Another bid judgement

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=shaqj8743dk1053ck6]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

We play 2/1, pick-up partner, opponents silent.

1♥-2♦

2♥-3♣

3♦-3NT

4♣-4♠

?

First, Do you agree with my bid up to now?

Second, What will you bid now if the auction proceeds as above?

[pbleighton]

I would have passed 3NT. You have 13 hcp, pd is probably singleton or void in hearts, has wasted values in spades, and didn't seem interested when you bid 3D.

 

What was 4C, Gerber or a cue?

 

Peter

[cnszsun]

I would have passed 3NT. You have 13 hcp, pd is probably singleton or void in hearts, has wasted values in spades, and didn't seem interested when you bid 3D.

 

What was 4C, Gerber or a cue?

 

Peter

Cue bid of course.

[pbleighton]

"Cue bid of course."

 

No "of course" about it, I know players who treat this as Gerber or I wouldn't have asked.

 

Since I've started down this road, I bid 6D with only one key card missing, realizing it's my fault if it goes down.

 

Peter

[hatchett]

I might bid 4♦ over 3♣, to emphasize my great trump support. I am willing to commit playing this hand in 5D playing IMPs, since there is an excellent chance of slam. I would then plan to bid 5♣ if he bids 4♠ or to drive to slam if he bids 5♣.

[inquiry]

First, Do you agree with my bid up to now?

 

Since it is imps and not matchpoints, I would have raised diamonds instead of rebidding 2 hearts -- either by biddign 3D, or jumping to 3S or 4S. At matchpoints, however, I would have rebid 2Hs. Over 3♣ I would have liked to have been much more demonstrative than a 3♦ bid I think. I think I might like 4♠ as exclusion blackwood for clubs but with a pickup partner, lets forget about that option. or jump to 4♦.

 

Second, What will you bid now if the auction proceeds as above?

 

I will bid 5♦. With a pickup partner i am not going to risk confusion over the meaning of 5♣, We know 4C was a cue-bid but does parnter? Nor am I going to ask for keycards with a void. We have shown clear slam interest on this auction so that partner is not going to pass 5D with most hands were slam is a good bet. Let's see what he has to say about the auction.

 

If the auction started

1H-2D

3D-3NT

4C-4S

5C

 

of course is clear.... I have a heart control, I have a club control, I am interested in slam, and I probably have a void since I am not asking for keycards.

[Halo]

Was it feasible to jump in Hearts or would that show more points?

 

I agree with pulling 3NT.

 

I pressed partner to believe slam was possible, so after 4S I won't veer back into pessimism. I'll place him with AQx,x,AQxxx,QJxx and have a shot at 6D.

 

EDIT: - given him a thirteenth card in spades.

[helene_t]

I think I would have pulled 3NT to 4♥.

 

I bid 5♦ now. I have nothing more to tell. Except that I have a heart control but that won't be a surprise.

[whereagles]

Must confess I would have bid the whole thing rather differently. As it is, I'll take a shot at 6♦ now.

[pclayton]

5♦ seems like a reasonable shot here. By the way, I like a 3♠ call over 2♦ initially at IMPs. The prospects for slam are so strong that at IMPs I'm willing to risk putting us in 5♦ instead of 4♥ (on a 6-2 for instance). 3♠ also simplifies the auction.

 

At MPs, I agree with the auction to date and would bid 5 only diamonds. I show a strong offensive hand when I pull 3N, and I have nothing left to show.

[Apollo81]

Dealer: South Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ [space] ♥ AQJ8743 ♦ K1053 ♣ K6

We play 2/1, pick-up partner, opponents silent.

1♥-2♦

2♥-3♣

3♦-3NT

4♣-4♠

?

First, Do you agree with my bid up to now?

Second, What will you bid now if the auction proceeds as above?

The way you've bid this it sounds more like you've got a good 2632 hand. I would have bid 4♦ not 4♣ to emphasize my diamond support. I would bid 6♦ in your auction.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, 5D seems very conservative. If I had one bid for my life I would bid 7D. We know partner has a GF minor 2 suiter with 0 or 1 hearts and a spade control. Partner not having 2 small hearts is huge. In my mind this is only a question of 6 or 7. Playing partner for no minor suit ace is really pessimistic, I mean he's even cooperating with us. He wouldn't be bidding 4S if he didn't like his hand. I would just make a practical bid of 4N and assume he has the spade ace. If he has 3 keycards I will ask for the trump queen, if he has 2 I will bid 6.

