Game or more

[temp3600]

Several questions about one hand, which is shown below.

 

1. You hold Qxx AKQ109 Jx QJx, in 3rd seat, all Red at IMPS, and the bidding goes :

 

1♣  (X)  1♥  (2♦)

2♥  (P)   ?

 

2♥ showed exactly 4 hearts.

Do you simply bid 4♥, or try something else?

 

 

 

2. Do you agree with 1♣ and then 2♥ with this hand : AKJ10 7643 - K9752 ?

 

 

 

3. This was the full hand :

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakj10h7643dck9752&w=s54h8dq107542c10863&e=s9862hj52dak963ca&s=sq73hakqt9dj8cqj4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Would you reach the slam, and how?

 

Michael

[P_Marlowe]

1) 4H

2) I may have bid 3D / 3H instead of

2H, since you have an 6 loose hand,

but if I start reflecing, I am not so

sure, 2H is certainly fine

3) I wont, ... of course most Wests

will bid 4D, after which you can

forget reaching 6H in a sensibe

way, unless opener overbids slightly

with 3D or 3H instead of 2H.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

The hand is certainly worth 3♥, but 3♦ is perhaps a more descriptive bid. In my metods that shows a sound raise to 3♥ whereas 3♥ would have been weaker (distributional).

 

Ideally, South can now bid 4♣ (semi-natural), hence showing values for game opposite a limit raise. Now it's time for North to show his diamond control by rebidding 4♦. From then on I think it's hard to stop South because opener must be loaded in the black suits when he has nothing in hearts.

 

Not an easy slam to bid by any means, but it's not impossible.

 

Roland

[kenrexford]

Can you visualize a normal hand for partner where slam probably makes? Yes -- many types. Even without short diamonds, if a 5422 primed 14-count.

 

Can you find slam if partner has one of the "right" hands? Yes -- start with a game try. One of you must convert to a slam probe.

 

How on this auction? This is tough, as you have no second suit and no obvious cuebid and no shortness. It depends upon your game try structure. I would bid 3♣, partner's opened suit. Partner will now bid 3♦, accepting game and showing a diamond control. This boxes me into a 3NT call, serious. 3NT is only an option to play in my partnerships if the game try was 2NT. I am "serious" because my trumps are too good to be expected. Partner will move.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

My first three impulses are to bid 4H. Finding partner with a void seems to be more than a little optomistic on the bidding so far.

 

2Hs is a normal raise. Jump reversing with xxxx deserves to find the doubler with good hearts(anyone surprised by that?) and partner with a 6-9HCP hand(3HXed could be very ugly)

 

Since your methods 'promise' four trumps, you could make a game try(if system methods allow) with 3Cs. Partner would bid 3D(4DS?) and you could now get to slam.

 

I would not lose any sleep over missing this slam. Playing partner for an unlikely 'perfect' hand is frowned upon by at least one leading player.

 

Resubmit the problem and change the hands to allow the doubler to hold your four top trumps and 'see' what the recommended bidding is?

 

Something like Qxx xxxx Kxx Qxx with the 1H bidder

 

Regards,

Robert

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid 1C-1H-2H-4H with these hands. As for the decisions independently...

 

2H- Feels about right. While it's true that I have a void, I have minimum high cards, bad trumps, and a bad anchor suit. I would jump to 3H with KQx AQxx QJx AJx and I feel like that is a much better hand than this. If the range of 3H is too wide it will be too difficult for partner to evaluate what to do and will also get us too high in 3H pretty often.

 

4H- Slam is very unlikely and searching for it will help them lead/defend better (when 4H is going down) or get partner to go past the 4 level when it's wrong more often than getting us to a perfecta slam.

[cherdano]

I would bid 1C-1H-2H-4H with these hands.

Justin, you are the worst double-dummy-bidder I know.

 

I think I agree. 2♥ is the critical decisions, and with such bad hearts and empty 5-card suits, I think it is just shy of 3♥. I consider 4♥ over 2♥ to be clear.

[cherdano]

The hand is certainly worth 3♥, but 3♦ is perhaps a more descriptive bid. In my metods that shows a sound raise to 3♥ whereas 3♥ would have been weaker (distributional).

So if 3♥ is the distributional raise, 3♦ shows a sound raise more based on hcp? How does this 11 hcp hand qualify then?

[Codo]

I had bid 3 ♥, not 2 to show a hand with good distribution but not too many hcp.

After 2 ♥ 4 ♥ from pd was surely enough.

[neilkaz]

I agree with Mr Rexford here and also start proceedings with a 3♣ game try followed by showing slam interest with 3NT and this should prompt PD to realize that I have very nice trumps and that we have fitting black suit cards.

