slam?

[pclayton]

I realize that I haven't told yet what happened at the table.

 

My understanding of 3S was as jdonn says: a sound gameforcing hand. I thought I had too much to pass so I bid 4S. Arend bid 5C, I bid 5H and Arend kicked it in, thinking that perhaps all I needed was a diamond control.

 

These were the hands:

 

[hv=d=&v=&n=sh10xxdajxxxcaxxxx&s=sakxhaq97xxdq10xcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Not the worst slam I have been in, but the diamond king was offside and hearts 4-0 onside but I didn't have enough entries to take 3 finesses or trump coup.

 

We have since decided to frivolous 3NT here too. So I would still bit 4C, showing serious extras, partner would cue 4D and I might bid 4H. Arend could pass that, or bid 4S and we would stop in 5H.

Wouldn't 4♦ by Arend be LTTC?

[mike777]

I realize that I haven't told yet what happened at the table.

 

My understanding of 3S was as jdonn says: a sound gameforcing hand. I thought I had too much to pass so I bid 4S. Arend bid 5C, I bid 5H and Arend kicked it in, thinking that perhaps all I needed was a diamond control.

 

These were the hands:

 

[hv=d=&v=&n=sh10xxdajxxxcaxxxx&s=sakxhaq97xxdq10xcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Not the worst slam I have been in, but the diamond king was offside and hearts 4-0 onside but I didn't have enough entries to take 3 finesses or trump coup.

 

We have since decided to frivolous 3NT here too. So I would still bit 4C, showing serious extras, partner would cue 4D and I might bid 4H. Arend could pass that, or bid 4S and we would stop in 5H.

Very tough hand and ty for the post.

 

I see what I expected for partner was just the opposite. I thought he had more hcp and less shape. Instead partner had fewer hcp and more shape. :P

 

2 Bullets and a void is a nice hand.

 

I just wonder if this hand type, 2 outside aces, a void but 3 small trumps is better shown as a 4h bid and a hand with more hcp and less shape is 3spades? Just asking. :)

[jdonn]

Maybe I misunderstand you Phil, what do you mean by 'a little shape'? Maybe an example or two?

x, AQxx, xxxxx, xxx

 

or

 

x, Axx, KJxxx, xxxx

 

Seem right.

I would not bid game on either one, though the second is close. Essentially you should be bidding game on the better limit raises, which neither of these is.

[Impact]

Hannie,

 

FWIW I think that the 3S bid made it harder rather than easier to evaluate your hand.

 

It is not ideal by any means, but I would prefer a fit-jump 4D with Arend's hand as any secondary D honours are working (not to mention the possibility of a double fit).

 

The problem with 3S is that it should be (much) more balanced to allow opener to evaluate wastage/degree of fit. This responding hand with 2 x5 card suits, bare 3 card support but 3 first round controls is always going to be hard to describe - but electing to simply show a generic game-going raise seems to me the least good mechanism. Sometimes with picture -bids you have to make the least bad bid rather than make or wait for the perfect hand.

 

 

It is far from the worst slam to reach (and obviously the presence of the HJ and/or 4th H in dummy would have made it much better) as you noted, and I would not be upset to have reached it. I have a more than sneaking suspicion that I would end up there too- particularly after a FSJ!

Of such matters are stories made.

 

As a matter of style if one hand can try to define/clarify itself, it aids bidding, and my argument against most of modern "standard" bidding is that each expert wants to make the most flexible/cheapest call so that his partner will describe HIS hand and the decisions will be made by the first player. Of course this tends to be both (non-clients') view and then each complains about the other's bidding!

 

In the bad old days, responder might have bid D then C and then over NT gone back to H (if given the room by opponents) to describe the nature of his hand. In the modern game with the real risk of further pre-emption from responder's point of view, a bid which describes at least 8 cards in his hand as well as his strength (and intimating unbalanced) is rather better than a bid which only describes 3 of his cards (and is likely to be relatively balanced!).

 

 

regards,

[han]

Thanks for your comments Impact.

 

4D is an interesting idea, you are right that I had difficulty picturing partner's hand after 3S. However, it has several flaws. One is that he has only 10xx in hearts while we would generally expect better trumps. Another is that his diamonds are not the main feature of his hand to my mind. His clubs are about as good, and his spade void is also a main feature.

 

I think Arend bid it as well as he could (by which I don't mean to sneer at his bridge level). We've discussed the hand a lot and hopefully we'll do better next time. Thanks for your help though.

[Guest Jlall]

I didn't read any of this but I don't like the 3S bid, I would have just bid 4H.

[Impact]

Thanks for your comments Impact.

 

4D is an interesting idea, you are right that I had difficulty picturing partner's hand after 3S. However, it has several flaws. One is that he has only 10xx in hearts while we would generally expect better trumps. Another is that his diamonds are not the main feature of his hand to my mind. His clubs are about as good, and his spade void is also a main feature.

