You make a gametry...

[mike777]

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.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

 

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post. :)

[pclayton]

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.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

 

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post. :)

Mike if you don't think missing a cold slam is "losing bridge", then what is?

[mike777]

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.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

 

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post. :)

Mike if you don't think missing a cold slam is "losing bridge", then what is?

Sigh slam was not cold with his, Kfay, example, yes or did I miss something?

[jdonn]

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post. :rolleyes:

If you miss a good slam on this hand, that is losing bridge. If you misplay the next hand, that is also losing bridge.

[jdonn]

This is very interesting.

 

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

 

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

YEEGADS! Miss a lot of games do we?

[mike777]

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these types of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

 

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

[joshs]

[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?

Personally, I play 1M-2M-Jump Shift as a side 5 bagger that is interested in slam, so that partner will evaluate cards in my suits, and aces, but nothing else. If you have a 5431 or a 6331 hand interested in slam you can start slowly and see what partner does (unless you play some kind of 2 way tries that includes a short suit try).

[P_Marlowe]

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these type of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

 

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

Other things are much more important.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

It might've worked better to try 3♠ over 2♥ (splinter). This has the nice effect that:

 

(1) Partner will sign off with wasted spade values, which we should want. Something like:

 

♠KJx

♥Qxx

♦xxxx

♣Kxx

 

Probably accepts a club game try, doesn't offer any real play for slam, and might go down at the five level on a bad day.

 

(2) Partner will cue 4♣ on a nice hand with the club king and not much in spades. This is the hand where slam really starts to look good! Making the "game try" of 3♣ doesn't distinguish between hands with the club king and hands like:

 

♠xxxx

♥Qxxx

♦Kx

♣Qxx

 

Again I think this is an accept of club game try, but even 5♥ is on a finesse.

 

After the 3♠ splinter, which is clearly a slam try, we can pass 4♥ from partner, sign off over 4♦ from partner (wasted diamond value and no club king hurts our chances a lot) and push hard for slam over a 4♣ cuebid.

[jdonn]

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these types of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

 

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

Mike you have a truly annoying habit of saying "are forum posters saying" or "if you are saying .... then ok" and then making a statement that absolutely no one has said.

 

Regarding what you actually DID say, if you make the claim "missing slams like this (if there is one) is not the main reason I lose at bridge" then you are probably right but so what? It is still a reason even if it's not the biggest reason. You would do better if you bid hands like this better, and thus lose less often, whether it's the main reason you lose or not. Bidding slams that are light in strength and declaring hands better are not mutually exclusive. Best is to improve at both!

[mikeh]

Late to the thread.

 

Josh posits a hand for partner that includes the ♠A and the ♣K. Josh and I have never played and may never play together, but I would be surprised if he ever bid 4♥ with the hand he suggested: surely every good player bids 3♠, on the way to 4♥? How can that be wrong, with 2 key working cards? Wouldn't we be bidding the same 3♣ with x AKQxxx A Axxxx?

 

As it is, I have a borderline decision over 4♥, since there are hands on which the 5 level is not safe: KJx xxx xxxx QJx is a hand on which I'd like partner to accept my game try (imagine me with Qx AKJxxx x A10xx).

 

I think, on balance, I'd pass 4♥ because the range of hands on which the opps have not bid spades and we have a good slam are less, I think, than the range of hands on which 5♥ fails. Bear in mind that the opps will often hold 9 spades here, and this suggests that partner has some wastage, as well as by no means assuring us of no club losers.

 

I love bidding slams. But I can't quite bring myself to go hunting for this one.

 

As for Mike's last post, what I would prefer to teach advanced players (and bright intermediates) is to downplay the importance of counting points and to start to understand that location of values is at least as important, in constructive auctions, as number of values. I'd try to get them to engage in second-level thinking, and then tertiary thinking, as opposed to the 'count the points' primary thinking we all start with. And this applies to ALL constructive bidding, not just slams.

[foo]

This is very interesting.

 

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

 

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

YEEGADS! Miss a lot of games do we?

IMHO you are being a bit harsh Josh.

 

Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks.

It's only real positive is the 4 card support. But since we are a Passed Hand, Opener may have only 4 ♥'s rather than the 5 we would expect in 1st or 2nd chair. The 44 fit does not tend to play better than the 54 fit B)

 

(In fact, if Opener =does= have 5 ♥'s, I'd much rather that I had xxxx in ♥'s and QTxx in ♦'s)

 

If Opener has some indifferent 6 loser hand with 16-17 HCP or the playing strength equivalent for their game try, I submit that the percentage action is not to be in game.

