Staying out of slam

[MickyB]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saxhaqxxxdxxxcaxx&s=skxxhkdakqjcqxxxx]133|200|Scoring: Total Points

Honours count. Two decent players in a pick-up partnership. Mixed cues, 1430. 2♠ was needed to remove ambiguity, standard in England is for 3♣ over 2♦ to be NF. Any comments?

 

1♣:1♥

2♦:2♠

2NT:3♣

3NT:4♣

4♦:4♥

4♠:5NT

6♣: P[/hv]

[kenrexford]

Well, first of all, if this is a highly empathetic system, where each person bids what he thinks his partner should bid, this is an amazingly accurate auction. However, I'm guessing that the actual dealer is South.

 

Either way, the auction seems plausible, using light-version reversing style. If 3NT after 3♣ is meant systemically as a "slow down Henry" bid, that looks about right.

 

If 4♣ shows continuing interest and a top club, 4♦ renewed interest and two of the top three diamonds, 4♥ two of the top three hearts, and 4♠ first-or-second round control of spades, this sequence seems fairly good through this point as well.

 

It also seems possible (not sure here) that 4♠ was RKCB for clubs (a good idea), whoich would be my preference.

 

In either event, however, 5NT boggles me.

 

If 4♠ was RKCB for clubs, North(?) has a clear 4NT (0/3) answer, not 5NT. If 4♠ was a cuebid, North has a 4NT call as well (Clubs Last Train), seeking "more stuff." 5NT is unknown to me, unless this is a strange Quantitative bid.

 

All that said, it seems fairly difficult to stop at even 5NT because you do not know about the club Jack, Ten, and Nine, and even Eight. A98xx opposite Q10x is a fairly sound slam. A9xxx opposite Q10x is fairly good also. I doubt anyone can work that out.

 

So, other than a big "duh?" after 5NT, looks fairly good to me, just unfortunate.

[MikeRJ]

I think over 3NT I would bid a natural 4NT rather than 4C. Opener with such weak Clubs might well pass.

 

Mike

[jdonn]

I think 3NT was wrong with such weak spades (3♦ looks better) but really didn't contribute to reaching the bad slam, 4♣ was too commital to clubs (I agree with the last poster 4NT is better), and 5NT was a wild overbid having already shown a lot. Overall I think 4♣ is the bid most to blame, it compelled south to do a lot of cuebidding since it looked like north had better support (eg. AKxx) so the weak trumps didn't seem like an issue.

[mike777]

I must admit I would end up in 6nt or 6c, not staying out of slam here.

 

If you can stay out of slam with 32 hcp and an 8 card fit, very well done.

[cherdano]

Anybody vote for 2N instead of 2♦? 2N is not pretty, but 2♦ is very ugly with such weak clubs. I am not sure what I prefer, actually.

[mike777]

AGree ugly clubs and hate to reverse with this hand if I must.

 

If I have a way to show 18-19 balanced I would do it, but I think that just gets me to 6nt not 6clubs. I would force to 6nt now with the north hand, not invite with 4nt.

 

congrats to those who just bid 4nt invite with that north hand.

[foo]

North,N/S,Total Points,

♠Ax♥AQxxx♦xxx♣Axx

+

♠Kxx♥K♦AKQJ♣Qxxxx

Honours count. Two decent players in a pick-up partnership. Mixed cues, 1430. 2♠ was needed to remove ambiguity, standard in England is for 3♣ over 2♦ to be NF. Any comments?

 

S...N

1♣:1♥

2♦:2♠

2N:3♣

3N:4♣

4♦:4♥

4♠:5N

6♣: ap

IMHO, the proper bid by Responder after 4S is 4N "OK, I've told my story".

 

Since Opener has nothing extra either, they should choose either 4N or 5C To Play.

[mike777]

North,N/S,Total Points,

♠Ax♥AQxxx♦xxx♣Axx

+

♠Kxx♥K♦AKQJ♣Qxxxx

Honours count. Two decent players in a pick-up partnership. Mixed cues, 1430. 2♠ was needed to remove ambiguity, standard in England is for 3♣ over 2♦ to be NF. Any comments?

 

S...N

1♣:1♥

2♦:2♠

2N:3♣

3N:4♣

4♦:4♥

4♠:5N

6♣: ap

IMHO, the proper bid by Responder after 4S is 4N "OK, I've told my story".

 

Since Opener has nothing extra either, they should choose either 4N or 5C To Play.

geez if 4nt told your story, wow......I have no idea how to stay out of slam after 4s on this auction....4nt invite seems way to weak. Par tner reversed for pete sake and cuebid....you have a giant hand. Reverse is not some random 16 hcp.

