who's fault?

[djehuti]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakxhk10xxdk10xxck2&s=sqxxhaqxxda98xcxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Biding: 1♦ - (3♣) - X - (pass) - 3♥ - (pass) - 4♣ - (pass) - 4♦ - (pass) RKC , 6♥, 2 down.

[pbleighton]

4D may or may not be too optimistic, depending on what your cue-bidding agreements are, but the blame lies with North.

 

3H showed a minimum by South, with a flat 15, no good suit, and one ace he should have signed off in 4H. He has absolutely no business with a slam try.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

With the club king seemingly positioned well and the secondary diamond fit, I don't have a problem with a mild slam try - after all, partner could have held something like xxx, AQxx, AQxxx, x.

 

However, after that the 4C the auction got murky - I don't think South should bid 4D, and even if he does North should sign off in 4H, having made his one try.

[keylime]

South. By cooperating with a slam try they did not limit their hands sufficiently. 3H can be bid on a wide enough assortment of hands and North is definitely entitled to a go.

[mike777]

South...Mr. Roth would never open this hand.

[jvage]

It may depend on style, but unlike most of the previous posters I would blame North 100%. 4♦ is simplest (some would say best) played as a compulsory cuebid. South has already (by only bidding 3♥) limited his hand. 4♣ could be a very strong hand without a diamondcontrol say AKxx, KT9x, QJTx, A. Without A/K of diamonds the 5 level is far from safe, there could be a diamond-ruff or a loser in either major, so with this hand North should pass a 4♥ signoff, while slam is excellent with the actual South hand.

 

Personally I agree with all of South's bids. North's 4♣ was a stretch, but not signing off in 4♥ (showing exactly what he got, a mild slamtry) was a much bigger overbid. A small improvement to his actual choice (but still a big overbid IMO) would be to cuebid 4♠ instead of launching into RKCB.

 

John

[brianshark]

I would automatically cue the ♦A as North made a slam try with an unlimited hand and he may only need controls rather than strength to find a slam. You have to show it. If your methods say that the 4♦ cue here is a slam try itself, then change your methods.

 

The blame lies exclusively with North as he made two slam tries on a hand that is worth only 1. After 4♦, he should sign-off having showed his extra strength and let his partner have a say in proceedings.

 

Edit: Just read jvage's post and I'm in total agreement, including the bit about cueing ♠s.

[jtfanclub]

I think this shows a lack of faith in partner by North.

 

He made what I like to call a 'courtesy slam try', a mild slam attempt below game. After the 4♦ bid, he should be able to bid 4♥ confidently. His partner now knows he had just barely enough to be interested in slam, and will surely continue if he has underbid his hand.

 

I think 4♦ is mandatory. Parter could easily be looking at KQTx of diamonds, and think it looks like 2 losers across 9xxx and 0 losers across A9xx.

[whereagles]

This hand shows 2 things.

 

1. The need to sit down and discuss whether cues show extras or not.

 

2. In lack of agreement, be reasonable. 3♥ shows a min, so slam is at best dubious.

[Apollo81]

I blame the RKC call. 4♣ was enough of a slam try.

[Winstonm]

I am of the opinion that the 4C cue bid is at best a "mild" slam try - the negative double has quite a bit of latitude in points so it is not unreasonable for the doubler to show an extra-stength negative double.

 

In my views, South to this call should not automatically cue bid but voice an opinion on how high to bid - his hand can be minimal but quite shapely and slam oreinted or rather flat and non-slam oriented, and his range is still around 11-14 or so.

 

My style would be for opener to sign off in 4H after the 4C cue - if doubler has a really big hand, he can cue again after the sign off at which point opener must cooperate.

 

So my auction after the double would have been:

3H-4C

4H-P* *Said my all with 4C and respect your opinion.

[gwnn]

I second Brian, and third jvage. I don't think we can afford to make very cathegorical assessments on the nature of 3♥ and 4♣-- there's just not enough room! Opps put us under pressure so we need to be a bit more flexible etc. North could have had a beautiful 8-count for his shape-oriented X, South needing quite a few extras to leap to game (of course this is a matter of partnership agreement). Compared to the beautiful 8-count, North certainly has the extras to make the slam try (ie there are many South hands that make slam sure, but aren't strong to make the 4♥ rebid). But after that North has to show his minimum-ness. So North 100%.

