What's the difference?

[Finch]

You hold

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa8642hk98d3caqj4]133|100|Scoring: Total Points[/hv]

 

Still playing the same 48-board aggregate match

 

Partner opens 1H, playing 5-card majors, strong NT

You bid 1S (yes, you might bid 2C game forcing, but you don't like it and partner won't expect it with 5 spades)

Partner bids 2D

You don't bid 3H because that shows a 5-3 in the majors limit raise, so you bid 3C fourth suit*.

 

Partner bids 4NT, natural and extras

You bid 5H (forcing)

Partner bids 6D (cue)

 

What's the difference between partner's 4NT bid and if partner had raised 3C to 4C?

 

What's partner's hand?

 

What do you bid?

 

*interesting argument which is more useful: 3H as forcing here, or 3H as a limit raise; on this hand it's obvious but overall I don't think it's clear

[OleBerg]

What's the difference between partner's 4NT bid and if partner had raised 3C to 4C?

 

Partner has a club stopper, and has already shown his ditribution, when he bids 4nt. 4♣ had indicated doubt about the denomination of the contract, or a hand to strong for a non-forcing 4nt.

 

 

What's partner's hand?

 

Most likely:

 

1-5-4-3

 

 

What do you bid?

 

If I can check aces I and trumph-Q I will, otherwise I bid 7♥

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[Finch]

or a hand to strong for a non-forcing 4nt.

... partner's 2D bid was non-forcing

[benlessard]

Im not afraid of 4Nt without a S stopper despite the fact that a S lead is likely. However i dont have a particular agreement about a possible 4C bid. 0-5-5-3 or 0643 is the more likely for me. IMO partner hand is 1642 , 2542 or 1543 and we want to protect his K of clubs.

 

For the rest im not sure but i guess ill bid 7H.

[gnasher]

4♣ shows a 1=5=4=3 with extra values and a club stop; 4♣ shows the same hand without a club stop, such as K AQJxx AK10x xxx.

 

I think that over 5H he'd cue-bid aces only, so 6D doesn't deny any black kings. He might have x AQJxx AKxx Kxx, but he might also have x A10xxx AKQJ Kxx or K A10xxx AKxx Kxx.

 

I bid 7♣, which I hope offers an alternative contract. If that provokes a bit of head-scratching it'll serve him right for doubling 3NT on the preceding hand.

[Finch]

I bid 7♣, which I hope offers an alternative contract. If that provokes a bit of head-scratching it'll serve him right for doubling 3NT on the preceding hand.

It's pivot teams. The double of 3NT was perpetrated by a team-mate in a different set.

[whereagles]

I'm going to bid a simple 6NT here. Pard should have something like 16-17, maybe more, so this might make.

[Codo]

Pd bid a non-forcing 2 Diamond followed by a jump to 4 NT.

 

I would play him for 2542 or 1543 with 16-18 HCPs.

After 6 Diamond, I know that he has no king of spades and I know his K of clubs already.

 

So he may have something like xx,AQJxx,AKxx,Kx = 7 Heart

 

My problem is that he may even have a hand with more HCPS but no 7 level safety:

Qx, AJxxx,AKQx,Kx,

 

So, I need the Queen of Hearts and hearts 3-2 OR the QJ of hearts.

 

I believe that 7 HEart is a good bet, but not good enough to bid it, I go for 6 Heart, hoping that this will not lose to the other table and a partnership which could set Hearts earlier and ask for the queen of trumps.

 

 

For the general question: I abandon the 3 Heart invitational fit, it shows Slam Interest. With an invitational hand we bid 1 Spade followed by 2 Heart or 4 HEart.

Not perfect, but seem to gain more then it lose.

[Cascade]

For me 4♣ is extra values without a club stopper. I suppose it could be a very strong 0=5=4=4 hand although I think you would tend to be pessimistic with that opposite a spade bid.

 

What other options are there over 5♥? We play that 5♠ would be key-card but I doubt that is standard.

 

Partner might have something like:

 

♠ xx

♥ AQxxx

♦ A???

♣ Kx

 

with enough diamond honours to make the hand strong enough - king or queen-jack.

 

I think I am just about forced to bid 7♥ now.

 

I like 3♥ forcing although I do not play that. We do play 3♥ would be forcing after a 2/1 (not GF). This works very well so I don't see why it wouldn't work well after a 1/1. Of course we then would need to decide how we bid the invitational hands.

[kenrexford]

...yes, you might bid 2C game forcing, but you don't like it and partner won't expect it with 5 spades...

I lie to partner and then tell him to bite me.