[whereagles]

I don't have a clue what pard might have for his 4♥, so I'll just press on with 5♣. Hope this gets the message through.

[jdonn]

Mike I agree my second example was hasty and should bid 3♠. K of spades not the A would be a better example, which would get me to 5 which could go down. Or Qxx of hearts and Kx of clubs, which could be a fair slam depending what partner's second highest heart is.

 

Foo, sigh...

 

First of all, your post has a lot of redundancy. "Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks." is about 5 statements that say about 2 things. I understand that it's a 6 count with no shortness. On the other hand the 6 count is an ace and the queen of trumps, it has the ten of trumps, a fourth trump, and a doubleton where partner needs help. It started off as an above average 6 count, and each bid your partner made upgraded this hand tremendously, it is a clear 4♥ bid over 3♣. In fact it would have been a good example for me to use in my post on that auction!

 

I'm not sure what source of tricks you expect from a 6-9 count anyway, but this hand has them. Club ruffs.

 

And, your statement that partner may have 4 hearts is totally ridiculous. That's only if he is opening light, not if he is good enough to make later game tries.

[kenrexford]

With Axx-Q10xx-xxxx-xx, you would surely, even if the most timid person on the planet, at least try a 3♦ bump. Normal people would bid 3♠. No one bids 3♥, unless 2♥ was a constructive raise, and even then not (that's maybe when you would bump 3♦).

 

On a completely different note -- it is nice to see how many people would cooperate here. Few years ago would dream of helping partner when he is slammish. The standard responses were (1) 3♥, (2) 4♥, and (3) I ain't biddin' no esoteric B.S.

[mike777]

"you have a truly annoying habit of saying"

 

I was trying to say it in a polite, respectful way. I was asking. I will stop it.

[CSGibson]

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

One of the areas that I think it is most important for expert players to instruct is slam bidding. Slams are hard to bid accurately. I would very much encourage any expert to share any insights they have into slam bidding, cue biddng, when to bid blackwood, etc.

 

Josh's post saying that he would not use blackwood on this hand, and instead bid 5 clubs to define his hand type if exploring slam is a perfect example of the type of expertise that keeps me coming back to these forums. Thanks

[helene_t]

Wow I was dreaming of 7 and all the experts pass. Something must be wrong with my judgment.

[kenrexford]

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

One of the areas that I think it is most important for expert players to instruct is slam bidding. Slams are hard to bid accurately. I would very much encourage any expert to share any insights they have into slam bidding, cue biddng, when to bid blackwood, etc.

 

Josh's post saying that he would not use blackwood on this hand, and instead bid 5 clubs to define his hand type if exploring slam is a perfect example of the type of expertise that keeps me coming back to these forums. Thanks

For my part:

 

Your hand is ♠x ♥AKJxxx ♦A ♣Axxxx

 

Give partner an expected good pattern of 4-3-4-2.

 

Unless partner has the spade Ace, you need to lose no club tricks. If partner has the club King, then you may be able to play club-club-club ruff, back to diamond Ace, ruff a club, as clubs probably split 4-2. So, opposite that hand, you need partner to have the heart Queen to make this safe.

 

Thus, ♠xxxx ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx works. But, tweak to add a third club, and there is no hope for the slam. Make the club the Queen, and add a few Kings in there, and same thing. Look at ♠KQJx ♥Qxx ♦Jxxx ♣Qx. An 11-count, but no way to make 6♠.

 

An ideal hand from partner would include three of the four "key" cards -- spade Ace, heart Queen, club King, club Queen. With three of them, but not the club King, this is far from lay-down, but three works enough to explore further.

 

If partner had three of these, he should do something more helpful than 4♥. Maybe 3♠ to show the spade Ace, or maybe 4♣.

 

This is not an evaluation hand, therefore. Sure -- slam is possible. It is a partnership bidding hand. When you have a partner who respects the possible slam motivation to your 3♣ call and helps you, these hands become less difficult. You can trust partner to show that he "has it" when you need it.

 

Lacking that partnership mesh, you have a problem.

 

Now, even with partnership mesh, will partner recognize that a hand like ♠xxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx is powerful? Maybe, maybe not. As we saw, the fourth heart is not necessary. Again -- maybe, and maybe not. However, this boils down to judgment.