The last thing I am worried about after my partner reverses is missing a slam I do not want to miss a grand. Game would never be an option for me here.

 

Let me repeat that after this auction up to 4s...game is never never an option!!!!!!!!1

[foo]

Responder has

a= shown GF values

b= implied 5 ♥'s or 44 ♠+♥

c= shown ♣ support

d= shown all his A's

 

A???.A????.???.A???

 

What is there left for Responder to say? I certainly don't see anything else.

 

Yes, Responder's hand is great for this auction. But even great hands have a limited story to tell.

 

 

The original auction ended up in a ~34% contract. Clearly something needs to be different about the auction if this result is to be avoided in the future.

 

Everything up to 5N by Responder is eminently rational. But there was irrational result.

Therefore 5N by Responder is a bid that looks suspicious.

[mike777]

Responder has

a= shown GF values

b= implied 5 ♥'s or 44 ♠+♥

c= shown ♣ support

d= shown all his A's

 

A???.A????.???.A???

 

What is there left for Responder to say?  I certainly don't see anything else.

 

Yes, Responder's hand is great.  But even great hands have a limited story to tell.

1) first off no, great hands never have a limited story, that is why they are great.

2) I repeat if you can stay out of any any slam after 4s on this auction, wow, it would never enter my mind. I am more concerned with missing 7 than playing in 5.

3) perhaps most important I do not think I have shown all of my hand at 4s point of the bidding. I could have less.

[foo]

Perhaps the issue here is that our approaches are different. I describe my hand and let pd figure out where We belong when I don't know enough to seize Captaincy. I don't worry about "missing ___". That's for the Captain of the auction to figure out.

 

Once my hand is more limited or more precisely described than pd's, pd is Captain.

And Captain makes the decisions.

 

I've shown A???.A????.???.A???. My actual hand is Ax.AQxx.xxx.Axx.

 

Unless you know a way for me to say something like "I'm =2533 w/ the ♥Q", I really don't have anything else to say to pd. It should now be up to pd what to do next.

 

There are both stronger and more shapely hands where I would feel that I had not yet told my story. This is not one of them.

 

EDIT: Some things that would make me feel I had more to say

a= Having 4 card support for pd. (-1 D +1 C makes the OP Responder much better.)

(Axxx+Qxxxx plays for 1- losers ~89% of the time vs ~34% for Axx+Qxxxx)

b= Lower loser count in general.

c= Being a trick stronger than what I've shown so far.

[P_Marlowe]

bad luck, usually key cards helps to identify

the poor tump suit, but add the Jack of clubs

or the 109 of clubs and the slam is +50%,

please dont comment on the number in case

I got it wrong, dont shadder my selfconfidence ...

 

The bidding would have gone the same.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

bad luck, usually key cards helps to identify

the poor tump suit, but add the Jack of clubs

or the 109 of clubs and the slam is +50%,

please dont comment on the number in case

I got it wrong, dont shadder my selfconfidence ...

 

The bidding would have gone the same.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

100 % agree

 

anybody who blames this pair to stay out of a slam has a tool to find out about the jacks or has too manys 5 ♣ + 1 on his scorecard.

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saxhaqxxxdxxxcaxx&s=skxxhkdakqjcqxxxx]133|200|Scoring: Total Points

Honours count. Two decent players in a pick-up partnership. Mixed cues, 1430. 2♠ was needed to remove ambiguity, standard in England is for 3♣ over 2♦ to be NF. Any comments?

 

1♣:1♥

2♦:2♠

2NT:3♣

3NT:4♣

4♦:4♥

4♠:5NT

6♣: P[/hv]

I might rebid an offshape 2nt here because of the poor club suit and stiff HK, then it's rather

straightforward:

1C 1H

2N 3D(transfer, gf)

3N(no 3H or 4S) 4N(invitation)

pass, (seems an easy pass and 4nt can be high sometimes)

 

If I decide to reverse:

1C 1H

2D 2S(gf, extra length in H in our agreement)

2N(natural) 3C(natural)

3D(trunky diamonds, can't be 5-6 here) 3S(cue)

3N(very minimum, can't bypass 3N) 4H(cue, a slam try, 4D rkc can be ok, but slam try rates to be better than rkc, cause your club isn't very good either, the one with CJ should initialize it:), also 4H should show exact 3 clubs cause if you hold 4 clubs, you want to bid 4C to show it )

4N(let's play 4NT, since club is only 5-3 fit and my club sucks big time...) pass

[mike777]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saxhaqxxxdxxxcaxx&s=skxxhkdakqjcqxxxx]133|200|Scoring: Total Points

Honours count. Two decent players in a pick-up partnership. Mixed cues, 1430. 2♠ was needed to remove ambiguity, standard in England is for 3♣ over 2♦ to be NF. Any comments?

