Decisions, decisions..

[whereagles]

Imps NV, you have

 

♠ 952

♥ AJ

♦ AK87

♣ AJT4

 

You pard

1♦...2♣

..??

 

For systemic reasons, you had to open 1♦. Pard's 2♣ is natural 4+ cards, 1-round forcing and promises a rebid. The system now allows 3 bids:

 

1. 2NT = 15-17 balanced, says nothing about the minors, game forcing.

2. 3♣ = 15-20, 4-card support, game forcing, but should be unbalanced.

3. 3NT = 18-19 balanced, better diams than clubs, though 44 is still possible.

 

So, pick one of those and do the follow-up question in hidden text:

 

1. You bid 2NT.

Pard bids 3NT.

What now?

 

2. You bid 3♣.

Pard will bid 3 hearts, values.

What now? Meaning of subsequent bids (hidden):

4 clubs = forcing, asks for controls; 4-other suit control (4 diam should show 5 cards); 4NT = keycard,

 

3. You bid 3NT.

Pard bids 6NT.

You?

 

Good luck :P

[P_Marlowe]

2NT, followed by Pass.

2NT showes my shape, and my strength,

I am certainly max. for the bid, but that

happens sometimes.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

I'm a bit confused.

 

You have offered me two choices: I can make a bid to show a balanced hand that might have 4 clubs, or I can make a bid to show an unbalanced hand with clubs. I have a balanced hand that has 4 clubs. Is there any reason I don't make my systemic bid?

 

(p.s. if I choose to call this a balanced 18-count that might have 4 clubs, what I am supposed to do?)

[whereagles]

Well, the reason you might want to consider the non-systemic bid is the excellent club support and good control-based hand.

 

If you upgrade the hand to a 'balanced 18', your rebid would be 3NT (instead of 2NT), but it would show better diams than clubs, though a 44 minors is possible. There's no direct bid to show you have a balanced 18 with 4 card club support.

 

I'll add the possibility of a 3NT rebid in the main post, and what would happen then.

[kenberg]

I have edited this to hide comments based on the hidden continuations, and add a bit about the NT partner didn't bid.

 

I think I bid 3C over 2C. There are some further questions that might influence me. Partner's 2C showed clubs and 10+, but how about the 2N he didn't bid? Partners usually have modest values and I'm thinking that if he had 2N available and chose to bid clubs instead he has a reason, and my hand might fit well with his reasons. However, if 2N is 13-15, so he might well have a balanced 11 for his 2C bid, I think then I call 2N. He can let me know if he is unbalnced. Assuming, as is often played, 1N would have been 6-10, 2N= 11-12 and 3N=13-15, or thereabouts, then I bid 3C over 2C. Later, when he bids 3H over 3C I again reason either he couldn't bid 3N because he has hearts but not spades, in which case 5C is looking like a winner, or else he has bigger things in mind. So I'll bid 4D. I'm missing the fifth diamond, but nobody's perfect.

 

Bidding 3N over 2C seems wrong on several counts. Mostly it's likely to end the auction and may or may not be the right contract. 2N seems reasonable and I regard it as a close choice to 3C.

 

 

Belatedly getting into the proper spirit, I have hidden a comment about the hidden continuation.

 

 

If I bid 2N and partner raises to 3 I pass and, unlike the choice of 3C or 2N, I do not find this a difficult choice.

 

[Codo]

I have 15-17 and 4432 seems to be quite balanced, so I will bid this.

I don´t see any reason to sell this hand as unbalanced.

 

If pd has a big hand, he will bid on, else he can judge, which game we want to play.

[inquiry]

Clearly not my preferred bidding choices, but playing this way, I think I would bid 3C. While it is true that 2NT describes the distribution and stregnth of the hand, 3C shows the best overall feature and establishes a game force.

 

Should partner bid 3S over 3C, I will now bid 3NT

Should partner bid 3D over 3C, I will bid 3H

Should partner bid 3NT over 3C, I will pass

Should partner bid 3H over 3C, I will trott out 5C if 3C was "only" quasi gf, and 4C if it was true and real game force.

[Finch]

I bid 2NT. I am super-maximum for this and will co-operate fully later, but I don't want to imply a 5th diamond when I don't have one. That seems worse than the alternatives.

 

A hidden comment on the hidden continuations:

The continuations don't make sense. If I bid 2NT, 15-17 may have 4 clubs, partner bids 3NT. If I bid 3NT, 18-19 may have 4 clubs, partner bids 6NT. He cannot have a hand that signs off opposite a balanced 17 count and forces to slam opposite a balanced 18-count. Are there no bids in the middle?

 

[mikeh]

I agree 100% with Frances. Your 'hidden' followups make no sense. Hidden:

either partner bids 3N over 2N and 4N over 3N or he bids 4N over 2N and 6N over 3N...

[david_c]

I don't see the logic in Frances's and Mike's hidden replies:

why can't you have a hand which wants to be in slam opposite an 18-count but not opposite a 17-count? Or to put it another way, why can't you have a hand which would bid a quantitative 4NT over a 17-18 rebid?