 

Editted by me: I also agree with Ken's post below and also have seen many slams missed due to the misguided, IMHO, principle and missuse of fast arrival. Conversely I have seen PD's go nuts, launch into RKCB and then bid slam off 1 key card, when slow arrival is used and I their Q-bid is not what I needed to hear and I tried to sign off.

[kenrexford]

Two maxims of conventional wisdom seem to come up all to often and may need challenged, this hand and some comments thereto suggesting the need.

 

Maxim #1: "If you are hoping for the perfect hand, I don't have it." This "maxim" is often a justification for leaping signoffs. My response? Why hope? Why not simply ask? All too often, the "practical" bid is offered as an excuse for lacking tools or lacking ability to visualize.

 

Maxim #2: "Slam tries lead the defense more often than they locate freak slams." I have seen this argument posed for many hands where, try as I might, I cannot find any freak leads that will suddenly doom the game and that are suggested only by the auction. Sure, it happens, but much more rarely than the slam is missed, IMO. Matchpoints may be different, as overtricks might be affected.

[the hog]

The raise to 2H is pusillanimous. The opener's hand is clearly worth a 3H bid. Going by losing trick count, you have a 6 loser hand.

On the given auction I would simply bid 4H by South. Don't know if we would get to 6 after a 3H bid, though.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I did not offer a maxim 'as a rule to follow blindly.' I consider myself a capable slam/game/part score bidder. The person asking the question was seeking opinions and I suspect might not be world class(I am not world class by any possible standard)

 

I see that Jlall apparently is bidding 1C-1H-2H-4H so 'some quite decent' players apparently do not attempt to try and find perfect(or near perfect) hands to bid slams with this example hand. Your viewpoint should be put into the balance along with other opinions.

 

The other gentleman whose quote I used has 'numerous world championships' to his credit. I will offer his opinion 'with some degree of confidence.'

 

I also did not mention that giving too much information while bidding a hand sometimes gives the defense 'the information needed to defeat' some contracts.

Going down in a game at either IMPs or MPs does not normally score nearly as well as making a game contract.

 

Please feel free to challenge any and all opinions, maxims and/or quotes that I offer. I will, however, still feel free to offer some ideas that assorted world champions 'first' suggested in defense of my suggestion/opinion.

 

If you happen to read all of my post, you might notice that I also suggested a game(slam?) try bid of 3Cs could be made 'because their 2H raise 'promised 4 trumps' and that might lead to a slam contract.

 

I did add a note that 'seeking' a perfect/near perfect game has drawbacks 'as at least one leading(multiple world championship winner) player' suggests some degree of caution might be exercised. I try to offer different viewpoints when I attempt to offer suggestions for bidding. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[Free]

I think with the current bidding, 4♥ is clear cut. You have lost values and no distribution, and partner is minimum, so slam seems VERY far away. I disagree that you can construct 'many' hands where slam makes, since the number of hands were you can't even make 5♥ are much more frequent.

 

I disagree with the 2♥ bid, it's worth a bit more. However, the question is how you raise. You can try 3♦, 3♥ or even 4♦. Fact is that you only have 5 losers, so you should do something more than chicken out because of HCP-phobia...

[inquiry]

North's hand is worth a lot more than the apparent 11 hcp. For those who use Zar evaluation, north starts off with 29 Zar points (a sound opener) and gains three more for the four card fit and void to go to 32 Zars. With 32 Zar in support, I use the equivalent to a jump raise, so 2♥ was an underbid for me.

 

Ok, a possible auction then becomes,

 

1C - (X) - 1H - (2D)

3H - (P) - 3N - (P)

4C - (P) - 4H - (P)

?

 

At this point I think East will barage in diamonds, but assume he passes, as in the example, South with great hearts and a club fit, will bid serious 3NT this denies a spade control, forces opener to cue-bid his club control(which promises a spade control as well) . Responder now bids 4H having made a slam try and with no diamond control, and will leave the next step up to opener. A good chance the next step will be to pass, but if opener wonders what kind of slam hand responder can have here, he might get it right.

[kenrexford]

Consider the auction after a 3♣ game try, and the messages sent.

 

Partner may decline the game try, you will bid it anyway. Nothing is lost except that your side likes clubs somewhat. Unlikely to help the defense, as this is already known.

 

Partner may accept but blast -- not remotely slammish. Same result.

 

Partner may have an acceptance of the game try and slam values. If he does not bid 3♦, you blast and little is known also.

 

If he does bid 3♦, your hand has increasing interest. You bypass 3♠, the one down-side, and bid 3NT. Now, you will never pass the four-level yourself. You will not even last train. Your job is done.