 

1♣:1♥

2♦:2♠

2NT:3♣

3NT:4♣

4♦:4♥

4♠:5NT

6♣: P[/hv]

I might rebid an offshape 2nt here because of the poor club suit and stiff HK, then it's rather

straightforward:

1C 1H

2N 3D(transfer, gf)

3N(no 3H or 4S) 4N(invitation)

pass, (seems an easy pass and 4nt can be high sometimes)

 

If I decide to reverse:

1C 1H

2D 2S(gf, extra length in H in our agreement)

2N(natural) 3C(natural)

3D(trunky diamonds, can't be 5-6 here) 3S(cue)

3N(very minimum, can't bypass 3N) 4H(cue, a slam try, 4D rkc can be ok, but slam try rates to be better than rkc, cause your club isn't very good either, the one with CJ should initialize it:), also 4H should show exact 3 clubs cause if you hold 4 clubs, you want to bid 4C to show it )

4N(let's play 4NT, since club is only 5-3 fit and my club sucks big time...) pass

You guys make statements such as 4nt is straightforward but why?

Partner shows 18-19 hcp

We have a very nice 14 hcp with a 5 card suit.

Why is 4nt STRAIGHTFORWARD?

[Fluffy]

I don't like a 2NT rebid wih singleton on partner's suit, you will sometimes end up playing 5-1 contracts.

 

maybe open 1♦ and rebid 2/3♣?

[whereagles]

Once my hand is more limited or more precisely described than pd's, pd is Captain. And Captain makes the decisions.

This is isn't the best approach. Systems should strive to make the stronger hand capitain, not the unlimited one.

 

As for the auction, seems like 4♣ was a bit on the optimistic side. Opener's 3NT clearly says "my reverse is lousy for playing a slam". After 4♣ there's no turning back.

 

Still, the slam is quite playable.

[Free]

I wouldn't be able to stay out of this slam...

[david_c]

You might wonder what would have happened if the first few bids had gone differently, but I think once the cue-bidding starts it would be a mistake for North to do anything less than force to slam on this auction.

[kenrexford]

Once my hand is more limited or more precisely described than pd's, pd is Captain. And Captain makes the decisions.

This is isn't the best approach. Systems should strive to make the stronger hand capitain, not the unlimited one.

 

As for the auction, seems like 4♣ was a bit on the optimistic side. Opener's 3NT clearly says "my reverse is lousy for playing a slam". After 4♣ there's no turning back.

 

Still, the slam is quite playable.

Actually, I think that systems should not "make" the stronger hand the captain or pre-define anyone as the captain at all.

 

The "captain" should be a flexible concept very often, with the person having sufficient information to commit becoming captain only when the information exchange justifies his grasping of that position.

 

If the strong hand can completely describe his hand, or can describe all relevant aspects of his hand, and if the weaker hand has the critical unknown, then certainly the weaker hand should grab captaincy.

 

Not that this deal provides proof of that concept. It just seems that bidding acumen goes through stages. First, everyone bids their own hand (hopefully accurately). Then, the partnership decides upon the need for captaincy and defines the rules for deciding who is captain. Then, the partnership gets really advanced and allows that captaincy issue to resolve itself on a case-by-case basis.

[whereagles]

ken, the problem with your flexible approach is

 

1. in the vast majority of cases, the strong hand is better positioned to make decisions

 

and

 

2. you'll have a really hard time coming up with rules as to who is capitain and when.

[kenrexford]

ken, the problem with your flexible approach is

 

1. in the vast majority of cases, the strong hand is better positioned to make decisions

 

and

 

2. you'll have a really hard time coming up with rules as to who is capitain and when.

It is not as difficult as you think.

 

Adding in Serious 3NT and LTTC helps, of course. As do Picture Jumps.

 

Granted, the stronger hand usually wants to be and should be captain. However, that is far from clear. A simple example of bouncing captaincy in that context might be a strong 1NT opening. The assumption, strangely, is that Responder, who is expected to be weaker, is the presumed captain, because Opener has the more defined hand. However, Opener might become captain, in a sense, after a super-accept of a transfer, or after a mild slam try, or something like that.

[Fluffy]

My rule is responder is always captain when it is non competitive auction (freak hands are exceptions).

 

That means opener is very rigid, he doesn't raise on 3 cards, nor does he show unbalanced with balanced.

[MickyB]

Yup it seems difficult to stay out, even if I rebid 2NT instead of 2♦.

 

FWIW, the other table passed 3NT on the same auction. Seems pessimistic to me.