A difficult Auction

[655321]

More thoughts.

 

If West bids 4♦ instead of 4♥ is this a cue, or does this show a 7 card ♦ suit and an invented club suit? Did East assume that because West skipped diamonds to cue 4♥ that his side was off the AK of diamonds, and/or a 4♠ bid would actually promise a ♦ control?

 

(No answers, just questions)

:)

[Cascade]

Interesting discussion.

 

I guess the blame must go to East. Presumably, East did not bid 4♠ over 4♥ because he thought he had already cued his ♠A with 3♠. But for most people, 3♠ is not a cue agreeing clubs (game before slam, and all that), therefore East should have bid 4♠.

 

I don't agree with Frances that the East hand is too strong for 3♣.

 

Should 4♣ over 3♦ be forcing? There is a case for it, just because 3♦ shows extras, and East has an invitational hand. I do play 4m as forcing not invitational, but you could agree to play it either way.

We have the meta-agreement that 4m after we have tried for and failed to find 3NT is non-forcing. This seems to be a small target but in practice works reasonably well.

[mike777]

All bidding by your side:

 

1D 1H

2C 3C

3D ?

 

What does 3S mean here? What does 3H mean?

 

Full hand:

 

<!-- EASTWEST begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> ????? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> K </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Ax </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AJxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AJTx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Ax </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> JTxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Qx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K98xx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- EASTWEST end -->

 

Auction went:

 

1D 1H

2C 3C

3D 3S

4H 5C

p

 

Assign the blame?

1) 10% east for not bidding 4s over 4h

2) 90% tough to bid minor suit slams.

3) I would think 3h or 3s here means some sort of values in the bid suit. Still trying for 3nt.

[jdonn]

FWIW, I don't agree that 4♥ as a "Bluhmer" (or an empathetic splinter, if you will) is right on this hand.

 

The "best possible hand" would be something like Kx of diamonds, KQxxx in clubs.  The Qx in diamonds is a hesitant value, the spade Ace is nice but not internal, and the club contribution is limited.

I don't think you need be in the top 1% of your range, or whatever, to make that bid. The top say 5% seems good enough to me, which this hand certainly is.

 

Also you are correct Bluhmer's are made when your first suit is bad but I always considered this more of an inference than part of the definition, since if you have a lot in that suit your hand can't be good enough. I could be wrong but it's essentially all semantics. In any case I'm not impressed that you quote two definitions when one is a quote of the other.

 

I disagree with you about exactly what opener should be thinking. He need not know 'exactly' in what way his values are working. It's simply obvious on this hand that they are, as it tends to be. Like I said anyway, it's not my preferred method here, but it would certainly have come in very handy.

 

I actually completely agree with you about 4♦ by opener being wrong and why.

[y66]

More on Bluhmers here (see problem 2)

[Winstonm]

Again late to the thread, but my basic thought is that when both partners have made passable bids that any search for slam must take a huge backseat to finding the best game contract.

 

It is obvious that the 3D bid is forcing to 4C, and it is also a patterning bid. I would think in this sequence that 3S would show very strong spade cards and weakish hearts for 3N - 3H the opposite.

 

3S, then, with Ax, would be a poor choice. Knowing that partner holds no more than 3 major suit cards (most likely), then I would be more apt to bid 4D over 3D, showing a card it that suit and driving to at least game.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I don't agree that 4♥ as a "Bluhmer" (or an empathetic splinter, if you will) is right on this hand.

 

The "best possible hand" would be something like Kx of diamonds, KQxxx in clubs.  The Qx in diamonds is a hesitant value, the spade Ace is nice but not internal, and the club contribution is limited.

I don't think you need be in the top 1% of your range, or whatever, to make that bid. The top say 5% seems good enough to me, which this hand certainly is.

 

Also you are correct Bluhmer's are made when your first suit is bad but I always considered this more of an inference than part of the definition, since if you have a lot in that suit your hand can't be good enough. I could be wrong but it's essentially all semantics. In any case I'm not impressed that you quote two definitions when one is a quote of the other.

