Brighton Slams VI

[Finch]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sk5hj642dkqca9654]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ 1♠

1NT 2♦

2♥ 2♠

3♣ 3♠

?[/hv]

 

1♣ then 1NT = 12-14 balanced, 3+ clubs, would have opened 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, raise 1♠ to 2 freely with 3-card support and a low doubleton.

 

2♦ = game forcing checkback

3♣ = natural in context (could be 2434 or 2425), uncertain that NT is the right game.

 

3♠ = at least a mild slam try in spades, asking if you are interested

 

(partner could have bid 3♠ over 2♥ which would pretty much demand a cue bid; also could have shown a single-suited spade slam try with an outside singleton a different way)

[mike777]

4c cue for spades.

[jtfanclub]

Principle of Restricted Range applies here, I think...

 

I've shown 12-14 hcp, balanced, and denied 3 spades (I should think). Within those limitations, my hand's pretty good.

[hatchett]

4♠.... Doesn't look a very good hand to slam for me. My 5 card suit is weak and the ♥J and ♦Q are likely waste paper.

[awm]

I'll cooperate. The spade king is a big card, and it's nice to have club ace rather than (say) king-queen. There is a potential ruffing value in diamonds. I think this hand is much better than, say: xx QJxx KQx KQxx. And 3NT could easily be a disaster (we could be off the whole heart suit, give partner AQJxxx x Axxx Kx, only 14 hcp, and 6♠ is excellent with 3nt possibly failing if hearts don't break).

[Echognome]

I'll cooperate as well. But it would help to know a bit of system. Could partner have forced with good spades earlier in the auction or is this the only way he could bid it? What suit quality would you expect for other action?

[kenrexford]

So many systemic questions here. I'll make some guesses.

 

First, 2♦, per definition, is "GF Checkback." I cannot tell whether you auto-support spades as first priority or bid cheapest major holding of possible interest. I'll assume that 2♥ did not deny three hearts (would bid 2♥ with 3♠/4♥), in which case 2♠ did not promise six of them. Otherwise, unless 1NT is possible as a rebid with a stiff spade (don't know), then 2♠ would have set trumps and cuebidding would have started immediately (possibly with 3♣ as a pattern bid) and all sorts of nuances would now be available.

 

So, it seems that 2♠ simply promised 5+ spades, 3♣ was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3♠ merely natural with extras. Not sure how you contrast this 3♠ call from an immediate 3♠ over 2♥ or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

 

The next problem is methods. You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything. We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

 

So, do I like having a hand with 13 HCP's (a maximum), with a "two without the Queen" response to RKCB? Maybe, if partner has diamonds. But, I don't know how to send that message at this point with your methods.

 

Back way up. This hand is a good reason for a few rules. Had 1NT denied a stiff spade, and had your 2♦ call required a showing of three spades if you had held them, then Responder would have clearly established spades as trumps with his 2♠ call. You would then have two levels of possible pattern bidding and/or cuebidding to resolve all unknowns at a nice, safe level.

 

Maybe you cue 3♦ (not two top spades, not two top clubs, diamond Ace or King), partner cues 3♥ (heart control), you cue 3♠ (one of the top three spades), partner cues 3NT (Serious), you cue 4♣ (club control), partner cues 4♦, and you bid 4♠ (no heart control), sending out a lot of info. That might allow partner comfort at the five-level for some other calls, or someone might make a call that closes the auction down. Whatever.

 

It is very difficult, though, to assess an auction with dozens of unanswered questions, let alone to suggest any solutions.

[han]

Like Ken I wonder about the methods. Did partner have a direct 3S available as a slam try?

 

Anyway, seems I am worth one cuebid, so 4C.

[mikeh]

This depends on style: that is, partner's degree of aggression after 4♣. If I am expected to coperate with even mild interest, then that seems to be what I have. If I am to cooperate only with significant (medium or better) interest, I bid 4♠. As an earlier poster commented, the ♦Q is not very valuable: it's not as if I will be pitching a club or heart loser on his AJx side suit. Compare to Kx Jxxx Kx AQxxx: now that's a hand on which I'd cooperate whether he asked for mild, medium or strong interest.

 

Playing with me, I'd bid 4♠, knowing that 3♠ was available over 2♥.

[jdonn]

To me this seems like bidding 4♦ then giving up unless partner can move. Having shown that I only have a doubleton spade I think this is too good to not try at least once.

 

I don't prefer 4♣ since it just sounds like better clubs than this when I have already shown 5. I don't think partner should assume no control when I skip a long suit, he should just assume a bad suit.

[Fluffy]

Uh?, I also like 4♦ how can I agree with josh? :)

 

Anyway if Frances didn't put it as an option my guess is 4♦ categorically denies ♣A, so it will do.

[ulven]

I'll cooperate at least once. This is a very good hand in the context. I don't share the view that 4C should imply a good/better suit and that 4D doesn't deny a club control.

 

My choice is 4C.

[Finch]

So, it seems that 2♠ simply promised 5+ spades, 3♣ was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3♠ merely natural with extras. Not sure how you contrast this 3♠ call from an immediate 3♠ over 2♥ or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

 

The next problem is methods. You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything. We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

Ummm, I did actually answer some of these questions in the original post.

 

I pointed out that partner could have bid 3S over 2H to show a serious single-suited spade slam try.

 

I also said that partner could have auto-splintered (what you call a self-splinter, I think).

 

3NT over 3S would show a bad hand in context (contract suggestion).

 

You won't usually have a singleton spade having opened 1C (after 1D - 1S - 1NT you might be 1444); exceptionally you might have a singleton spade honour in a 1(43)5 with very poor clubs.

