How good is this hand?

[joshs]

You hold:

 

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

 

(No spots worth noting)

 

Partner opens 1S (You open balanced 11's, but play standard methods)

You bid 2D, Natural and Game forcing

Partner bids 2S which does not promise a 6'th. It does deny AKQ 7'th (since he would bid 3S with that)

You bid 3C (Agree? Or do you prefer 2N?)

Partner bids 3S, which shows a good 6+ card suit. As our opening 2S bid was 9-12 with 6Spades, this bid promises mild extras.

Are you good enough to bid 4H? If not how much more do you need?

[awm]

I'd feel like I have to make a slam try because this hand has too many controls. It's true that 4♥ is a bit of an overbid on values, but it's awfully hard for partner to bid past 4♠ with only one keycard and there are hands where slam is good (i.e. ♠AQJxxxx ♥Kxx ♦x ♣xx seems like a pass).

[Finch]

I'd bid 4H. It's not a great hand, but it does have 3 aces... if partner thinks he has enough to move over this, looking at no aces outside trumps, he'll probably be right.

 

I'm also pleased I bid my club suit, as partner will know that club honours are useful. The danger is that he will think Qx in diamonds is a good holding whereas what we actually want is a diamond singleton (AKQxxx xxx x Kxx makes slam very playable for example, there's good squeeze chances even on a trump lead)

 

p.s. on this shape I would often bid 2NT over 2S, but here 3NT looks likely to be better played by partner.

[OleBerg]

4♥, and no further initiatives. (Like it needed saying.)

[kenrexford]

First, I would have bid 2NT. Partner, presumably, can bid 3♣ or 3♦ now, if that is important. 3♣, IMO, overstates the minor cards and shape.

 

Plus, bidding 3♣ created some of the problems. If, for example, you had bid 2NT, I would expect that a 3♠ call from partner would eliminate any alternative contracts other than spades and notrump. By bidding 2NT, you allow all four-level calls after 3♠ to be fit-showing cues, rather than just 4♥. This is a good thing, IMO.

 

Second, having opted 3♣, I am sort of stuck. 4♥ seems mandatory now.

 

Still, to reiterate, the problem was the 3♣ call. A much better auction starts 2NT-P-3♠-P-4♣, wherein the club control is show, the diamond control inferred, and space available for each side to bump a little. 4♣ is a bump, 4♦ from partner could be a bump, and 4♥ after 4♦ is another bump. Back and forths are better than a maybe bid and a sure-we-will-try acceptance.

[OleBerg]

First, I would have bid 2NT.  Partner, presumably, can bid 3♣ or 3♦ now, if that is important.  3♣, IMO, overstates the minor cards and shape.

 

Plus, bidding 3♣ created some of the problems.  If, for example, you had bid 2NT, I would expect that a 3♠ call from partner would eliminate any alternative contracts other than spades and notrump.  By bidding 2NT, you allow all four-level calls after 3♠ to be fit-showing cues, rather than just 4♥.  This is a good thing, IMO.

 

Second, having opted 3♣, I am sort of stuck.  4♥ seems mandatory now.

 

Still, to reiterate, the problem was the 3♣ call.  A much better auction starts 2NT-P-3♠-P-4♣, wherein the club control is show, the diamond control inferred, and space available for each side to bump a little.  4♣ is a bump, 4♦ from partner could be a bump, and 4♥ after 4♦ is another bump.  Back and forths are better than a maybe bid and a sure-we-will-try acceptance.

Agree with this hi-jacker.

[ArtK78]

I agree with the 3♣ call. 2NT on a 2254 hand with all controls doesn't seem right to me. You could miss a club slam if you don't introduce the suit. Partner could have a hand that is suitable for a club slam but not right to bid 3♣ over 2♦ - for example - AKxxxx xx x KJxx.

 

Over 3♠, your hand is definitely worth a try with 4♥.

[jdonn]

I very very strongly prefer 2NT to 3♣, if partner has four clubs he will bid them anyway over 2NT so we won't miss that suit. At this point I will just bid 4♠, sure we have a lot of controls but we are minimum and our hand is unlimited, 4♥ will just have way too wide of a range if you bid it on hands like this. I note most examples of spade slams will involve the jack of spades, or else 6 becomes unsafe.

 

Totally agree with Ken I just realized (not about what to bid now, but about the earlier auction and why)! When he posts like a human being he is much easier to agree with :P

[Guest Jlall]

First, I would have bid 2NT. Partner, presumably, can bid 3♣ or 3♦ now, if that is important. 3♣, IMO, overstates the minor cards and shape.

 

Plus, bidding 3♣ created some of the problems. If, for example, you had bid 2NT, I would expect that a 3♠ call from partner would eliminate any alternative contracts other than spades and notrump. By bidding 2NT, you allow all four-level calls after 3♠ to be fit-showing cues, rather than just 4♥. This is a good thing, IMO.

 

Second, having opted 3♣, I am sort of stuck. 4♥ seems mandatory now.

 

Still, to reiterate, the problem was the 3♣ call. A much better auction starts 2NT-P-3♠-P-4♣, wherein the club control is show, the diamond control inferred, and space available for each side to bump a little. 4♣ is a bump, 4♦ from partner could be a bump, and 4♥ after 4♦ is another bump. Back and forths are better than a maybe bid and a sure-we-will-try acceptance.

Strongly agree with all of this, 2N seems much better.

[joshs]

Just out of curiosity, if you hold

KQxxxx xx xx AKx

what do you rebid after

1S-2D-2S (Does not promise 6)-2N?

 

I think 3C is the correct call on this hand. I do not think that new suits bid on the 3rd round of the auction are necessarily real suits.