 

I think Arend bid it as well as he could (by which I don't mean to sneer at his bridge level). We've discussed the hand a lot and hopefully we'll do better next time. Thanks for your help though.

Hannie,

 

Why must a fit bid show better trumps than a GF raise?

Both (4m & 3S ) say we are going to at least game and have a primary fit in H. The difference to me is that the jump is far more descriptive (albeit less than ideal on this hand).

 

As I noted the oldstyle bid around the clock with the responding hand is actually the best picture (it gets both suits in, the implied shortage in S and the bare trumps). If you could guarantee me that I would be permitted to complete my sequence as planned (bid C next and then bid 4H later) at 4H that would be a very good description of the hand.

 

However whenever you hold a void in their suit the expectation is of a potential barrage from opponents so it behooves you to define your hand as well as possible. You would prefer to be 0-4-6-3 (or 9 cards in the 2 suits but this is what you were dealt!) but it is the "least bad" bid IMHO and suggests both the source of tricks and allows a forcing pass to be made by either player to suggest fit and bidding on.

 

When you don't have one very good side suit and you own a void, often you will jump in their suit to indicate the void(splinter) but the trump deficiency AND the fact that such bid (4S) already takes you to the 5-level makes that very unsuitable on this hand. If they had bid 1S you would have ahd the chance to bid 3S - but that is the way it goes...pesky opponents!

 

Because partner holds such strong S oppos are less likely to raise the ante, but my suggested sequence is far more informative in a greater number of cases. You pay your money and take your chances but of course just like in the play of the cards there are occasions on which the lesser line succeeds where the greater probability line fails. Such is the charm of the game.

 

It would be interesting to set this as a MSC problem - and I would love the problem D format so that you get the worst of whatever happens ie if you fit-jump there is no competition, if you bid round the clock they bid 4S (and partner may double before you have had a chance to show support or your 2nd suit: do you sit with the void??) - and for the supreme optimist who bids 4S splinter partner is loaded in S!!

 

As I see it, part of the charm in the game is that many problems have no "right" answer, and you can get lucky or unlucky with a chosen method.

However, if you choose the method most likely to give you the best description for strain and level on an expected value basis you are ahead longterm - albeit the individual hand may prove to be a disaster!

 

 

regards

[Halo]

... we have no way to find out how well the hands fit anyway since the 4♣ bid is completely ambiguous (does partner love or hate KQJx of clubs?) Even if we were (unlikely) off AK of diamonds they would have to lead it, so I'm sure not telling them to.

If my partner has shown a strong hand with 3S, and cue bids second round controls, and bids 4H over over 4C then as far as I am concerned he has AKQ of clubs and not KQJ. My 4C may be ambiguous but I would not regard his 4H as ambiguous.

 

I don't see anything wrong with finding out more by bidding 4C.

[jdonn]

... we have no way to find out how well the hands fit anyway since the 4♣ bid is completely ambiguous (does partner love or hate KQJx of clubs?) Even if we were (unlikely) off AK of diamonds they would have to lead it, so I'm sure not telling them to.

If my partner has shown a strong hand with 3S, and cue bids second round controls, and bids 4H over over 4C then as far as I am concerned he has AKQ of clubs and not KQJ. My 4C may be ambiguous but I would not regard his 4H as ambiguous.

 

I don't see anything wrong with finding out more by bidding 4C.

So in other words your partner is bidding 4♦ when he has KQJ of clubs, and then I assume you are bidding on. In which case, how is the 4♣ bid helping you?

[Halo]

... we have no way to find out how well the hands fit anyway since the 4♣ bid is completely ambiguous (does partner love or hate KQJx of clubs?) Even if we were (unlikely) off AK of diamonds they would have to lead it, so I'm sure not telling them to.

If my partner has shown a strong hand with 3S, and cue bids second round controls, and bids 4H over over 4C then as far as I am concerned he has AKQ of clubs and not KQJ. My 4C may be ambiguous but I would not regard his 4H as ambiguous.

 

I don't see anything wrong with finding out more by bidding 4C.

So in other words your partner is bidding 4♦ when he has KQJ of clubs, and then I assume you are bidding on. In which case, how is the 4♣ bid helping you?

If partner has:

 

-

J10xxx

AKxx

KQxx

 

I am not sure how much RKCB helps me. I don't see any hurry for me to bid it - may in fact work better if I create some space for partner to do the asking.

[jdonn]

If partner has:

 

-

J10xxx

AKxx

KQxx

 

I am not sure how much RKCB helps me. I don't see any hurry for me to bid it - may in fact work better if I create some space for partner to do the asking.