[helene_t]

North 100%. A mild slam try is not unreasonable but with 4♣ he has done enough, he has no reason to ask keycards.

 

I don't think South's 4♦ is an overbid. 3♥ already limited his hand. And with two aces, the queen of trump, and no club vastage, his hand is not as bad as it might have been.

[hotShot]

North has 16 HCP shortness in only 2 ♣ and the K♣ seems well placed.

With combined minimum of 28+ +1, a double fit in the red suits and only 2 looser in the side suits - north definitely has to make a slam try. Unless there is a clear sign off from opener. Now 3♥ may be limited in HCP, but what about shape? With 2452 or 1453 shape from opener slam will make without extra strength from opener. The 3♥ limit might even include an additional Q.

 

The main reason this contract is down, is that N and S have identical distribution pattern and both have minimum for their bids.

 

If 4♣ is a mild slam try, than south has to sign off with 4♥ and 4♦ is an overbid, because it is accepting the slam invitation.

Both players had an active part in this mess and each of then should take half the blame.

[hotShot]

However, after that the 4C the auction got murky - I don't think South should bid 4D, and even if he does North should sign off in 4H, having made his one try.

Why should North stop in 4♥, when south showed ♦ control and North has ♠ control to show?

[gwnn]

I still don't get why 4♣ has to be a "mild slam try". I mean, what if he's über-strong but lacked a good suit to bid it F, and lacked a diamond control?

 

4♣ is a cuebid. It may be a mild slam try, but it may be a very strong hand. Signing off in 4♥ afterwards shows the mildness of the slam try.

 

And I disagree that North would have to show the spade control after 4♦. He knows about it; he only needed to find about his pd's diamond control (this, in the case he's very strong etc). If he's very strong, he'll bid RKC. If he's not that strong, he'll attempt to sign off.

 

There's just not enough room to distinguish between various levels of mildnesses of the slam try.

[hotShot]

south [space]west [space] north [space] [space] east

1[di] [space] [space] [space]3[cl] [space] [space] [space]X [space] [space] [space] pass
3[he] [space] [space] [space]pass [space] 4[cl] [space] [space] [space] pass
4[di] [space] [space] [space]pass ....

 

North X is definitely not promising 16 HCP with his X.

South 3♥ is not unnecessary limited, because it is not sure that north has 4 ♥!

In this hand north holds 4♥ and 3 ♠, but this could be different.

4♣ is forcing showing strength and it is unlimited.

 

South has a minimum opener 12 HCP with 3442 distribution.

What limits did 3♥ set, knowing there might be no fit?

Would you bypass 3NT without a know fit?

I think that 3♥ could show hands from 12-16 HCP, and maybe even stronger, because opps took the whole 1 and 2 level from the bidding and south has to save bidding space.

 

But after 4♣ it is time for south announce the minimum character of his hand.

[helene_t]

I was assuming that 3♥ was non-forcing and hence limited to 14-15 points. Not sure if that treatment is best but I think it's "standard". By implication, both partners must consider bidding 3NT even if a 4-4 fit in a major is possible, because otherwise we risk bypassing 3NT without having found a fit.

[PetteriLem]

I disagree that 3♥ could be wide range. Opener bids game with extra values or good playing strength. I think 4♣ is an optimistic bid, but justified. After 4♦ responder has told his story and should sign off 4♥. I cannot imagine that opener

would pass it, if a small slam has merit.

[jtfanclub]

I still don't get why 4♣ has to be a "mild slam try".

You're right, it's not a mild slam try, it's just a slam try or trying to decide which slam. That's why I think the 4♦ bid is mandatory- North could easily have a huge hand. Once North rebids 4♥, it's clearly just a mild slam try.