 

At the point of the 2♥ call, slam was remote, perhaps. After 3♦, the field of deals tightens, making slam much more likely. After 3NT, partner will take over only on that small number of deals where slam is very likely.

 

Why assess the chances of slam at 2♥?

 

As an aside, before citing world championship success as authority, try reviewing viewgraph archives for the past six years. You might be surprised at the number of slams missed and at the auctions leading to game stops.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I learned bridge in the late 60s and have been getting Bridge World since the 70s, I have quite a bit more than six years worth of 'studying hands.'

 

Jlall likely has a couple of years of study devoted to hands and the quoted 'many time world champion' has several decades of 'playing and studying' hands at the highest levels.

 

Unless you somehow believe that everyone else cannot evalute hand records, there appears to be a various opinions generated from looking at thousands(millions?) of hand records.

 

Did you happen to read the article that stated that the American team would have gained IMPs 'if' they had bid no(zero) slams in one championship?

 

Would you mind telling me why a multiple time world champion 'maxim' should be presumed wrong just because you think that other people 'do not' study hand records?

 

I have been buying bridge books and also getting hand records for almost four decades now, the very idea that I did not study the hand records is a very strange idea IMO.

 

I have several programs that generate hands to specific(and general type) shape and HCP values. I often produce hundreds of hands to 'see' what results might happen from using different bidding ideas.

 

You might come to different conclusions, however, please do not suggest that no other players study hand records. We do study them and we just might come to different conclusions.

 

Best Regards,

Robert

[kenrexford]

I just do not understand. I believe you are missing my point, to some degree. The most frustrating and pointless debates feature one side using logic and the other side citing rules or citing authorities. It reminds me of many debates with my uncle, where his answer to every argument was to cite Pat Robertson or quote the Bible.

 

How can you argue with Pat or God?

 

The question on this hand is whether to stop at game or whether to push on. I'll concede that a 3♥ call from Opener has merits, especially if 1♥ showed sound values (would pass on a trashy 4-card suit and minimum values). However, I appreciate the need for some to have flexibility in responding in these auctions, to muddle the clarity as to whose hand it is. If that style is used, then 2♥ is sufficient. I presume this style, as the post does not question that 2♥ makes sense in the auction.

 

Assuming that the North hand is possible for the auction, then slam is possible for South. If so, then South should explore slam if that exploration (1) could be productive [the tools exist], (2) will not risk the five-level [it will not, IMO], and (3)the possible gain [a slam] outweighs the possible loss [leading the defense to a set]. Again, Matchpoints versus IMP's affects the judgment.

 

A concern should not be that slam is unlikely. So what? Check and find out. Maybe one in ten result in a slam being bid, but if there is no cost, why not check?

 

If the debate was focused on how the sequence will help the defense, then there is a good point to be made. Or, if the debate suggests how Opener will over-evaluate some non-working hands, great! Make that point.

 

WWJD ("What would Justin do?") seems a poor alternative, as Justin probably lacks the anticipated success rate of God himself at the table and might even err on occasion.

[hrothgar]

Wow this discussion is getting heated....

 

One quick observation here: I really don't care much for the suggestion of a 3♥ jump rebid by the 1♣ opener. From my perspective, the key point is that the 1♣ opener has a Diamond void and 4 card heart support on a hand where both opponents are suggesting Diamond values and length.

 

If you think that you hand is strong enough to consider a space consuming bid like 3♥, it would seem to make sense to show the Diamond short enroute... 4♦ looks like a more descriptive bid.

 

Please note: I'm not saying that 2♥ is necessarily wrong. However, given a choice between 3♥ and 4♦ I prefer 4♦...

[cherdano]

If you think that you hand is strong enough to consider a space consuming bid like 3♥, it would seem to make sense to show the Diamond short enroute... 4♦ looks like a more descriptive bid.

More descriptive -- but misdescriptive. 4♦ is just an overbid, and may lead to 5H-1 or 6H-1 opposite many hands. Qxx AKxx Axx Qxx is certainly a slam force opposite 4♦, and even RKCB 1430 leading to 5H won't save you if trumps are 4-1. xx KQxx Axxx Axx will get you to 6H. Etc.

[mikeh]

While I am a big supporter of making game tries that later become revealed as slam tries, I don't see any suit in the south hand that warrants such treatment. To me, an ostensible game try converted to a slam try shows a control in the suit bid, so I don't have a try available. Thus 3♣, intending to move towards slam if partner gets excited, should (for me) show at least the ♣K: i routinely bid the more convenient control rather than the cheapest 1st round.

