From Palm Springs

[pclayton]

Missed a good slam in the compacts today. Dealer: Kx QTxx xxx AKxx. Responder: ATxx AKJxx Ax xx. Our auction:

 

1C - 1H - 2H - 2S - 3C - 3D - 3S - 4H.

 

Any suggestions and would you change any of the calls?

[rogerclee]

I would've bid 4♥ over 2♠ with opener's hand. I agree with responder's 2♠ slam try.

 

Edit: Oh, wait, I'm stupid. 3♠ is clearly slammish. Responder has to do something here, then.

[matmat]

what was 2S? did it force game or was it a try of some sort?

[kenrexford]

Opener: ♠A10xx ♥AKJxx ♦Ax ♣xx

Responder: ♠Kx ♥Q10xx ♦xxx ♣AKxx

 

I really like this auction until the very end.

 

O: 1♣ (normal)

R: 1♥ (normal)

O: 2♥ (normal)

R: 2♠ (normal GT/ST; btw -- I firmly think ST is more frequent here)

O: 3♣ (excellent -- cooperate in case of ST and show two of top three clubs)

R: 3♦ (excellent -- show diamond control and confirm ST)

O: 3♠ (excellent -- show one of top three spades and deny two of top three hearts)

R: 4♥ (pinched?)

 

If the cuebids were not as laid out above (my style/preference), then perhaps Opener has merely shown a COV in clubs and hearts with a spade control, in which case yet another WTF for Responder.

 

IMO, Responder should bid 3NT, and that should be serious, not playable. If he does, Opener has the top two clubs (not AQ/KQ), the best heart holding he could contextually have (I assume), and K-doubleton of spades (huge), which merits acceptance. If he prefers a 4♠ acceptance and that is a cue, fine. If he elects to ask, fine. I think Responder is good enough to cue because he has prime values and no other call to make.

 

If Responder's 3NT would be non-serious, then 4♥ is either dead bust (weird decision) or "Last Train." If the latter, Opener should move.

 

If 3NT would be to play, then the style seems unworkable. IMO, any GT except 2NT should demand that the major be trumps. That helps with auctions like this. (BTW -- if 2NT is the GT, Opener can rebid his minor to promise three-card support only and, in my preference, an "unbiddable reverse," meaning here 3415 or 3145 pattern and light.)

 

As you can see, though, the ultimate question as to how to bid this, who erred, or if your system failed here requires some understanding of the agreements.

[jdonn]

I basically agree with Ken (I think?) that opener bid well and responder simply has to take the plunge into keycard or something after all the cooperation he got. I mean what did he think opener would have? Even if he has this hand with a third spade he would not have bid this strongly, he did well to cooperate twice on his 12 count instead of just jumping to game.

[kenrexford]

I basically agree with Ken (I think?) that opener bid well and responder simply has to take the plunge into keycard or something after all the cooperation he got. I mean what did he think opener would have? Even if he has this hand with a third spade he would not have bid this strongly, he did well to cooperate twice on his 12 count instead of just jumping to game.

Yep. You agree.

 

Ideally, I think it would be nice to use Serious 3NT here, in which case Responder can bid 3NT "asking for the perfect minimum," and Opener, who has it, takes the plunge. But, lacking that, Responder seems to have the duty. Opener has cooperated, and thus Responder must make a move if he lacks tools to fine tune this sequence any further.

[han]

My cuebids are not as well defined as Ken's but I agree with his evaluation: opener did very well to cuebid twice with his prime 12-count. Responder stopped without good reason to.

[skjaeran]

This is a very close call - give opener ♠Kxx and it's a terrible slam. We'd all like to bid it with Kx for sure, but I'd not be to hard on partner and myself for missing it. Agree that responder is the one who need to make another try if it is to be reached.

[pclayton]

I think this is a really murky hand. This was a 1st time partnership, which makes it even worse.

 

Let's agree about all calls up to 2♠, which was agreed to be a natural game try, but obviously may have higher aspirations.

 

3♣ isn't 'cooperating' with anything. It's a counter accept to 2♠ initially, and frankly, I think the hand is worth a game acceptance.

 

3♦ is probably a forward move but even this isn't a 100% clear. How many 'counter-accepts' can we have here?

 

3♠ looks obvious. The larger question to me is whether or not 3♠ cancels 3♣ as a counter-accept and confirms it's a hand that would have driven to game over a game try.

 

I agree that some sort of serious 3N would be nice here. The partnership did agree on frivolous 3♠ / 3N, which also clouds the meaning of 3♠ / 3N.

 

Anyway, this is a great slam, with every non-trump honor working efficiently. It would have been nice to bid, but oh well.

[Winstonm]

If you use game tries by responder - or possible even if you don't - I still believe the best use of a self-raise in this sequence is a forcing slam try.

 

1C-1H

2H-3H (forcing slam try)

3S*-3N *control and suitable hand for slam cooperation

4C-4D

4H-4S

5C-6H

 

In my view, the key distinction here is that 3H shows slam interest and allows opener to show a hand that can support slam ambitions compared to a hand that cannot. For example, with QJx, Qxxx, Kx, KQxx opener would deny cooperative interest and simply bid 4H.

 

The fact that in this sequence 3S not only shows a control but also expresses a cooperating hand type facilitates the slam being bid.

[jdonn]

3♣ isn't 'cooperating' with anything. It's a counter accept to 2♠ initially, and frankly, I think the hand is worth a game acceptance.

 

3♦ is probably a forward move but even this isn't a 100% clear. How many 'counter-accepts' can we have here?

 

3♠ looks obvious. The larger question to me is whether or not 3♠ cancels 3♣ as a counter-accept and confirms it's a hand that would have driven to game over a game try.

All the bids below game could be game or slam tries from partner's perspective at the time they are bid, so 3♠ absolutely shows that 3♣ was bid in case 2♠ was a slam try and that opener was always intending to bid game. I'm very surprised you seem to think there could be any controversy about that, even undiscussed. So it's still clear to me opener made two 'just in case' slam tries, in which case responder really has the nuts. Responder, on the other hand, made no clear slam tries since both his bids could have just been game tries until proven otherwise. Opener bid incredibly well, and responder's game bid just showed he didn't understand the auction as far as I'm concerned.

[whereagles]

3♣ isn't 'cooperating' with anything. It's a counter accept to 2♠ initially, and frankly, I think the hand is worth a game acceptance.

Agree. The hand is worth an accept due to good controls. However, I don't really see how to continue after

 

1♣ 1♥

2♥ 2♠

4♠ ..??

 

Maybe opener could bid something slam-encouraging over 2♠, but since I don't know your system, I don't know what that would be. Maybe 3♠ or 4♣ over 2♠? Anyway, it's the excellent controls that make slam good. That's hard to gauge.