 

I think people are overvaluing North's hand. It has at least 6 losers- really more like 7. The hands sound matched to me...given the club bid, the most likely hand my partner has is exactly my hand- 3-4-4-2, so no discards for losing diamonds or spades. If partner has, say, 3-4-5-1, the singleton isn't as useful to me as it could be and the diamonds are unlikely to split 2-2.

 

If his hand was

♠AKx

♥KTxx

♦KTxx

♣Qx

 

I wouldn't even bid 4♣. I'd just bid 4♥. It's that close to having no interest in slam whatsoever.

 

I've shown my hand with 4♣- I really can't be any weaker than I am. Trust partner to go on if he thinks slam is in the air.

[brianshark]

I don't see why an unlimited hand in an auction that lacks space should be making a 'mild slam try' opposite a limited partner. The negative doubler needs plenty of extra values to make slam a possibility, and the limited hand has a narrow range of possible values so can really only answer yes or no. It's hard to put into words... but it seems awfully inefficient.

 

Put another way, to quote the principle of captaincy, the limit hand makes his partner the captain. The captain asks the questions, and the limited hand answers.

 

If the captain of this auction really wants to know if his partner is min or max for his limited bid, he can bid 4♠. Now that all the controls are known to be present, this can only ask for extra strength (as with sufficient strength and knowledge of all controls, he should just bid 4NT right away). So a return to 5♥ shows min and sign's off, else keycard.

 

And as I said, I wouldn't blame a partner for being optimistic and a little pushy if he did that and would consider ourselves fairly unlucky the hands shapes matched so closely meaning 5 goes off.

[inquiry]

Late responding to this one... The obvious wacky bid was 4♦ (RKCB) by a balanced minimum hand. That was, well, faulty, very faulty.... for a lot of reasons. One south really has nothing extra to be making a slam try on himself. Second, if one key card was missing, south wouldn't know if he was off two cashing spades. So I vote South 75% to blame. The other 25% I credit to a system that allows 4♦ be RKCB with agreement in hearts on this auction. 4♣ is a slam try, of course, but it does not promise a club stopper (4♥ would be sign off so how else is north to raise hearts and show slam interest). South just has to either bid 4♦ -- CUE-BID to see if his partner is excited about that (my bid) or bid 4♥ to show minimum values. But 4♦ RKCB is just not a good treatment on this auction imho.

[djehuti]

4 ♦ was just a cue, then 4nt Rkc, from north.

[inquiry]

4 ♦ was just a cue, then 4nt Rkc, from north.

Ahhh... Ok, that changes my response. I am use to seeing the description of a bid written after the bid not before it, so 4♦-4NT (RKCB) would be 4NT as RKCB, but 4♦ (RKCB) 4NT would be a minorwood version of RKCB.

 

Minorwood seemed to make sense, since 4NT would be two key cards no Queen heart reply to it, and 6♥ would be an aggressive but not too odd a continuation. With 4NT as RKCB, the 6♥ reply, instead of the normal response showing keycards is, well, extremely odd, and clearly wrong from the south side of the table. So for 6♥ over 4NT, south will get some blame, as that can hardly be correct.

 

But while I accept the bidding up 4♦, I do not agree with north's very aggressive 4NT over the 4♦ cue bid. He has already made one slam try with 4♣ over 3♥ and south will (as he did) cue-bid 4♦ on a minimum with a control in diamonds. North with his balanced minimum slam try has to bid 4♥ over 4♦. This is not a SIGNOFF, but rather a descriptive bid that shows that he was qualitatively on the minimum of his slam try. South will gladly then pass 4♥ and the slam try had been issued and logically rejected.

 

So I fault North most for his quick resorting to 4NT but south takes some heat for his 6♥ leap. Note, if you play that a 4♦ bid shows EXTRA VALUES in addition to a control, then the blame would fall back to 100% on South, but I prefer the forced cue-bid. Also, if you play 4♦ is LAST TRAIN (you said it was a cue-bid), then again the fault falls back on South entirely.

[HeartA]

South. By cooperating with a slam try they did not limit their hands sufficiently. 3H can be bid on a wide enough assortment of hands and North is definitely entitled to a go.

I concur.