Brighton Slams III

[Finch]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak8642hj93d4c765]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣ 2♠

3♣ 4♣

4♦ 4♠

4NT ?[/hv]

 

Uncontested auction

2♣ = game force or 23+ balanced

2♠ = natural positive

you wouldn't splinter over 3♣ without 4-card support

4♦/4♠ cue bids

 

4NT is NOT Blackwood, it is 'encouraging' (good/bad!) showing interest in further things and asking if you have anything else to say.

 

Do you?

 

Your general cue-bidding style is old-fashioned first round controls before second.

[mr1303]

Yes, given that I've denied 1st round diamond control I'll show my second round diamond control. This may be a slight overbid, but if partner has a minor he should only open 2C if he REALLY means it.

[Guest Jlall]

I'd just bid 6C

[hrothgar]

Hi Frances

 

Thanks for posting a number of interesting hands. (More over, thanks for posting a hand where the old BLue Club 4NT bid has cropped up) I certainly think that I have enough extra to show something. However, I'm torn to some extent regarding what that extra should be.

 

On the one hand, I have a distribution Diamond control and small trump to ruff with. I have miserable Hearts, but our cue bidding style has already let partner know about that.

 

On the other hand, I have a six card Spade suit headed by the AK. If partner has Qx in Spades, life is looking quite nice.

 

I'm severely tempted to kick the ball back into partner's court with a 5NT bid. Partner opened 2♣ and then showed a club suit. That shows a very good hand in my neck of the woods. I think that we have a real chance for a grand, however, the key data point would appear to be how well partner's hand meshes with my Spades.

 

Then again, given the real risk that partner and I might be on different wave lengths, a less ambitious bid might be in order.

[Blofeld]

Surely worth another move. I think I just bid 6♣, though. How much worse could we be for that bid?

[hatchett]

5♦. Worth an effort at grand.

[Echognome]

Somewhat of a style issue here. Are their any requirements for 2♠ (like showing 2 out of top 3 honors)? I will assume not in my reply, in which case I will show extras. It is also another style issue of whether 5♦ shows 1st or 1st/2nd round control. Given that partner has already cue'd ♦ and that partner has opened 2♣, I imagine that 2nd round control is fine, and I'd show it by bidding 5♦.

[kenrexford]

Yes, you have something more to show. Not sure how you do it, though. Partner does not know, it seems, that your spades are AK as opposed to AQ, nor about the sixth spade, nor about the stiff diamond.

[han]

It's hard to imagine a grand if partner couldn't bid to slam here. Give partner something as nice as x Axx AKx AKQJxx and we need clubs to split 2-2, I think that's a fairly likely scenario. So I think I will just sign off in 6C.

[han]

Oh, by the way, what would 5S be?

 

(This is separate just to make sure that Frances doesn't bypass me in number of posts, spamming the interesting bridge hand forum like that)

[mikeh]

6♣

 

I have extras... AK of spades, when I might have AQ, and stiff ♦.

 

I am NOT bidding 5♦: I cannot construct a hand on which he has a 4N bid where grand is cold (altho I admit to not having spent much time on it)

[jdonn]

I think this is closer than other people seem to. My trumps are as bad as possible, and it's far from clear the king of spades has much value. I guess 6♣ but it really is close, I feel like I'm overbidding.

 

No WAY 5♦, we are not making a grand if partner isn't even worth a small slam on his own.

[ulven]

It's hard to imagine a grand if partner couldn't bid to slam here. Give partner something as nice as x Axx AKx AKQJxx and we need clubs to split 2-2, I think that's a fairly likely scenario. So I think I will just sign off in 6C.

I disagree with several poster here. I think that partner may well have a hand that was going to 6C no matter what.

 

This is his best way to find out if the grand is worthwhile. Cue-bidding at the 5-level instead of 4NT really cramps things and we are more or less forced to cooperate when he wants us to evaluate our hand on a more general basis.

 

So 5D for me. With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. There is still room for partner now. With a hand that was going to slam anyway, he'll bid 7 now. If he bids anything else, I sign off in 6.

 

Sure partner can go on after 5C with a hand that was going to slam anyway but then we lost the chance to show a diamond control and we may not have come to this conclusion 'in tempo' leaving partner high and dry over 5C.

[Finch]

Oh, by the way, what would 5S be?

 

(This is separate just to make sure that Frances doesn't bypass me in number of posts, spamming the interesting bridge hand forum like that)

5S now would be grand slam force in clubs (5NT spade cue bid).

[Fluffy]

is 4NT forcing or not?

 

If its forcing 5♦ for sure, patner is unlimited and he will hate me if I bid slam when he wanted me to show my hand.

 

If not 6♣ is enough.

[hatchett]

Ulven's point is a good one, partner may intend to go to slam whatever we do over 4NT, so we must bid in that context.

[skjaeran]

It's hard to imagine a grand if partner couldn't bid to slam here. Give partner something as nice as x Axx AKx AKQJxx and we need clubs to split 2-2, I think that's a fairly likely scenario. So I think I will just sign off in 6C.

I disagree with several poster here. I think that partner may well have a hand that was going to 6C no matter what.