 

I disagree with you about exactly what opener should be thinking. He need not know 'exactly' in what way his values are working. It's simply obvious on this hand that they are, as it tends to be. Like I said anyway, it's not my preferred method here, but it would certainly have come in very handy.

 

I actually completely agree with you about 4♦ by opener being wrong and why.

I agree that a bid need not be in the top 1% (whatever that means precisely) to be the right call in a given situation. The amount of real estate that a bid must cover is often determined by the number of other avenues available to cover other needed situations. If you only have two ways to invite something, then each of the two options roughly should cover half of the biddable situations. If you have ten ways, then maybe each covers 10%.

 

That said, it seems to me that you have essentially three major types of hand patterns to consider here.

 

1. COV in the minors

2. Lesser COV in the minors, and a heart card

3. Lesser COV in the minors, and a spade card

 

With the COV in the minors, 4♥ seems right.

 

With a lesser COV in the minors, and a heart card, you start with 3♥ and then later make noise, loudly with the Ax or Kx in diamonds, softer with the Queen.

 

With a lesser COV in the minors, and a spade card, you start with 3♠ and then do the same as to volume.

 

So, I would assess this such that I believe a 4♥ call to cover 33% of the needed coverage and 66% through 3M. Addressing this hand through 4♥ seems to mean that you cover 66% of the situations through 4♥, and you lose the space needed to clarify the diamond-cover quality, leaving a completely unknown value in the 3♥...noise category.

 

IF, and this is a big "IF" in my opinion, you were to handle any COV or any "lesser COV with a major Ace" through 4♥, and then only the later if the diamond contribution was prime (Ace or King), you would be better, but not ideal, IMO. But, even then, this hand does not qualify because the diamond contribution is the Queen.

 

Look at this from a 6KCB perspective. There is a material difference between three key cards or two key cards and the trump Queen, as opposed to this hand, which has two key cards and the side Queen. Kx-KQxxx is two keys plus the trump Queen. ♠A, ♣K, ♣Q is also. ♠A, ♦K, ♣K/Q are both big hand. ♠A, ♣K, and ♦Q is at the very low end of this thing.

 

I find it strange to talk of "top 1%" or even "top 5%" with this hand. I would consider this mere mild interest, only enough to Last Train in response to noise from Opener. This hand certainly is not in the top 5% of any hands that would consider accepting a slam move. IMO, this hand is in the bottom half at best.

[jdonn]

I agree that a bid need not be in the top 1% (whatever that means precisely) to be the right call in a given situation.  The amount of real estate that a bid must cover is often determined by the number of other avenues available to cover other needed situations.  If you only have two ways to invite something, then each of the two options roughly should cover half of the biddable situations.  If you have ten ways, then maybe each covers 10%.

 

.......

 

So, I would assess this such that I believe a 4♥ call to cover 33% of the needed coverage and 66% through 3M.  Addressing this hand through 4♥ seems to mean that you cover 66% of the situations through 4♥, and you lose the space needed to clarify the diamond-cover quality, leaving a completely unknown value in the 3♥...noise category.

I get a headache reading all that, but it's not true that if you have three bids available each one should cover 33% of the hands you might have. The higher ones should clearly cover fewer hands. However, on certain hands the plausible bids here seem to be 3♥ through 4♥, and 5♣, which is 7 bids. Considering that 4♥ is the highest (other than a jump directly to a final contract) I would think something like 5% of the hands seems right.

Anyway I know I made up the 1% 5% thing, my point was that you seemed to be arguing the actual hand is not good enough for 4♥, and I'm saying it easily easily is.

 

Look at this from a 6KCB perspective.  There is a material difference between three key cards or two key cards and the trump Queen, as opposed to this hand, which has two key cards and the side Queen.  Kx-KQxxx is two keys plus the trump Queen.  ♠A, ♣K, ♣Q is also.  ♠A, ♦K, ♣K/Q are both big hand.  ♠A, ♣K, and ♦Q is at the very low end of this thing.