[kenrexford]

So, it seems that 2♠ simply promised 5+ spades, 3♣ was natural and not pattern bidding in the face of any established spade fit, and 3♠ merely natural with extras.  Not sure how you contrast this 3♠ call from an immediate 3♠ over 2♥ or over 1NT, but let's assume that this is the only plausible auction to get across this message.

 

The next problem is methods.  You have not said whether 3NT is a viable contract or is serious/frivolous (let alone your parameters for defining such a bid as frivolous or serious), what cuebidding style you use, whether LTTC is used, or anything.  We know nothing about partner's hand, as no options (6-4 alternatives, self-splinters, etc.) are/were available to him.

Ummm, I did actually answer some of these questions in the original post.

 

I pointed out that partner could have bid 3S over 2H to show a serious single-suited spade slam try.

 

I also said that partner could have auto-splintered (what you call a self-splinter, I think).

 

3NT over 3S would show a bad hand in context (contract suggestion).

 

You won't usually have a singleton spade having opened 1C (after 1D - 1S - 1NT you might be 1444); exceptionally you might have a singleton spade honour in a 1(43)5 with very poor clubs.

Fair point, but I still do not know enough about what the parameters are for exercising the various options, when trump agreement in spades is established, or the cuebidding style.

[Walddk]

The hand is good enough for 4♣. It's too timid to sign off with two keycards and the best possible trump holding. I am content with my approach after

 

4♣ - 4♦

4♠

 

I don't agree with Josh. If you bid 4♦, you deny a club control. Apparently, that is not how you play it, but I think most folks do.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

Uh?, I also like 4♦ how can I agree with josh? :angry:

 

Anyway if Frances didn't put it as an option my guess is 4♦ categorically denies ♣A, so it will do.

It always seems like a shock when someone agrees with me these days. Especially one of the smart people like you ;)

 

I think my idea about 4♣ is useful, it's important for partner to know the quality of our long suit. But of course I won't bypass that bid if partner will think it denies a control.

[skjaeran]

4♣. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

[Walddk]

4♣. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

Take notes people. A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane agreeing. That is not everyday stuff! :angry:

 

Roland

[skjaeran]

4♣. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

Take notes people. A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane agreeing. That is not everyday stuff! :)

 

Roland

Take notes??

It's obviously a sign of the end of the world, I don't think notes will help. :P

[Gerben42]

Easiest of the set I guess. Partner may well be short in ♥, 4♣.

[Impact]

Straightforward as all prime with the exception of HJ and shape limitations/range shown already.

 

Add one Oz to the multilateral international force...4C.

 

regards

[benlessard]

4♣ what else ?

 

I just dont understand what is the problem ? any bid other then 4♣ deserve 0pts IMO

[Finch]

Well, I thought this hand was interesting not least as a matter of partnership philosophy. You don't have to be playing our methods to get to a similar position: you show a fairly specific hand (12-14 balanced, uncertain that NT is going to be best, 4+ clubs, 4 hearts, doubleton spade) and partner shows a fairly specific type of slam try (6-card suit, but not a strong single-suiter and not a spade slam try with an outside singleton).

 

Mikeh put this well: "This depends on style: that is, partner's degree of aggression after 4C. If I am expected to coperate with even mild interest, then that seems to be what I have. If I am to cooperate only with significant (medium or better) interest, I bid 4S".

 

If you haven't discussed this type of style question with your partner, it's worth doing. It's another version of the invite heavy/accept light or invite light/accept heavy debate.

 

There's also a question of evaluation - the replies here vary from "doesn't look like a good hand for slam" to "don't understand the problem any other bid than 4C deserves 0 pts"

 

I thought this was tough at the table. Bad features of the hand: the DQ is probably useless, there aren't any heart pips, you have no ruffing value. Good feature of the hand: two key cards for spades. You've already shown positive interest in playing a suit contract when you bid 3C (rather than 2/3 NT), so partner probably already expects a spade honour. You could be much better (K10 K10xx xx AK10xx is close to a slam force now); you could also be worse.

 

Anyway, I thought that in the context of the auction so far - in particular having bid 3C over 2S - that I didn't really have anything much extra and signed off. As it happens, even if you move with 4C over 3S you will probably give up a round later; after 4C - 4D - 4S partner will probably feel he has done enough if we can't move again - and I don't think we can.

 

Partner has

 

AJ8xxx

A10

Ax

KJx

 

and as you can see, slam is not great, particularly on a heart lead, but is certainly playable. As it happens spades play for no loser and the board was flat in 680.

[jdonn]

I think this hand demonstrates my point about 4♣. Playing it as promising a good suit allows you to bid 6♣ when responder has this hand and it is right, in fact with what I feel 4♣ "should" mean, responder could just bid 6♣ over 4♣. But of course I am proven in the minority given the comments.

 

That isn't my reasoning for what the bids mean to me (it's more so partner can evaluate say Qx or xx) but seeing responder's hand reminded me of it.

[kenrexford]

I think this hand demonstrates my point about 4♣. Playing it as promising a good suit allows you to bid 6♣ when responder has this hand and it is right, in fact with what I feel 4♣ "should" mean, responder could just bid 6♣ over 4♣. But of course I am proven in the minority given the comments.

 

That isn't my reasoning for what the bids mean to me (it's more so partner can evaluate say Qx or xx) but seeing responder's hand reminded me of it.

Ditto that.

 

As it is, a heart lead converts this slam to really bad. You need both finesses to work, and a 3-2 split.

 

Change the clubs to the AQxxx, and get rid of the heart Jack, and some would open this 1NT (I would). Some would not, though. For those who would not, 6♣ is now much better, as you only need a 3-2 spade split (or a stiff spade Queen, or the stiff spade with only two clubs).