 

Yet another example. The actual auction is AFU. The alternative auction for me would start:

 

1♥-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♥(trumps set, GF)

 

Wow, is that a great start!

[Finch]

I lie to partner and then tell him to bite me.

 

Yet another example. The actual auction is AFU. The alternative auction for me would start:

 

1♥-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♥(trumps set, GF)

 

Wow, is that a great start!

Yes, it's a great start on a hand where it later transpires that we are trying to establish whether to play in a small or grand slam.

 

If you aren't going to play 2C as a totally artificial game force with artificial continuations (which is quite playable I agree but needs work and discussion) then I really don't think you can sensibly bid 2C ostensibly natural on hands like this and seriously expect to make the right decision about strain, never mind level. Let's just go back a step and play Precision; a strong 1C opening also makes sorting out whether grand is making or not much easier.

 

At the other table they did respond 2C to 1H, the auction did indeed start 1H - 2C - 2D - 2H, but then the auction got very guessy later anyway for a different reason (I'm not going to say what reason, because it might affect your thoughts here).

[cherdano]

I assume partner would cuebid 5♠ if he had the spade king in this situation?

[rbforster]

1♥-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♥(trumps set, GF)

 

Wow, is that a great start!

Yes, it's a great start on a hand where it later transpires that we are trying to establish whether to play in a small or grand slam.

Actually it's a fine start to the auction as long as you're willing to commit to playing in hearts instead of spades. Given I've got the shortness and 3 hearts, it seems reasonable that we want to play in hearts. My spades aren't that strong and the A rates well for hearts. My 2♣ bid shows my concentrated values and should help partner evaluate his hand well for slam.

 

2♣ wtp? :)

[Fluffy]

The difference is the spade shortness. Not that it matters much for us.

 

Partner bid 6♦ and we have 3 keycards, I think we have to bid 7♥. Partner could had bid 6♥ if he had bad trumps.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa8642hk98d3caqj4]133|100|Scoring: Total Points

Still playing the same 48-board aggregate match

1♥ - 1♠ -

2♦ - 3♣ (4SF)

4N - 5♥ (forcing)

6♦ (cue)

What's the difference between partner's 4NT bid and

if partner had raised 3♣ to 4♣?

What's partner's hand?

What do you bid?[/hv]

• 4N implies tenaces, especially in the minors and especially in diamonds.
  
• Perhaps ♠K ♥AJTxx ♦AKJT ♣KTx
  
• IMO 6♥ = 10, 6N = 9, 7♥ = 8
  How strong can partner be after opening 1♠ and rebidding 2♦?
  I did not think of Frances Hinden's clever 7♣ = 11, that may make on
  a cross-ruff when other grands fail.
  

[Finch]

I did not think of Frances Hinden's clever 7♣ = 11, that may make on a cross-ruff when other grands fail.

Not mine, gnasher's

 

(actually I was the 1H opener at the table)

[kenrexford]

Yes, it's a great start on a hand where it later transpires that we are trying to establish whether to play in a small or grand slam.

 

If you aren't going to play 2C as a totally artificial game force with artificial continuations (which is quite playable I agree but needs work and discussion) then I really don't think you can sensibly bid 2C ostensibly natural on hands like this and seriously expect to make the right decision about strain, never mind level. Let's just go back a step and play Precision; a strong 1C opening also makes sorting out whether grand is making or not much easier.

 

At the other table they did respond 2C to 1H, the auction did indeed start 1H - 2C - 2D - 2H, but then the auction got very guessy later anyway for a different reason (I'm not going to say what reason, because it might affect your thoughts here).

I'm really curious whether the auction should "get guessy" with the cards actually held. I know that this analysis should probably await further developments. I'm also not so sure that the queston of small-vs-grand is the key issue. The key issue is to set strain and strength as low as possible, to maximize bidding space for slam exploration when you are slammish. Responder is clearly slammish, and very much so.

 

One note, however. A 2♣ initiation does not force hearts as trumps. 1♥-2♣-2♠-3♠ is allowed.

[kenrexford]

Because I cannot stand it --

 

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that this will involve a grand slam decision, as this appears to be the end question anyway.

 

Assume my start of:

 

1♥-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♥-P-

?

 

If using my type of cuebidding, Opener will on many gran-slam oriented hands now bypass 2NT (as 2NT would have denied two top hearts, bypassing 2NT promises two top hearts) to cuebid 3♣ (one of the top three honors, obviously the King). Thus:

 

1♥-P-2♣-P-

2♦-P-2♥-P-

3♣-P-?