Huh? What you just said is 'pretend the diamond king is as valuable as the club king, but the diamond queen is less valuable than then club queen. Then analyze' which I'm sure you don't need me to tell you is silly :P On the actual hand, as could well be expected, the diamond queen was (arguably) more valuable than the club queen, which might have turned out to be worth nothing.

 

I find it strange to talk of "top 1%" or even "top 5%" with this hand.  I would consider this mere mild interest, only enough to Last Train in response to noise from Opener.  This hand certainly is not in the top 5% of any hands that would consider accepting a slam move.  IMO, this hand is in the bottom half at best.

It's well in the best 5% of hands for slam that you could hold on that auction to that point. I don't know where "that would consider accepting a slam move" came from.

[kenrexford]

What?!?!?

 

So, you are saying that a sequence of slam moves is justified by the end result? How can you possibly suggest that the diamond Queen, mandating a hook, is just as valuable as the diamond King, which does not (or which allows finesses either way)?

 

I'll grant that the hand works later, after full exploration, which is why I get to slam.

 

I think my best argument, however, if to throw the percentages back at you. List all of the hand types where slam will be considered by Responder. I doubt very highly that you can jam this hand and all better hands with no wasted heart values into 4♥ (5% of hand types) and then create a list that is 19 times as big (95%) that do not fit into 4♥.

[jdonn]

How can you possibly suggest that the diamond Queen, mandating a hook, is just as valuable as the diamond King, which does not (or which allows finesses either way)?

I sometimes have doubts we are speaking the same language. You said the club queen is more valuable than the diamond queen, and based it on an argument in which the club king was NOT more valuable than the diamond king (as you were treating both as keycards.) I disputed all that, never comparing the diamond king to the diamond queen. So I can see why you would be shocked at a ridiculous statement I never made, but I can't see why you think I said it.

 

I think my best argument, however, if to throw the percentages back at you.  List all of the hand types where slam will be considered by Responder.

Why? I'm stopping the train right there. This 'best argument' or yours also credits me with something I never said, but that I'm honestly tired of correcting. If you want then reread the last part of my prior post. On top of that you are getting so caught up at the minutia of one example I tried to make (perhaps poorly) that the original hand and question is becoming totally lost. It was an interesting discussion for a while.

[benlessard]

In standard its

 

3Nt is to play

3S is half a stopper

3H is game in H is still possible (5-2,or 6-2)

 

I like to play that

 

3Nt is positionnal stopper

3S is 52,62 is possible

3H is ask for half a stop or ask for a stopper

 

I like to play that 2 before 3Nt is asking for half a stop.

 

It allowed to play 3nt from the right sire when Qx vs something.

[dake50]

Assigning blame starts with slam missed that is 66%. This seems just short. Prefer in it, but not exasperated if this one is missed. Where is your assign the blame %? 52%? Some higher?

[Finch]

I don't agree with Frances that the East hand is too strong for 3♣.

Interesting that no-one else has mentioned this point.

 

Clearly whether responder is worth a game force or not depends on your opening bid style. I play a fairly conservative ("Standard") opening bid, where I don't open (semi-)balanced 11-counts unless they are clearly worth more than 11. I would usually rebid 2C on a 2254 unless it looks very much like a NT hand. Also, for a sequence starting 1D - 1H - 2C, opener will usually not have 3 hearts unless he has extra values.

 

I did a simulation, giving opener

 

12-14 HCP with a 2254 or 3154

10-14 HCP with 55 or or 6-4 in the minors

 

out of 50 hands

 

You want to be in 5C at any form of scoring on 13 of them (one of them if you try and play in 3C they will protect themselves into 4S and you have to save for one off)

You want to be in a club partial on 3 of them

Partner would have rebid 1NT on 2 of the 2254s.

On the other 33 someone would have overcalled in a major.

 

There was only one hand where 3NT was a good spot, and 5C was as good a spot on that hand anyway (maybe fractionally worse at MPs).

 

There are two ways to interpret these results

i) The hand is worth a game force opposite a 2C rebid in spite of being a bit light on HCP

ii) There's no need to drive game, because given that the opponents haven't bid it is hugely likely that partner has extra values and will not pass 3C anyway.