 

My judgment is notsomething that I would cite, as I am overly aggressive at times. However, two thoughts convinced me to pass. First, I think that the perfect minimum will occur less frequently than the "down one" scenario at the five-level. Second, I am bolstered by that thought by the opposition passing. I only have 16 HCP's, and partner's perfect minimum is 5. If we have a COV in our two suits, the opps have a COV in their suits. And yet, no action. This suggests that the ideal is not there, or a tendency that it is not.

 

If I did move, I agree that 5♣ is the right way to do that. If my clubs were AJ9xx, I might be induced. Ace-empty needs a lot.

[Codo]

Without clear discussion, I would make a slam try. And I would choose 4 NT in a pick up partnership.

Not because it is the theoretical best way, but because I hope that it will lead to the best results in practice.

 

F.E. Kevin told us, that his pd will show a key card. But to Joshs and others interpretations of 4 Heart, he cannot have this card, he had bid 3 Spade with it, so I have no idea how the "best" way of 5 Club will lead to the best result.

 

In a regular partnership the reasoning is of course different. My partner will know to answer with a control to my 3 Club bid, so he had denied any values in Diamond and Spade, which makes slam not worse.

 

I think passing is too cowardish. If pd has xxx,xxx,xxx,KQx,slam it is on a finesse, 5 is nearly icecold and you can stop on a safe level. If he has xxx,xxxx,xxxx,xx, 5 heart is still possible and he surely has more then a yarborough for his bidding.

 

I doubt that pd can judge correctly over 5 Club what to do, so I try 4 Spade as a cuebid and hope that he will cooperate.

[foo]

Foo, sigh...

 

First of all, your post has a lot of redundancy. "Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks." is about 5 statements that say about 2 things. I understand that it's a 6 count with no shortness. On the other hand the 6 count is an ace and the queen of trumps, it has the ten of trumps, a fourth trump, and a doubleton where partner needs help. It started off as an above average 6 count, and each bid your partner made upgraded this hand tremendously, it is a clear 4♥ bid over 3♣. In fact it would have been a good example for me to use in my post on that auction!

 

I'm not sure what source of tricks you expect from a 6-9 count anyway, but this hand has them. Club ruffs.

 

And, your statement that partner may have 4 hearts is totally ridiculous. That's only if he is opening light, not if he is good enough to make later game tries.

As for style, we will have to just agree to disagree. There is no right or wrong answer there that can be addressed in a disccusion forum. Only using ATT results.

Let's just say we disagree on the evaluation of Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx in this auction.

 

However, your last statement is, as you would put it, ridiculous.

 

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury. Even with good hands. Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

 

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

 

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

 

Since just about every serious SA or 2/1 GF partnership I know of plays Drury, just about every serious SA or 2/1 GF partnership I know of opens 1M with 4cMs very often in 3rd and 4th seat.

 

So give me a 12-14 or 18+ 44(32) in 1st or 2nd and I open 1m.

But if I'm playing Drury I'm almost always opening that same hand 1M in 3rd or 4th seat. (This assumes We are playing Strong NTs of course).

[pclayton]

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

 

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

 

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

 

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

[mikeh]

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

 

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

 

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

 

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

 

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

 

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer :)

 

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

[pclayton]

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

 

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

 

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

 

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

 

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

 

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer :)

 

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

Mike, what does this bidding problem with a 1444 have to do with a 3rd seat opening?

 

If I hold: x, AQxx, KJxx, AQxx I have a problem in any seat. The fact that I'm systemically allowed to open 1♥ doesn't matter that much to me, although I do recognize that pard isn't necessarily running back to 2♥ on a 3=2=4=4 after 1N for instance. That's the only material contrast to a 1/2 opening.

 

If my hearts are strong enough I have no qualms opening a 1444 with 1♥ in any seat. Usually I will open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ (and 2♥ over 2♦) but sometimes I'll fudge and open it 1N if my singleton is an honor.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

 

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

 

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer :) 

 

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

You are missing the point. He is trying to claim that it is normal, playing 5 card majors, to open 4 card majors on any strength hand in third seat, rather than merely on light hands. I know you don't believe this, nor can I believe that anyone does. I don't know why he would think you need a lead director when you aren't light.

 

Your example is a bidding problem but has nothing to do with third seat as far as I can see, nor would your view probably be majority anyway, nor would it matter if it was since that is just one difficult shape. It is simply an unrelated discussion that is interesting in its own right.