 

As far as the previous bidding I would look at it like this...

 

Once partner bids 2D we need to make a plan on how to best determine if we should be in hearts or diamonds, and if we should be in game, slam, or grand. Will describing our hand be useful? Almost always the answer is yes, but here we have the type of hand where we want to find out information from partner and we don't need to describe our hand since it's not even possible. Bidding 3S over 2D will do nothing, we aren't going to get the information we need and partner will never be in the position to make a good decision. What information do we need? We need to know about partners heart holding (if he has 1 or 2 is vital), if he has a 6th diamond, if he has club or spade values, and how many aces he has outside of spades. That's a lot, and the best way to go about it is to keep it low and see his next move. Rebidding hearts also makes it comfortable for partner to preference them later with 2. So 2H and 3D are perfect from this perspective, we learned partner has side clubs and doesn't have 2 hearts (over 3D he didnt bid 3H). He also has spade values because he bid 3N.

 

I feel strongly that there are some hands where you know you want to receive information, and you know what information that is, and you can't describe your hand. You just keep it low and try and get the information you need in those situations. Also, there are situations where you can describe your hand exactly and can never make the decision yourself. In those situations describe your hand as well as possible, and don't bid keycard, make partner do it.

[mikeh]

I agree with almost everything Justin wrote and especially the proposition that this has effectively become a small or grand decision. If he has AKx x AJxxx QJxx, and we fail in small, so be it.

 

While this hand is light in hcp (as someone observed, we have only 13), this is a classic example of why experts don't count points in these auctions: experts picture hands consistent with the bidding, and draw inferences.

 

Here, partner has, as Justin pointed out, almost certainly got a stiff or void ♥ (no 3♥ delayed preference over our 3♦) and he has slam interest once we showed interest ourselves... he bid 4♠. So he has a non-minimum with at least 5-4 in the minors. He must hold the ♦A and at least the J...he is not likely to be slam-positive with Axxxx in a suit we did not raise immediately.

 

Where I differ, perhaps, from Justin, is what to bid now. I would probably, at the table, agree with the crude instrument of 4N, but in a forum I kinda like 5♠. Partner will bid 6♣ with the ♣A, and now we bid 6♦ which should allow partner to make the right call. We can hardly be forcing to small slam without Kxxx in trump so with Axx x AQJxx Axxx he should go right... but maybe I am falling into the temptation to bid spectacularly rather than effectively. In addition, I always post that I hate 4N keycard in minor suit auctions and think that it is rarely needed...so I have to show how one can still logically reach the same level without that device.

[pbleighton]

"While this hand is light in hcp (as someone observed, we have only 13), this is a classic example of why experts don't count points in these auctions: experts picture hands consistent with the bidding, and draw inferences.

 

Here, partner has, as Justin pointed out, almost certainly got a stiff or void ♥ (no 3♥ delayed preference over our 3D) and he has slam interest once we showed interest ourselves... he bid 4♠. "

 

Mike, as the decidedly non-expert poster who had the ignorance to mention point count B) , I have two questions for you:

 

The (apparently poor) way I play is that a cue by pd forces me to cue if I have a first round control and can show it below game level. Thus, I read the auction as showing a minimum, or close to it, where the player was forced to show his first round control in spades.

 

1. What is your agreement on a cue bidding response showing extras, what level, how much, etc.

2. If you played my agreement, where 4S didn't show extras, would you still push to slam?

 

Peter

[mikeh]

"While this hand is light in hcp (as someone observed, we have only 13), this is a classic example of why experts don't count points in these auctions: experts picture hands consistent with the bidding, and draw inferences.

 

Here, partner has, as Justin pointed out, almost certainly got a stiff or void ♥ (no 3♥ delayed preference over our 3D) and he has slam interest once we showed interest ourselves... he bid 4♠. "

 

Mike, as the decidedly non-expert poster who had the ignorance to mention point count  :P , I have two questions for you:

 

The (apparently poor) way I play is that a cue by pd forces me to cue if I have a first round control and can show it below game level.  Thus, I read the auction as showing a minimum, or close to it, where the player was forced to show his first round control in spades.

