You make a gametry...

[kfay]

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

P-1♥

2♥-3♣

4♥-?[/hv]

 

Planning on bidding game anyways you make a gametry with 3♣ and partner responds.

 

What's your plan here? If you bid 4NT partner will eventually show 1KC without the queen.

 

If you play 6-keycard blackwood, does it apply here?

[rogerclee]

This hand is a monster. Even if partner responds 0 keycards, if he has the heart Q, we're probably in business.

 

I bid 3014 or kickback and only stop in 5H if partner denies both the HQ and a keycard. Note that we could still be on even without these cards, but I'm not really willing to risk it. I need to pick up hearts and play clubs for no losers, which seems marginally worse than 50-50. Edit: Actually, seems significantly worse than 50-50.

 

As a side note, a good reason to not play 6-card KC is precisely this. You need to be on very firm ground as to when it's on and when it's off.

[pclayton]

I'd pass. Are we safe at the 5 level? Not even close. I expect pard to accept on a hand like: ♠Qxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣Kxx

 

By the way, I hate bids like pard's 4♥. What is the rush about bidding game here?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

If I bid 4NT and hear 1 KC, I will bid 6H.

If I play standard, i.e. 2H is 6-9, I pass

4H, because 4H may just show max..

 

If I play constructive raises, I will most

likely bid 4 NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Apollo81]

While this is a great hand, I think that there will be more hands on which partner accepts where slam is bad than where slam is good. I think we really need partner to have a suitable hand with 4-card support before I want to be in slam. Even reasonable slams will probably go down if clubs break badly. Thus I wouldn't have bothered with the game try, would just have bid 4♥.

[Halo]

Pass

 

If we have slam I expect to hear something other than 4H from partner.

[ArtK78]

This is a difficult hand to bid precisely.

 

You need three things:

 

1) The spade Ace

2) The heart queen, or 4 hearts, or the ♥Q coming down in the first two rounds.

3) Sonething useful in clubs in partner's hand.

 

Even if partner has the ♠A and the ♥Q, you will have no play for slam if he has three low clubs.

 

Partner bid game over my 3♣ game try. While that does not guarantee something useful in clubs, it certainly doesn't deny it, either.

 

I would bid RKCB (this is not a two-suit 6 key card situation). If partner has the ♠A and the ♥Q I will risk bidding the slam.

 

Yes, there is a risk that even 5♥ might be too high, but I will take that chance.

[han]

Partner would not bid 4♥ with ♠A, ♥Q and ♣K or ♣QJ. While it is still possible that slam is decent, I would pass now.

[mike777]

edit...

[jdonn]

By the way, I hate bids like pard's 4♥. What is the rush about bidding game here?

There's nothing to hate IMO as long as it's understood what it shows. To me it is either of

 

a maximum that doesn't have a great club holding but wants to play game regardless (Kxxx Qxx Kxxx xx)

or

a minimum that upgrades to a game bid strictly because of the club holding (xxx Txx Qxxx KQx, Axxx xxx xxxx Kx)

 

In neither case do I want to be in a grand, but in the second case I'm (barely) willing to chance a small slam. So I bid 5♣ describing my hand type, which should encourage partner with a great club holding but discourage him with cards in other suits like my first example. I try to avoid bids like this deny controls in spades, for example, but rather are just indicative of my hand type.

 

I haven't closely read the other replies so hopefully what I'm about to say is moot. But I think if anyone bids keycard here that is terrible to the nth degree. Kx of clubs in partners hand is probably two tricks more valuable than the ace of spades would be. This hand is not about keycards.

[kenrexford]

What do you do if partner makes a call that might have a specialized meaning that is not known to us? Or, maybe 4♥ was just stupid and lazy?

 

I have no idea. Guess, and then discuss.

[han]

I agree with Josh that 5C is clearly the right move towards slam if you make one, keycards is awful. But I think that trying for slam is a tad too much.

[han]

What do you do if partner makes a call that might have a specialized meaning that is not known to us? Or, maybe 4♥ was just stupid and lazy?

 

I have no idea. Guess, and then discuss.

Without discussion it cannot be anything but "enough for game but unsuitable for slam".

[kenrexford]

What do you do if partner makes a call that might have a specialized meaning that is not known to us?  Or, maybe 4♥ was just stupid and lazy?

 

I have no idea.  Guess, and then discuss.

Without discussion it cannot be anything but "enough for game but unsuitable for slam".

Well, that for me is both rounded Queens, and maybe a doubleton somewhere. I pass.

[mike777]

Partner does not have both the A of S and K of clubs.

Partner does not have KQx(x) of clubs.

[kfay]

I definitely thought there would be some more moves towards slam, just a question of how to do it intelligently.

 

Is there disagreement about 3♣? Didn't we bid that and intend to just bid 4♥ over 3♥? I don't see how the response can be so terrible as to disillusion us about slam when we were going to bid game anyways without any sort of acceptance.

 

Is this just a question of 'what does partner have for 4♥?' that makes people wary? I fail to see how the hand has become so much worse than I'm just deciding to pass 4♥.

[mike777]

I definitely thought there would be some more moves towards slam, just a question of how to do it intelligently.

 

Is there disagreement about 3♣? Didn't we bid that and intend to just bid 4♥ over 3♥? I don't see how the response can be so terrible as to disillusion us about slam when we were going to bid game anyways without any sort of acceptance.

 

Is this just a question of 'what does partner have for 4♥?' that makes people wary? I fail to see how the hand has become so much worse than I'm just deciding to pass 4♥.

What do you think partner has? We know what she does not have.