 

Responder knows that Opener has AQxxx at a minimum in hearts, solidified by the King to yield an expected five tricks. Opener's club King yields four more club tricks, for nine tricks so far. The spade Ace is the 10th. If Opener has Axx+ in diamonds, an easy thing to ask, then it seems that an 11th from the diamond Ace is easy, as is a 12th from just one diamond ruff.

 

Responder cannot now show a diamond card (A/K/Q), so he bypasses 3♦ to show the third top heart (3♥), erasing the need for anyone to bid 4NT as simple keycard.

 

This start is already powerful.

 

Where problems might occur includes a scenario where Opener has, for instance, the KQ in spades and we can establish spades. That problem might be mitigated by a 4♠ call from Responder, after all three top hearts are shown to be held, as "RKCB" but focusing on the diamond K-Q rather than the known heart K-Q.

 

Another plausible situation would be where Opener's diamonds are solid, allowing a ditch of all clubs (but the Ace) from dummy, but, although that might also be handled, this does not seem to be a plausible problem.

 

Of course, these tools might not be available, which might reduce the effectiveness of a proposed 2♣ start.

[Finch]

Of course, these tools might not be available, which might reduce the effectiveness of a proposed 2♣ start.

Of course I know no-one ever has any control over thread creep. But I was trying to avoid a discussion of how-we-would-bid-to-the-right-contract-if-we-were-playing-KenRexford-cuebidding, or indeed how-we-would-bid-to-the-right-contract-if-we-were-playing-anyone-elses-clever-methods (not meaning to target you in particular). You have some very specific rules about bidding after the proposed start to the auction which most people don't. Maybe I should start another thread, give both hands, and let people invent their own fancy auctions - those are always popular forum threads even though personally I'm not very fond of them.

 

Playing reasonably standard methods I believe it is hard to argue seriously that any of the calls selected so far are obviously wrong, and I thought the question about what partner may or may not have for the auction to date an interesting one.

 

(I'm not trying to argue too hard against the 2C response, because _on this one particular hand_, with very good clubs, three card heart support and an ace-high empty spade suit, I can see it does have merit although it's not going to solve all your problems. But responding 1S might work better if partner does pretty much anything except rebid 2 of a minor. You will learn more about partner's shape and strength immediately, for example.)

 

By the way, BWS specifies 1H - 1S - 2D - 3H is invitational. BBO advanced doesn't get anywhere that detailed.

[awm]

My style is that 4♣ shows extras with no clear direction and 4NT is quantitative. So the 4♣ bid would deny a club control (i.e. K AQJxx AKxx xxx). In this style, 4NT could conceal a four card club suit. So I would try 7♣ (choice of slams) over 6♦.

 

While there are hands on which a 4-3 club fit is the only making grand, it seems that there is no obvious reason that our ruffing diamonds will not produce extra tricks whereas partner's ruffing spades will (in fact you need a place to put all these spade losers and you aren't likely to get enough ruffs to set up the suit). It seems like the odds of 7♣ failing on a 5-1 club break when 7♥ was making are about equal to the odds of 7♣ making when 7♥ fails.

 

So if 4♣ would've shown four clubs and 4NT denies four clubs, then I would just bid 7♥.

 

While I don't agree with Rexford's "always bid 2♣" strategy in general, I do like an immediate 2♣ response on this hand. It seems that responding in spades has additional problems (besides the hard to GF after 2♦ issues); for example what if partner raises spades on three, how do you back in to hearts? Assuming hearts are agreed, how do you convince partner that a spade holding like Qx(x) is awful whereas the club king is a huge card? Or that a singleton spade is great, whereas a singleton club is lousy? It seems that responding in spades will make partner suspect exactly the opposite of what's best here. And it's not like forcing game is a piece of cake after a start like 1♥-1♠-2♥ either. There are many cases like this where, if you know that you have a fit for partner's suit and need to temporize by bidding a new suit, it is better to bid the new suit where fitting kings or queens are useful and a singleton is bad, rather than vice versa.

[OleBerg]

I was to fast with my first reply.

 

I agree that 7♣ is the best bid.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[kenrexford]

What you do next after 2♣ is a matter of style. However, I cannot imagine that misleading partner, when we will establish a heart fit, is so bad when he might errantly conclude that you have 4315 rather than 5314.

 

The contrasting auction is hopelessly undefined.

 

We have started the auction by focusing spades, a decison that has already been well-argued as dubious. Partner limited his hand somewhat with a 2♦ call (not GF opposite a minimum). We set GF with 3♣, sharing no information about shape beyond that already shown. Partner jammed the H out of the auction with the oh-so-helpful 4NT blast, "extras and natural." So, partner rates to have a 2542 16-17 count, or so.