[mikeh]

I don't see the logic in Frances's and Mike's hidden replies:

why can't you have a hand which wants to be in slam opposite an 18-count but not opposite a 17-count? Or to put it another way, why can't you have a hand which would bid a quantitative 4NT over a 17-18 rebid?

Okay, at the cost of revealing our hidden replies:

 

The conditions of contest stated that if we bid 2N, partner signs off in 3N: ie he has zero interest in slam opposite a 15-17 balanced. However, if we bid 3N, showing 18 balanced, he is not merely interested in slam: he bids it.

 

Bear in mind that both 2N and 3N may deliver some shape: we may well have a major suit ruffing value and we may well have (we actually do have) primary ♣ support.

 

Surely there exist hands that hold 17 hcp, a doubleton major and good ♣ that afford a play for 6♣ opposite hands that are sure of 6N opposite an 18 count that may be perfectly balanced?

 

After all, if we are 2=3=5=3 opposite 3=3=2=5, we rate, on many hands, to take an extra trick playing in ♣, whether that be by setting up ♦ or by ruffing a third round ♠. Bidding 6N over 3N sounds like a quantitative bid made on sheer power: but suit slams are often bid on degrees of fit and controls. In that regard, a 2=3=5=3 17 count may be much more powerful, in a trump context, than a 3=3=4=3 18 or 19 count.

 

So partner should know this, and it seems very, very odd that he has a quantitative blast to 6N (presumably a working 15 or equivalent playing strength) that is utterly lacking in slam ambitions opposite 15-17.

 

I would go further: I defy you to construct a hand on which 6N, over 3N, is a good call (rather than a shot in the dark) on which you cannot construct an opposing hand (in fact, many hands), fitting the definition of 2N (not confined to this hand, which has ugly majors and 4=4 minors), that affords a decent play for 6minor.

 

Put another way: any hand that is good for 12 tricks (in notrump) opposite a 3N rebid must be safe for 10 or 11 tricks opposite a 2N rebid, and may have a play for a suit slam, so why not use some of the considerable bidding space between 2N and 6minor to find out? Unilateral bidders often don't get this point: they make all the decisions. Experts always get this point, as do most advancing players... the getting of this point is often a sign that one is becoming a bridge player :)

 

Use the bidding space to have a dialogue with partner: find out if, upon further discussion, opener has a good 17 with some shape or a mediocre hand. Learn to bid 'slowly' in this type of situation, and your results will improve, as will your partner as the two of you grow in skill and trust.

[whereagles]

Thx all. Here are the hands:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=s952hajdak87cajt4&e=saqhkqt8d96ckq972]266|100|Scoring: MP

West East

1♦ 2♣

??

 

1♦ = systemic

2♣ = nat, F1[/hv]

If West bids 2NT, East can bid a nat 3♥ (opener can still have hearts) but he'd bid 3NT to have the lead come into his spade tenace.

 

It's not clear how a slam can be reached after

 

1♦ 2♣

2NT 3♥

 

but after

 

1♦ 2♣

3♣

 

it does get easier. In the case

 

1♦ 2♣

3NT

 

I'm not sure resp would bid 6NT now as I said. I just made it up, having pard's style in consideration, because Frances mentioned it.

 

The golden bike is 7♣, but it's hard to reach, as it depends on the heart JACK, with some chances if the jack weren't there.

 

Just one comment to mikeh: it's true that going slow in general is better. However, in my experience, the "going slow" usually means having to sort out which bids are cues, which are fit and whether 4NT is or not RKCB. It can get messy! Going slow is fine if you know exactly what you're doing. If not, it could be better to just short-cut your way into a playable contract to avoid mix ups.

[david_c]

I would go further: I defy you to construct a hand on which 6N, over 3N, is a good call (rather than a shot in the dark) on which you cannot construct an opposing hand (in fact, many hands), fitting the definition of 2N (not confined to this hand, which has ugly majors and 4=4 minors), that affords a decent play for 6minor.

Well of course there will always be a hand where 6m is good. That doesn't mean it's right to go looking for it. Your only way to invite slam is to bid 4NT.(*) If you bid 4NT looking for the "perfect" hands, you'll get to an awful lot of bad slams. It helps a bit that partner will consider how well his hand fits when responding to 4NT, but you'll still be getting to slam whenever partner has a maximum whether it fits or not. If your hand is dead minimum for 6NT opposite 18-19 then this is not what you want at all.

 

If West bids 2NT, East can bid a nat 3♥ (opener can still have hearts) but he'd bid 3NT to have the lead come into his spade tenace.

Erm, isn't he going to be dummy if he bids 3NT? Anyway, despite everything I've just been saying, 3NT surely is an underbid on that hand.

 

(*)[Well, holding the actual hand you obviously do have other options. I was imagining something more like a 3334.]

[whereagles]

Erm, isn't he going to be dummy if he bids 3NT? Anyway, despite everything I've just been saying, 3NT surely is an underbid on that hand.