[han]

Is this just a question of 'what does partner have for 4♥?' that makes people wary? I fail to see how the hand has become so much worse than I'm just deciding to pass 4♥.

The reason to bid 3♣ is that you were hoping for slam. If partner had cuebid 3♠ or 4♣ (!) then that would have been good. Partner did not do that. So partner does not have a hand that warrants a cuebid.

 

Without agreements to the contrary 3♣ could be either a game-try or a slam try. Partner would cooperate with the slam try with a suitable hand. So partner does not have a suitable hand.

[jdonn]

Without agreements to the contrary 3♣ could be either a game-try or a slam try. Partner would cooperate with the slam try with a suitable hand. So partner does not have a suitable hand.

Right but some slam tries you need partner to make a (potential) slam try in return, others you only need him to show he was good enough to accept if you had a game try. So the question is, which is this hand? I think the second kind, but I admit it's a close decision and potentially I could be swayed.

[ArtK78]

This is very interesting.

 

Here is a hand that would REJECT a game try of 3♣:

 

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

 

A minimum 2♥ response (except for the fourth heart). Doubleton small may be one of the worst holdings opposite a long suit (natural) game try.

 

And, of course, slam is virtually cold.

 

Now, what hand would accept a game try but not cuebid in response to the game try? Perhaps that is the wrong question. What is the meaning of a new suit bid over a game try? We have had this discussion before. Some play it as an advanced cue bid in case opener's 3♣ bid was a slam try and not a game try, and others play it as a "responsive game try" - I cannot accept your game try, but I have values in this other suit. Clearly, that does not apply to a 3♠ bid, since it is beyond 3♥. So a 3♠ bid is clearly a cue bid. But does the failure to bid 3♠ deny the ♠A? And does the failure to bid 4♣ deny second round control in clubs?

 

These are all legitimate questions. If your partner would always bid 3♠ with an acceptance which includes the ♠A, or, failing that, he would always bid 4♣ with an acceptance which includes the ♣K, then you have an easy pass of 4♥. But if you have a partner who may be a little lazy (and even some very good partners might not think to do anything but accept the game invitation), you might be a little uneasy passing 4♥.

[kfay]

Partner is a passed hand and we're opening 3rd seat... maybe he is supposed to cuebid on:

 

[hv=s=sxxxhqxxxdxxxckjx]133|100|[/hv]

 

but can we blame him if he doesn't? He probably thinks he's making a stab at game.

[mike777]

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam? Partner may have a hand that goes down in 5?

 

 

Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes. :rolleyes:

[pclayton]

This is very interesting.

 

Here is a hand that would REJECT a game try of 3♣:

 

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

 

A minimum 2♥ response (except for the fourth heart). Doubleton small may be one of the worst holdings opposite a long suit (natural) game try.

 

And, of course, slam is virtually cold.

 

Now, what hand would accept a game try but not cuebid in response to the game try? Perhaps that is the wrong question. What is the meaning of a new suit bid over a game try? We have had this discussion before. Some play it as an advanced cue bid in case opener's 3♣ bid was a slam try and not a game try, and others play it as a "responsive game try" - I cannot accept your game try, but I have values in this other suit. Clearly, that does not apply to a 3♠ bid, since it is beyond 3♥. So a 3♠ bid is clearly a cue bid. But does the failure to bid 3♠ deny the ♠A? And does the failure to bid 4♣ deny second round control in clubs?

 

These are all legitimate questions. If your partner would always bid 3♠ with an acceptance which includes the ♠A, or, failing that, he would always bid 4♣ with an acceptance which includes the ♣K, then you have an easy pass of 4♥. But if you have a partner who may be a little lazy (and even some very good partners might not think to do anything but accept the game invitation), you might be a little uneasy passing 4♥.

Why would this hand reject a game try? It has 2 cover cards, 4 trump and a useful doubleton.

 

I see your point about certain hands being poor for game and useful for slam however.

[kfay]

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam?

Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes. :rolleyes:

Are you kidding me? If you think this hand is about HCP then you've missed the boat.

 

 

Edit:

Thinking that bidding 21-some-odd point slams is for the Aces is precisely the mentality that DOES lose bridge matches... to a certain extent.

 

If you're thinking about this hand in terms of HCP then I think that is just wrong.

 

I should say that I'm not saying this hand is a must drive to slam... if I did I wouldn't have posted it. I am, however, fairly surprised that so many think that it just warrants a pass. Although I do see a good point if partner has 3 small clubs and some random max without the ♠A.

[pclayton]

By the way, I hate bids like pard's 4♥. What is the rush about bidding game here?

There's nothing to hate IMO as long as it's understood what it shows. To me it is either of

 

a maximum that doesn't have a great club holding but wants to play game regardless (Kxxx Qxx Kxxx xx)

or

a minimum that upgrades to a game bid strictly because of the club holding (xxx Txx Qxxx KQx, Axxx xxx xxxx Kx)

 

In neither case do I want to be in a grand, but in the second case I'm (barely) willing to chance a small slam. So I bid 5♣ describing my hand type, which should encourage partner with a great club holding but discourage him with cards in other suits like my first example. I try to avoid bids like this deny controls in spades, for example, but rather are just indicative of my hand type.

 

I haven't closely read the other replies so hopefully what I'm about to say is moot. But I think if anyone bids keycard here that is terrible to the nth degree. Kx of clubs in partners hand is probably two tricks more valuable than the ace of spades would be. This hand is not about keycards.

Perhaps it should be:

 

"no top honor in clubs (or shortness) and intermediates in the other suits".

 

Another useful definition could be picturesque:

 

"no A/K, s/v in ♠/♦, but at least two covers in ♥/♣".