So you just want to leave partner more room, ok. But you agree that 4♣ does nothing to help either player determine if the hands fit well or not? That is the point I was trying to make. I bid keycard because I think the hand is worth a drive to slam anyway. People who bid 4♣ seemed to not agree (mostly due to thinking that 3♠ could be weaker than I ever play it is.) I was and still am contending that a 4♣ bid will do almost nothing useful toward finding out whether or not we belong in slam. Countering that by saying 'neither does RKC' is pointless since I have made it clear I am of the opinion that our hand is worth a slam drive so I am not interest in determining if the hands fit well or badly.

[Halo]

So you just want to leave partner more room, ok. But you agree that 4♣ does nothing to help either player determine if the hands fit well or not? That is the point I was trying to make. I bid keycard because I think the hand is worth a drive to slam anyway. People who bid 4♣ seemed to not agree (mostly due to thinking that 3♠ could be weaker than I ever play it is.) I was and still am contending that a 4♣ bid will do almost nothing useful toward finding out whether or not we belong in slam. Countering that by saying 'neither does RKC' is pointless since I have made it clear I am of the opinion that our hand is worth a slam drive so I am not interest in determining if the hands fit well or badly.

Guess we are talking at cross purposes. I wouldn't bid 4C, I would bid 4S over 3S to show the spade control and involve partner in the next stage. I expect partner to be strong. However if I am playing simple arrangements, it does no harm to find out.

 

If partner has taken a view on:

 

-,KJxxx,Kxxx,KQJx

 

he will bid 5H over my 4S and I will respect it as a sign off.

 

If I am given the auction up to and including 4C, then I will pass a 4H response and talk to partner about our methods.

[Fluffy]

I think north's hand is more oriented to compete for game/defence than to try for slam, 3♠ is in my opinion a more balanced sound hand.

 

I would bid 4♦ with Arend's hand to try and help when they bid 4♠.

[han]

Hannie,

 

Why must a fit bid show better trumps than a GF raise?

Because it is our agreement that a fit bid shows 4 trumps. It is possible that one could lie about this but here there are so many other flaws (imo) that I wouldn't do it. Actually, I don't remember either of us ever making a fit-bid with only 10xx support.

 

Obviously we can't have that agreement for 3S, with Kx Kxx AQxx Axxx partner would have no choice but bid 3S. With more room (e.g. 1S-(2H) ) we would be able to distinguish between a 3-card and 4-card raise, here we can't.

[Impact]

OK Fluffy if you ever get to Oz we are on the same page!

 

Hannie, it is a matter of partnership agreement but to restrict fit jumps to 4 card support (unless playing 4 card suit openings) severely restricts your options in competitive situations and the frequency will be way down 9when you know youu have at least an 8 card fit isn't it better to indicate to partner before the acution comes back to you at some stratospheric level?).

 

Once you acknowledge that such is the case with your cue raise you might as well run with it in other situations: more bang for your buck and consistency.

 

regards

[cherdano]

Hannie, it is a matter of partnership agreement but to restrict fit jumps to 4 card support (unless playing 4 card suit openings) severely restricts your options in competitive situations and the frequency will be way down 9when you know youu have at least an 8 card fit isn't it better to indicate to partner before the acution comes back to you at some stratospheric level?).

 

Once you acknowledge that such is the case with your cue raise you might as well run with it in other situations: more bang for your buck and consistency.

If you look what went wrong with our auction (if anything) is that we ended up in a slam despite having trumps that are too bad. A good advertisement for reserving some jumps to show good trumps, isn't it?

[Impact]

Arend, your agreements are your own but

 

a) one hand proves nothing

 

:) adjectival bridge so that you define the bid to mean basically what you hold is very convenient - but not bridge (I'm not accusing you of doing this but favourite treatments with ridiculously low frequency that distort bidding on many other hands, but are spruiked by their procreators for the one time in a blue moon that they occur...)

 

c ) you end up with an omnibus cue-bid in this auction with neither hand defined. and the same basis of supoort which you decry for the fit-jump...

 

d) I premised my comments with the point about "choice of evils" but I preferred - particularly in a competitive auction - to give as much of an indication of the nature of my hand as I could to help partner should the auction - and stakes - escalate. Of course if you were Al Roth, your impeccable judgement would have allowed you to make the most flexible lowest call or even pass confident that you would be better placed on the next round (insert smiley tongue in cheek here) but the rest of us and our partners tend to need help!!

 

FWIW if you maintain your view and agreement as to requirements for fit-jumps, the "round the clock" bidding ie D tehn C then H over a presumed NT bid is the corollary.

 

I noted that such a system is great if you are confident that the opponents will not raise the ante but your hand strongly suggests the opposite.

 

Interestingly if my D were significantly stronger and longer (eg DAKJ9xx) I would be inclined to bid the D and withhold the Txx support - treating it as delayed support only (a bit like the adjustment you make with 74s with good 7 card suits : you treat it as a single-suiter unless partner introduces your 4carder) - but these later points are matters of judgement.

 

regards