx?

 

Or, perhaps the "Serious 3NT" is defined more like a quantitative approach?

 

Or, is a Serious 3NT reserved as a tactical call?

 

To me, the "best" assessment would be that the Serious 3NT call is one that is power-based, whereas the "cooperative cue" is more fit-dependent. A hand is "fit-dependent" when a stiff opposite weakness is good but a stiff opposite strength is bad.

 

Thus, whereas Ax-QJxxxx-xx-xxx might be a good "Serious 3NT" call, based upon sheer force of two keys and a sixth trump, the actual hand (no Ace or King, and a stiff possibly opposing great strength) is more fit dependent, suffering from a glaring club shortage.

 

True, 3NT clears up clubs. So, if the partnership understanding of a Serious 3NT here is tactical, then 3NT makes sense. This begs a question, though. If 3NT is the preferred partnership route to kinda check back on a club control, how is this to be distinguished from bypassing clubs to bid 4D, effective the same "checkback?"

 

Again, partnership parameters are needed here.

[Flame]

Why not bid Serious 3NT here?

when one player already showed 25-26 hcp, a balance hand, and superaccept, he is limited and the need for serious 3NT isnt good enough to use this bid for it.

In general serious 3NT only applay when both players are unlimited. like 1S-2H-3H.

when atleast one player is limited there are better uses for 3NT, like turbo, ,RKB, cue bid in one of the suit or natural.

[kenrexford]

If HCP's is King, then this "no need for Serious 3NT" is accurate.

 

25 HCP's, however, can be the hand provided (seven assured covers, first-round control everywhere, and only one missing second-round control), or, opposite the actual Responder's hand, something like Kxx-AKxx-AKQJx-KQJ, a point greater but with a much weaker control offering.

 

Further, if Serious 3NT has well-defined parameters, then it is useful for Responder to distinguish hand types, as I mention. Perhaps power controls instead of shortness controls.

[kenberg]

A very minor comment about the possibility of a squeeze. If somehow you were totally convinced that W held both the Jack of diamonds and the King of spades, a squeeze is possible. Take your tricks so that after trick 10 you are in the S hand holding the Ace of spades and the 10x of diamonds, and in the N hand you have the QJ of spades and a trump. W holds either the bare King of spades and Jx of Diamonds, or the Kx of spades and the bare Jack of diamonds. If you can figure out which he has done, you either play ruff a diamond-- back to the spade--ten of diamonds, or you play Ace oc spades-- ruff a diamond- -Q of spades. Since this requires both that you have correctly located the King of Spades and that you have read the end position, no one would try this unless they had a peek at West's cards, but it could be done.

 

 

As for the bidding, if I held the N cards and partner showed 25-26 hcps and a super acceptance of hearts, I would like to have some inquiries available to me to know more details but lacking the tools to do so I would say a prayer and bid 6. Partner has a big hand, I have a great source of tricks, I suppose we can take twelve tricks unless we are unlucky.

 

 

If I held the S hand and partner bid 4D I would move towards 6 in some way. Whatever 4D means, it has to be stronger than 4H and suggest slam. I have no regrets about my hand, so that's enough for me.

 

Fundamentally I think the problem is a familiar one. NS have agreed to play a good gadget, but one whose true strength depends on having adequate follow-up agreements, and they don't have them. This affects the psycholgy. They are expecting their gadget to eliminate any guesswork, and when it doesn't they get overly cautious. Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.