 

In addition, look again at the South hand: it has soft, soft values outside the trump suit. I just don't see how the south hand can make a move.

 

The north hand is a little different: it has a LTC of only 6: which translates into an upgrade: the typical LTC for a minimum opening hand is 7. (Interestingly, the S hand also has a LTC of 6, and this shows that the LTC is a useful guide on this hand: the combined LTC of 12 suggests that NS can make 12 tricks (subtract the combined LTC form 24 to derive the expected trick taking potential of the hand).

 

I can see North stretching to bid 3♥... but I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it if there had been no takeout double and the presence of the double (implying some ♥ length) combined with my poor spots would persuade me to bid only 2♥.

 

So I'd chalk this one up under the 'unbiddable by me' category.

[HeartA]

I would certainly bid 3D.

[mcphee]

I like the raise to 2H as I am not so good in C with bad trumps. I might miss a game some days which is thin. How can it be so terrible to have a bit extra? I would not be unhappy if partner bid 3H with this either.

 

Once the table bidding went pass after 2H I think slam is not unreasonable to reach.

1C x 1H 2D

2H* P 3C P 3C is game forcing

4D splinter should allow the pair to reach 6H .

[Guest Jlall]

lol...wow...

 

I do think Ken simplifies and idealizes issues like this in his posts, but my methods don't really allow me to find only making slams and avoid only no play slams or else I would try for these slams more often. If my partner bid 3C then made a serious slam try and I had Ax xxxx Kxx AKTx for instance I would be off to the races. I'm sure he has a delicate cuebidding sequence ready to show how he will stop but without his sophisticated system and judgement I feel like I will get to some bad slams trying for this when there are only a few types of hand that make it good. Not only that, I wouldn't interpret my partners 3D bid as necessarily a cuebid coming in hearts as that sequence would be consistent with 1345 to me. There are issues because you have not guaranteed a fit yet on this auction, and you may simply be trying to find game (or the best game).

 

As for what kind of layout will cause the defense to find the killing defense... The opponent may well lead the club ace if he has the ace and length after your 3C bid then give their partner a ruff while signalling for their other ace. If it does go 3C-3D-3N as you anticipate and partner has no spade control he will sign off in 4H (xxx xxxx AKT AKx or xxx xxxx AK AKxx). Now they find the killing spade lead and you get unlucky and have a trump loser. Bad luck but they had a normal diamond lead from the queen instead of spade from Axx if you had just bid 4H. Or in the middle of the play after your trumps broke badly they have a critical play and must guess your shape. This becomes much easier since you bid 3C.

 

To say there are no such layouts where bidding 3C helps them find a lead or defense is naive. Those layouts are unlikely when you are this strong, but there are a lot of them and a lot of variations of them and the probability of each of them adds up. Perhaps your view is that looking for the slam is percentage over this type of occurence and you may well be right but at least admit that these kinds of things can occur.

 

You are right that I am not god, and that I err, and that I do not know everything. The way you write your posts seems to indicate that you think that you are though. You don't even seem to let the possibility that you are wrong or that you have overlooked something enter your mind.

 

By the way, I'm surprised such an expert cuebidding theorist such as yourself would not bid 3H over 3D if you view 3D as a cuebid with slam interest for hearts. Surely now a 3H bid would be forcing and could be used to show good trumps or a slam oriented hand with no spade control. As I know you are completely efficient in all cuebidding sequences to get maximum information across, it is surprising you didn't mention what this bid would show.

[awm]

In a way, this hand might be a very subtle loss for the style of responding very light to partner's opening bids.

 

Justin gave the example of a balanced 19 for opener, with four card hearts. Playing relatively sound one-level responses it's perfectly reasonable to force game on this hand. You have 25+ high after all and a major suit fit. But seeing some of the hands Justin (and a lot of other people) respond to 1m on, it seems like there may be benefits to being able to get out in 3♥ opposite the balanced 19. The super-light response may be unlikely a priori, but given that opener has 19 and his RHO is bidding at the two-level in a live auction, the odds have to go up substantially.

 

But then either your 3♥ rebids or (slight better) your 2♥ rebids are going to be extremely wide-ranging. There's a big range of hands between a balanced 11 that most of us open and a balanced 19, including a variety of shapely hands as well as the balanced ones.

 

Playing a fairly sound response style, it seems reasonable to play that 2♥ shows "at best a balanced 14," force game with a balanced 18-19 and four trumps, and let 3♥ show a distributional hand that you evaluate as "better than a balanced 14 but not as good as a balanced 18" (typically 13-15 with a singleton and four trumps). In this case bidding 3♥ on the actual north hand is pretty reasonable.