Ah, yes, I was messing up.

 

Still, at other tables, after the more usual auction

 

1NT 2♣

2♦

 

most Easts bid a simple 3NT. Actually, this hand wasn't played by me. I was just watching; most of the stuff I said E/W would bid were taken from comments I heard after they stopped at 3NT with 7♣ cold... :)

 

1♦ 2♣

2NT 3NT

pass

[the hog]

Don't ike the system, but given the constraints why not make the systemic bid of 2NT? If you play a system, stick to it, regardess of whether it is ideal or not.

[kenberg]

A few thoughts on the system. I rarely play weak nts. Here it should be easy to find at least 6C after a strong 1N:

1N 2C

2D 3C (strong with clubs and an unknown major)

etc

 

Presumably regular weak notrumpers have similar tools so the slam should be reached. If the 2N bid over 2C shows 15-17 it seems responder might be thinking, rather seriously, of a club slam. If he bids 3H over 2N, opener should be thinking of a club slam although his spade holding may slow him down.

 

I agree it's easier after 2C-3C but it seems to me that if this hand was played in 3N the players are apt to be discussing who should have done what. It's their system, so they need to decide how to tune it.

[whereagles]

Well, the point here was whether should you stick to the systemic bid of 2NT or make a slightly 'bent' 3♣ because of the superb support.

 

It's a judgement issue, not really a systemic one. This sort of action is too rare for you to try and fine-tune your system for situations like these.

[kenberg]

If the pair landed in 6NT or 6 clubs, I agree that how to tune the system to reach 7C is not likely to be of interest. If the pair landed in 3NT (I gather this either happened or you imagine it could have happened), I think their system, or something, needs work and I bet they are of the same opinion. This isn't a freak hand, there are 12 tricks on top, and they need to find their slam. Not that I have never missed a laydown slam, but I don't think I would miss this one.

 

I did choose 3C, or at least I chose 3C under the assumption that with a flat hand partner could and would have bid some number of NT rather than 2C, but reaching slam on these cards should not, imo, depend on a decision to make a judgment override of the system. It was far from clear to me that 3C was the right call and more than a few thought it not to be. If rebidding the systemic 2N keeps them from slam, I think the system needs some tuning. Mostly I think that after 2N-3H, there should be club support followed by reaching slam. For this to be done in safety, they need a key card bid after 3H-4C. I guess it is conceivable they could reach 7 this way: Key card ask-3 key response-repeat keycard suit, guaranteeing all keys-then 7C based on the maximum values, the fact pard is interested, and the fact that partner has bid hearts so all points including the heart J appear to be working. Could happen.

 

As always, I am curious as to what actually happened. I know it doesn't prove anything, I'm just curious.

 

Ken

[whereagles]

Real life:

 

1♦ 2♣

2NT 3NT

pass

 

A direct 3♣ will see you to slam

A jump to 3NT bid on grounds of superb club fit also leads to slam

 

Only the system bid of 2NT makes it hard to reach it. Maybe opener can try 4♣ now. After all, he couldn't have a better hand in support of clubs on this auction.. The problem would be how to stop in 4NT if responder has 10-12 or so.

 

Perhaps 4NT should be natural here.

[the hog]

"Only the system bid of 2NT makes it hard to reach it."

 

Why Whereagles? Surely there should be a quantitative 4NT available here.

[whereagles]

"Only the system bid of 2NT makes it hard to reach it."

 

Why Whereagles? Surely there should be a quantitative 4NT available here.

Well even if a quantitative is available (should be, of course), responder apparently decided not to try for a slam on 31-33. Actually, at other tables, most Easts simply bid

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 3NT

[kenberg]

"Only the system bid of 2NT makes it hard to reach it."

 

Why Whereagles? Surely there should be a quantitative 4NT available here.

Well even if a quantitative is available (should be, of course), responder apparently decided not to try for a slam on 31-33. Actually, at other tables, most Easts simply bid

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 3NT

Thanks for saying what took place. I am aware that the participants haven't asked my opinion, but the hand is up for discussion and I must say I truly don't understand the 3NT sign-off. I guess, as you say, he decided not to try.

 

And strong no-trumpers also signed off?

 

1N-2C-2D-3N was common? I know I am now looking at both hands but this seems amazing to me. West opens 1NT, E looks at a 16 count with a strong five card suit and makes no move towards slam? I don't get it.

 

 

As I play, something like

1N 2C

2D 3C

might start the auction, since I play this as strong with clubs and an unknown major. I don't have elaborate tools after that, but I suspect it could continue

 

4C 4S

5D 5H

6C I like to think 7C, but that's a fantasy.

 

Some play as follows:

1N 2S (trf, intending to then bid hearts showing clubs and hearts, strong)

2N (showing a club fit)

3H Now opener knows of the clubs, the hearts, the strength.

 

Surely they reach 6C.

 

This appears to be a room full of very cautious bidders.

Anyway, thanks for the hand. I do bid 3C over 2C.

 

Ken