 

This is his best way to find out if the grand is worthwhile. Cue-bidding at the 5-level instead of 4NT really cramps things and we are more or less forced to cooperate when he wants us to evaluate our hand on a more general basis.

 

So 5D for me. With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. There is still room for partner now. With a hand that was going to slam anyway, he'll bid 7 now. If he bids anything else, I sign off in 6.

 

Sure partner can go on after 5C with a hand that was going to slam anyway but then we lost the chance to show a diamond control and we may not have come to this conclusion 'in tempo' leaving partner high and dry over 5C.

I agree with this.

[Gerben42]

I will bid 5♣. In the context that I bid a positive 2♠, showed slam interest with 4♣ and cuebid, I have a bad hand after partner's ♦ cue.

[jdonn]

I disagree with several poster here. I think that partner may well have a hand that was going to 6C no matter what.

 

This is his best way to find out if the grand is worthwhile. Cue-bidding at the 5-level instead of 4NT really cramps things and we are more or less forced to cooperate when he wants us to evaluate our hand on a more general basis.

 

So 5D for me. With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. There is still room for partner now. With a hand that was going to slam anyway, he'll bid 7 now. If he bids anything else, I sign off in 6.

 

Sure partner can go on after 5C with a hand that was going to slam anyway but then we lost the chance to show a diamond control and we may not have come to this conclusion 'in tempo' leaving partner high and dry over 5C.

I found this post very interesting. On the surface it seems logical, that partner could utilize the 4NT bid as either of interest in a small slam, or interest in a grand slam. And then you bid 5♦ to cater to the second hand type, figuring partner will just sign off with the first. But there is one problem, or maybe it can be explained better to me. How do you differentiate the fact that you only have grand slam interest opposite his second hand type from a stronger responding hand that has grand slam interest opposite the first hand type? It seems like partner must automatically sign off with a small slam invitational hand so that you realize that is the type of hand he holds, but if you had grand slam interest opposite that sort of hand you will be unable to obtain any useful cooperation. So unless I'm missing something, I think there is a theoretical flaw in this approach.

[Walddk]

As much as I hate to agree with Ulf and Harald for the third time in a day, I am also a 5♦ bidder. We have shown a positive hand with a spade suit (could be weaker even) and club support. Sure there is more to reveal about the hand: the diamond control.

 

Roland

[Impact]

Easy 5D as I have extras and partner showed a minor GF.

 

Agree with Ulf that opener is likely to be looking for grand.

 

BTW I hate this natural style of response to 2C GF....but that is a separate issue, and I cannot help but wonder what my 4D over 3C would have shown....I really like the idea of expressing my hand in 2 bids: the natural S bid and then the splinter over 3C so that then I have said my piece (subject to whetehr my S could be substantially weaker).

 

I am troubled that no one else mentioned the possibility of the splinter over 3C...

 

regards

[benlessard]

i don`t think partner 4nt is showing a limited slam interest (maybe he looking for 6 or 7 all along) so i bid 5♦ keeping grand in the picture. If 4nt is for 5 or 6 then i bid 6♣. I don`think my 5♦ compromise me too much.

 

Ps when i bid 7 i like them to be icy and cold.

[cherdano]

Ulf's point is a good one obviously but on reflection I disagree, in the sense that I prefer 4N to be exactly invitational to 6. With both hands unlimited, I think at some point you just have to make a value bid. (Of course partner is free to fake 4N if he is trying for 7 and exactly the hands that accept a try for 6 will make 7 good but that's his problem.)

If you don't make a value bid at some point, it just seems impossible to me to sort out our overall combined strength.

[jdonn]

Ulf's point is a good one obviously but on reflection I disagree, in the sense that I prefer 4N to be exactly invitational to 6. With both hands unlimited, I think at some point you just have to make a value bid. (Of course partner is free to fake 4N if he is trying for 7 and exactly the hands that accept a try for 6 will make 7 good but that's his problem.)

If you don't make a value bid at some point, it just seems impossible to me to sort out our overall combined strength.

That was a much clearer way of stating what I was trying to say, or ask, above.

[ulven]

This is a matter of cuebidding style and preferences, and everyone picks what suits them best, theorethically sound or not.

 

To my mind, there's no "flaw" as Josh puts it in my reasoning but I don't have the time or will to expound on all aspects of this now, especially the value bid reasoning put forth by cherdano. I'm not ignorant of that and it's not impossible.

 

I don't play 4NT as DI but see no problem in having 4NT as possibly inviting the grand. As for responder's ambitions, quoting myself "With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. " The hand that would seek cooperation for grand vs a hand that invited 6 is very unlikely to have bid 4S the previous bidding round in my methodology. This may sound strange but if we start pouring out example hands, it would be easier to see.

 

"How do you differentiate the fact that you only have grand slam interest opposite his second hand type from a stronger responding hand that has grand slam interest opposite the first hand type?" Exactly what kind of info are you trying to extract at this point? Sometimes someone has to take responsebility for making a decision. We can't kick the ball around at midfield forever. You can always use 5NT after 5D as a way to state that you want to cooperate if partner is looking for grand...