 

1.  What is your agreement on a cue bidding response showing extras, what level, how much, etc.

2.  If you played my agreement, where 4S didn't show extras, would you still push to slam?

 

Peter

Sorry, Peter: I really did not mean any personal criticism:)) I often agree with your posts, btw :P

 

You raise an interesting style point for cue-bidding, and the difference in our philosophies may explain why we have different views of our chances on this hand. I suspect that Justin's view is similar to mine, and would welcome his input.

 

My view is that below-game cues show slam-co-operative interest. Such cues do not promise much extra, but they do say that 'in the context of the auction so far, my hand, such as it may be, has not down-valued... I am at least mildly interested if you are'

 

Above-game cuebids are, by contrast, mandatory. Once one player cues beyond game, partner MUST co-operate with a cue if available.

 

This style works wonderfully with an in-tune partner. It is common to have a game-force followed by a couple of cue bids followed by one partner bidding the game and the other passing: both players have useful hands but nothing special, and having said so, play contentedly in game.

 

Once one cultivates this style, it is surprising how infrequently we spring into keycard: as I have posted many times, I suspect that I use keycard with only a fraction of the frequency of the average player.... I would be interested in the views of players such as Fred and Justin as to their reliance upon keycard compared, not to their usual opps (all expert or WC) but to the typical Open field.

 

We also probably play fewer 5 level major suit contracts, while bidding at least as many making slams as the average player (obviously we also do a lot of bad things as well... since we are not exactly household names :P )

[whereagles]

Once partner bids 2D we need to make a plan on how to best determine if we should be in hearts or diamonds, and if we should be in game, slam, or grand. Will describing our hand be useful? Almost always the answer is yes, but here we have the type of hand where we want to find out information from partner and we don't need to describe our hand since it's not even possible. Bidding 3S over 2D will do nothing, we aren't going to get the information we need and partner will never be in the position to make a good decision. What information do we need? We need to know about partners heart holding (if he has 1 or 2 is vital), if he has a 6th diamond, if he has club or spade values, and how many aces he has outside of spades. That's a lot, and the best way to go about it is to keep it low and see his next move. Rebidding hearts also makes it comfortable for partner to preference them later with 2. So 2H and 3D are perfect from this perspective, we learned partner has side clubs and doesn't have 2 hearts (over 3D he didnt bid 3H). He also has spade values because he bid 3N.

 

I feel strongly that there are some hands where you know you want to receive information, and you know what information that is, and you can't describe your hand. You just keep it low and try and get the information you need in those situations. Also, there are situations where you can describe your hand exactly and can never make the decision yourself. In those situations describe your hand as well as possible, and don't bid keycard, make partner do it.

Pretty good example of how to think while bidding and how one should raise to one's responsibilities when the situation calls for it. I've been talking about this for a long time but no one listened :P

[pbleighton]

"We also probably play fewer 5 level major suit contracts, while bidding at least as many making slams as the average player (obviously we also do a lot of bad things as well... since we are not exactly household names :P )"

 

Ah, but you're a household FORUM name. In fact, you're more than a name, you're a god! Well, a minor deity, anyway, not the big Fred in the sky :P

 

If I get you right, in the 2/1 auction 1S-2C-3C-3D-3H-3NT(or 5C), 3D and 3H both show a little extra at least, and not too quacky, and the signoff limits the bidder to JUST a little extra?

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

In my mind if one partner has not limited his hand narrowly, his cuebids are not mandatory. The more important thing is for him to limit his hand rather than cuebid. If he has had an opportunity to cuebid and doesn't, instead signing off, and his partner STILL moves he would then be obliged to show his control.

 

If partner didn't like his hand I would expect him to bid 4D over 4C (then 5D over 4S from partner, and 4S over 4H from partner) rather than cuebid 4S (which to me means he has a suitable hand).

 

In terms of keycard, I would say I use it more than the average canadian WC :P It is an excellent convention when you're sure you have the values for slam, but not until then. Cuebidding is not just to determine you have the necessary controls for slam, but also the necessary values. Keycard does not address the values part, so if you aren't sure whether you want to be in slam or not based on VALUES you should cuebid.

 

When I played with zia he said cuebidding is never mandatory, just make as many tries as your hand is worth. Once you have made the number of cuebids appropriate for the slam suitability of your hand then sign off. I suspect never is an exaggeration but I agree with that general approach.