[kenrexford]

How can you possibly suggest that the diamond Queen, mandating a hook, is just as valuable as the diamond King, which does not (or which allows finesses either way)?

I sometimes have doubts we are speaking the same language. You said the club queen is more valuable than the diamond queen, and based it on an argument in which the club king was NOT more valuable than the diamond king (as you were treating both as keycards.) I disputed all that, never comparing the diamond king to the diamond queen. So I can see why you would be shocked at a ridiculous statement I never made, but I can't see why you think I said it.

 

I think my best argument, however, if to throw the percentages back at you.  List all of the hand types where slam will be considered by Responder.

Why? I'm stopping the train right there. This 'best argument' or yours also credits me with something I never said, but that I'm honestly tired of correcting. If you want then reread the last part of my prior post. On top of that you are getting so caught up at the minutia of one example I tried to make (perhaps poorly) that the original hand and question is becoming totally lost. It was an interesting discussion for a while.

Well, even on the exact hand provided, I'm not all that certain that the diamond Queen is worth more than the club Queen.

 

With the red Queen, you fail this contract if the diamond finesse fails (roughly 50%) and if the clubs do not come in.

 

With the black Queen, you must lose one diamond, but losing two will be really tough. You have the ability to simply ruff out the diamond very often. Plus, your chances of losing a club are greatly reduced.

 

All that said, this is not a matter of playing out hands after-the-fact. I suppose that I cannot convince you on this, but it seems rather simple to me. Club-oriented slam tries are difficult if you rely on RKCB. The solution seems to be to divide slam tries (strong or mild) by hypo answers to RKCB, and often to 6KCB. This actual hand is a poor 6KCB holding.

 

The original point in comparing the diamond Queen with the diamond King was not to compare your example but to analyze your conclusions. It is my point that there is a wildly important difference between Kx (where a diamond loser is nearly impossible) and Qx (where a diamond loser is 50-50 or worse if say Qxxxx to the right). It was my point that there is a major difference between having an outside spade control, a card that cannot easily be confirmed or denied after a 4♥ jump and that may not be necessary as opposite a stiff or even a void, and an internal control in trumps or an internal A/K in diamonds, considering that the alternative auction of starting with 3♠ clears that issue up immediately.

 

Finally, I don't get the "best argument" complaint. You claimed that this hand is in the best 5% of hands. Whereas it may be within the "best 5%" of all hands, I think I have shown how and why it is not in the best 5% of all relevant hands, meaning all hands where a slam move or slam cooperation would be made.

[Fluffy]

For those who think 3S asks for a stopper/is 4th suit forcing/shows a tenuous spade stopper what do you bid over 3D with KQJ Jxxx xx Axxx? 3N? Do you feel comfortable with that?

Hell I'd even bid 2NT instead of 3♣. Having my suit unstopped but hidden in my hand normally works for me, but I know it shouldn't.

[Guest Jlall]

This hand came from partnership bidding with Arend, I thought 3S should show heart weakness and spade strength and he thought 3S should show a half stopper. I agree now that he should have bid 4S. I thought it was an interesting auction.

[benlessard]

Im pretty sure standard meaning is half-a stopper and opener should probably bid 3nt.

 

I dont think its the best treatment but its the default treatment at least here in Canada. What i think is the best treatment is 3H is asking for stopper or half a stop and 3S is repeating the H (or semi-waiting) .

 

........3D

??

 

3H----3S (half a stop or positionnal stop)

3Nt (half a stop)

 

3H.....3Nt (positionnal stop or non positionnal stop and no desire for 5m)

 

3H......4X nothing in S

 

3S.....3Nt (S stop, to play)

 

3Nt (S stop positionnal or not positionnal and no desire to play elsewhere)

 

It allow to play 3nt for the right side most of the time, its allow responder to repeat his suit (he might still have 6H to the J and 4H is the only spot) and it allow to play 3nt when both have half a stop. I dont see what i could ask for more ?

 

What it doesnt do is ask for a stopper in responder suit and its tougher to cue-bid.

 

To use 3S to show weak H and asking for a H stop is a pretty weak method imo.