 

5♥ established trumps finally, above even the ability to ask for Aces or internal controls, but forcing. This should be a grand move as well, I would think (otherwise just bid 6♥?), but no definition as to what this shows.

 

Partner now makes a grand slam try of 6♦, but this is undefined other than "cue." Presumably, one would expect no spade control, as he might show the spade King or Queen (wild difference in value). Presumably he has no club card, either (why no 6♣ call?). Assuming 16-17, then, partner must have AQ(J) in hearts and AKQ(J) in diamonds. But, why 4NT with no club card? So, he has the club King but "does not need to bid that twice." How he knows that a club KING is a worthy card for a GRAND try is mindboggling. But, perhaps bypassing 6♣ infers a prime card (King but not Queen) that is not the Ace.

 

So, 17-3=14 points to spread out in the red suits. If he has the missing AQ in hearts, he has 7-8 in diamonds. AKJ or AQJ? Seems that AKJx makes the most sense. Maybe xx-AQxxx-AKJx-Kx? That gets us to 13 tricks, but with a lot of assumptions.

 

The primary assumption is that 6♦ must be a grand slam move and thus very primed. I'm not so sure that this is necessary, as 5♥ seems to have been a grand slam move, seeking cooperation from Opener. Would he not cooperate similarly with Qx-Axxxx-AKQx-Kx, a "better hand" but hopeless for the grand?

 

I'd much rather be in a sequence where I do not set trumps at the five-level, after revealing nothing to partner about my shape up to that point.

 

BTW -- notice one HUGE point. One concern about a 2♣ response was burying the fact that spades are five-long, creating a false illusion of 4315 rather than 5314. Notice, however, that the alternative sequence does not show the fifth spades, either, and leaves the club length a complete mystery entirely. This seems to happen a lot.

[Finch]

The contrasting auction is hopelessly undefined.

 

We have started the auction by focusing spades, a decison that has already been well-argued as dubious. Partner limited his hand somewhat with a 2♦ call (not GF opposite a minimum). We set GF with 3♣, sharing no information about shape beyond that already shown. Partner jammed the H out of the auction with the oh-so-helpful 4NT blast, "extras and natural." So, partner rates to have a 2542 16-17 count, or so.

I agree the auction hasn't gone very well.

 

But it's not as bad as you say, partner can't possibly be 2542 that's an obvious 3S bid over 4SF without two club stops.

 

I tried to leave things a bit undefined when I started the thread, but to be honest I think partner has absolutely promised exactly 1543 with the 4NT bid. It could only ever be 2542 with AK or AQ of clubs and two low spades, and you know that's not partner's hand by looking at your club holding.

[kenrexford]

The contrasting auction is hopelessly undefined.

 

We have started the auction by focusing spades, a decison that has already been well-argued as dubious.  Partner limited his hand somewhat with a 2♦ call (not GF opposite a minimum).  We set GF with 3♣, sharing no information about shape beyond that already shown.  Partner jammed the H out of the auction with the oh-so-helpful 4NT blast, "extras and natural."  So, partner rates to have a 2542 16-17 count, or so.

I agree the auction hasn't gone very well.

 

But it's not as bad as you say, partner can't possibly be 2542 that's an obvious 3S bid over 4SF without two club stops.

 

I tried to leave things a bit undefined when I started the thread, but to be honest I think partner has absolutely promised exactly 1543 with the 4NT bid. It could only ever be 2542 with AK or AQ of clubs and two low spades, and you know that's not partner's hand by looking at your club holding.

Well, if you trust that partner cannot have a balanced 2542 with Kx in clubs for his 4NT call on an 18-count (I don't quite buy this), and if he MUST be 1543 shape (why no 4♣ call?), then he rates to have both red Aces and the club King for 11 of his points and needs an additional 5-6 to bid 4NT. Might as well add in the diamond King as a nice card from his perspective, leaving him 2-3 additional points.

 

We do not know the location of any red secondary honors (Q or J). Those are worth 6 total points. So, he has two red Jacks, one red Queen, or one red Queen with a red Jack. Two red Queens would be rich for 2♦.

 

Back to the basic problem -- establishing hearts at the five-level makes it impossible to check on trump quality, which seems really bad. There does not seem to be any way to check on whether we hold the heart Queen.

[hatchett]

I would think that 4NT should typically deliver one and a half or two club stops and a 1543 shape. 4♣ sounds like a good 1543 hand that is uncertain about strain say with one ♣ stop or worse. Most other shapes can make a more descriptive call over 3C.