 

There is a tension in bridge between bidding out shape, and bidding where you live, and I think you need to compromise some between those two objectives, especially when it comes to minors....

 

On this hand, since you hold AQxx you know that if partner bids 3C he certainly has 4+ clubs, but like I said I am not convinced that in general 3C absolutely shows 4 in this auction.

 

Anyway, I often bid 2N on this shape, if it feels positional and the hands feels NTy, especially if one stopper is tenuous (or not even a full stopper like Qx), but this hand hardly feels positional or NTy, and the clubs are strong, so I want partner to evaluate the CK as much more valuable than the HK, and I want partner to know I have 5 diamonds and the way to do that is to to bid clubs.

 

In any case let me annotate two different auctions:

Auction 1:

1S-2D(2/1 in diamonds)-2S(waiting)-3C(A Real 5+ card Diamond Suit, and at least decent clubs)-3S(Strong Spades, either very weak hearts or super strong spades, at least mild extras by system inference)-4H(Good hand for slam, partner who knows I am close to 2254 can evaluate his cards)

 

Auction 2:

1S-2D(2/1 in Diamonds)-2S(Waiting)-2N(Ambiguous about diamond length, has values in both round suits)-3S(Strong Spades, at least mild extras by system inference)-4C(Club Control)-4D(Diamond Control)-4H(Heart Control)

 

Please tell me why Auction 2 provides a better foundation for slam bidding? You don't know about the 5'th diamond. If you play 4H as a heart control (and not last train as I play it), you have never said anything about range (although perhaps Qbids were not obligatory, so you at least had mild slam interest). While Auction 2 showed a club control specifically, Auction 1 showed a club suit which is also valuable information (in my opinion more valuable). Also, in 2/1 auctions in general its a bad idea to introduce bad 4 card suits into what might be a slam auction if you can help it, so usually 3C is either a 5 card suit, or cotains some values.

 

So I really do think 3C is the right bid.

 

Now personally I think this hand despite having no trump honor and being fairly min in HCP is worth 4H over 3S in my auction, although I was curious about opinions. I do not think that this was a problem bid. I get the impression in ken's world making a bid that shows a specific holding in a given suit is not a problem bid (yes its true that making automatic calls are never problems), but a bid that says "I like my hand, or I do not like my hand for slam" is a problem bid (and in my opinion a much more important message). I think thats rediculous. People can disagree about 3C vs 2N (I did raise the question), but I hardly gave myself a problem.

 

Partner had AKQT9x xx Kx Kxx

This hand is much better opposite 2254, or 2164 or 2155 [or even opposite the suit oriented 1354 hands with enough extras to be worth a 4H bid] than it is opposite 2443. I am not sure what the objection is to helping partner evaluate his cards and why Qbidding is a better approach than showing shape and slam interest.

 

Note that the grand is about 75% here, and its hard to get close if partner doesn't know you have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs.

[kenrexford]

Strongly agree with all of this, 2N seems much better.

Is the love back? LOL

[pclayton]

Agree with the 2N bidders. Maybe pard can bid 3♣.

 

If pard bids 3♠, I think I'm just good enough for 4♣, since we know pard has 13+.

[kenrexford]

[lots of objections to others' point of view, although very well articulated]

Just because I think it helps:

 

[hv=d=w&w=sakq10xxhxxdkxckxx&e=sxxhaxdaxxxxcaqxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

You have a valid point. The 3♣ call sets up a "meaning" for 4♥ that is substantial. "I have slam interest with 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs." Without the club bid, this nuance is not available, and the post-3♠ sequence will not clarify this message.

 

However, the 2NT sequence also establishes some pre-3♠ parameters, as you actually mentioned. Opener had options other than 3♠. One that 2NT allowed was 3♣, and the failure to bid 3♣ seems to eliminate that as a possible holding. Thus, Opener's parameters have changed.

 

All that said, the question as to the likely end position is what world you want to liv in with this specific hand. In one world, Responder has focused the minors and noted his major support as "slammish" -- that could be called the "advance pattern-out" sequence. In the other world, Responder has focused something (wait on this for one minute) and has maximized cuebidding options (over 3♠).

 

Here's the problem, as I see it. If the 3♣ call later proves to be an "advanced pattern out," this implies, IMO, a heart problem. Something like ♠Jx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣AQJx might be expected by this Opener. The corollary is that the 2NT call, when later viewed as an "advance" something, implies an advance cue in hearts. Obviously, 2NT is not a heart cue and 3♣ is not a heart denial cue. But, the inference/feel is there, IMO.

 

At the end position, then, the 3♣ start leads to a 4♥ call that sounds like a LTTC bid without a heart control. That is not what it shows, but that is what it feels like.

 

Conversely, the 2NT route allows a 4♣ cue (same "extra" as 4♥) to show the club card, a useful 4♦ call from Opener, and a 4♥ LTTC call that sounds like a bump with a heart control.

 

This is not so much a preference for cuebidding. Actually, 4♥ after 3♣ would be considered quite advanced by most people as a cuebid technique. I like that. Rather, the option to bid 2NT is elected because of a prediction that there is a need to set a tone that is not minor-centered. 3♣ sounds like a bid made by a man with a COV in the minors, and the minors suits, although containing nice suits, are not all that. Further, the heart Ace is not consistent with a minor-suit COV. A predicted "what if Opener has the sixth spade" sequence suggests to me what I have described above.

[MarkDean]

4♥ for me, not close. A very good player once told me that the point system is dumb, but if you have to use it, count aces as 8. That makes this a 26 point hand. Seems worth at least a try.

 

I would have bid 3♣ as well. Ax is not a good holding for declaring nt.