[mikeh]

Yes, altho this example is a little complex. I play, for example, that the 3♣ raise itself promises a little extra: that extra may well be shape, but with an indifferent 5=2=2=4, I'd tend to rebid 2♠ rather than raise ♣s: then, over the usual 2N by partner, I'd own up to the support.

 

And after the raise, the first red bid by responder shows no extras at all, since this is a sequence in which both partners may be probing for 3N.

 

Making matters worse, the 3♥ bid may be a punt: with xx Jxx KJx AKJxx for example, I'd bid 3♥ here, since I lack the full stopper required for 3N. I'd expect partner to bid 3N with Qx or (on a bad day) xx... we may need ♥s to be 4-4.

 

Say 1♣  1♠  3♠  4♣  4♦  4♥  4♠  pass

 

4♣ established the game force and said that responder had mild slam hopes given that partner had jumped to 3♠. 4♦ showed a control and a willingness to co-operate: not ashamed of the jump (admittedly, I can't think of a hand on which opener has a ♦ control and wouldn't show it) and 4♥ is more of the same. 4♠ announced that opener was bid out... had a not-great 3♠ bid and that the 4♦ was 'just in case you were serious'. The odds are that this pair has a poor-quality trump suit, with good controls elsewhere.

[mike777]

I must be missing something here...not for the first time.

 

I would have rebid 3d or 3s splinter over 2D at any form of scoring without a second thought.

[cnszsun]

Very instructive discussion, i got a lot from it.

I jumped to 6♦ at table because i don't want to bid rkc with a void and other bids could be ambigious to my pick-up partner (he is a BBO star), but now i think justin's 4nt is very practical, partner almost surely have ♠Ace for his 4♠ bid. By bidding 4nt, grand slam interest can be expressed later and also slight chance to stop at 5♦ if partner is missing two minor Aces.

[kenrexford]

My take is on this deal is very similar to Justin's, although my statement of more general slam-exploration theory would apparently be different as I am more inclined to make cooperative cuebids than seems to be expressed in his statement of theory.

 

On this deal, partner's 2♦ call was nothing exciting, possibly even a convenience bid initially. So, I see little point to doing anything except what Justin suggested -- staying low, flexible, and honest. After 3♣, however, the analysis changes.

 

What is 3♣? I doubt that it simply shows a 3154 pattern. With that pattern, one could probably bid 2NT with many ugly GF hands, planning to correct 3♥ to 3NT, if the spade stop is quality and/or the slam prospects for the minors are poor. Thus, whereas 3♣ first creates a guess of 3154 pattern, or better, I am also inclined to believe that minor suit quality is sound or better and that spades are not a great source of wastage (unless compensating values exist), something hinted at by Justin.

 

So, I comfortably bid 3♦. Partner now bid 3NT. I still figure partner for quality in his suits. With AJ-A alone, only 5-4, I myself would probably bid 2NT, planning to bid 3♠ as a mild slam try if Opener bids 3♣ or makes a delayed raise of diamonds (3♦). So, I anticipate something like A-AQ or AQ-A in the minors, possibly as bad as QJxxx-AQxx, for the 3NT call.

 

I then make a clearly right call of 4♣. How can this be wrong?

 

At this point, the story unfolds well. Partner cuebids 4♠. This is cooperative, perhaps. But, the big story missed is the failure of partner to cuebids trumps (by bidding 4♦). I expect, therefore, either Axxxx-AQxx in the minors, or possibly QJxxx-AQxx. He would have done that to allow me to use 4♠ (I would insist on this) as RKCB for diamonds and to tell me that his diamonds are good ones.

 

This failure, and the 4♠ call (apparently a cue in the techniques), convinces me that partner has something like ♠AJ10 ♥x ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx or ♠AJ10 ♥x ♦QJxxx ♣AQxx. Opposite either, 6♦ seems to be a good contract. 7♦ might make opposite the former, but it does not seem "good." As I am afraid that 4NT is a signoff in this auction, I'll blast to 6♦.

[the hog]

When I was a little tacker someone once gave me some good advice. That was "Support with support". I have followed that philosophy ever since. Hence my second bid would have been 3D. No one I ever played with or will ever play with bids 2D as a "convenience bid" by the way.