Everybody has spades!

[han]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s1087xxhqdaxxckq9x]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1C - (p) - 1H* - (1S)

2C - (2S) - ??

 

1H showed spades, 1S is natural. Your call?

[Rossoneri]

What would 3♣ show here?

[han]

3C now would be natural.

[helene_t]

If G/B 2NT applies here, I make a constructive 3♣. Otherwise I guess I bid 3♣ anyway.

 

Not sure what dbl would mean but with this nice club support I like to bid clubs.

[gnasher]

Would 4♠ be a Bluhmer?

 

Edit: This seems to be a rather different evaluation from the previous two posters'. Are they confident that partner is going to bid again over 3♣ with void AKx xxxx AJxxxx ?

[Sambolino]

on my way to 6c i'd bid 3d for start, something good might happen (i doubt they will bid spades again tho; pd may have a reverse that he didn't want to bid because of s void so we may even play grand). if i play 0314 i might bang 6c immediately. my estimation is that over my spades they wouldn't bid with 4 or raise with 2 cards

[han]

I agree with gnasher that the votes for 3C are highly surprising.

 

Whether 4S is a bluhmer is indeed the question that made me post this hand.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s1087xxhqdaxxckq9x]133|100|Scoring: MP

1C - (p) - 1H* - (1S)

2C - (2S) - ??

1H showed spades, 1S is natural. Your call?[/hv]

IMO 4♥ = 10, 4♣ = 9, 3♦ = 6, 3♣ = 5, 2N = 2

Assuming opponents are honest this hand is enormous :) Even if opponents are conmen, prospects aren't bad :)

[MFA]

4♠ Bluhmer.

Surely partner will understand :), otherwise we must hope for a Fredin double (sorry Peter :)).

 

I think that this hand should make a clear slam try. Other bids than 4♠ are possible of course, as long as we get our intentions across.

[helene_t]

I agree with gnasher that the votes for 3C are highly surprising.

Right, I was just counting points as usual. There is probably no hand p can have that doesn't have play for at least 5♣.

[the hog]

4D cue. 3C is really surprising as I'm looking for 6.

[Guest Jlall]

My first inclination was to bid 6C, but that might be a bit rash. It seems like we are close to just driving it though. It's possible that partner doesn't have a spade void though. I guess I'd start with 3S and hope to get into a cuebidding sequence.

[pclayton]

I would ask myself what different bids mean here.

 

Double should be clearly penalty. After, we've bid spades. This should be akin to an auction we discussed on here a few months ago:

 

1♦ (pass) 1♥ (2♥)

Double

 

Where the sage posters (and I think Michael Rosenberg who made the call) thought double is penalty.

 

That leaves 3♠ and 4♠. Obviously they are both some form of cuebid supporting clubs. I think 3♠ is plenty. Over 4♠, how is pard supposed to know that void, Kxxx, Qxx, AJxxxx sucks, but void, xxxx, KQx AJxxxx is the subnuts.

 

I think 4♥ is possible too. Undoubtedly pard will be excited to cue his void, but with crappy trump, he can't be expected to drive to slam.

 

3♣? Maybe if we had 40 on..... :)

[gnasher]

If I bid 4♠ it would be because I've never bid a Bluhmer before, but I think 3♠ is more sensible from a bridge perspective, partly because 4♠ uses up so much space and partly because our red suits aren't equal. ♥AK are much more useful than ♥A and ♦K.

[Guest Jlall]

My first inclination was to bid 6C, but that might be a bit rash. It seems like we are close to just driving it though. It's possible that partner doesn't have a spade void though. I guess I'd start with 3S and hope to get into a cuebidding sequence.

After thinking some more, driving to slam is definitely bad.

[inquiry]

ZAR Fit points suggest bidding slam now... on misfit points, you can "count" on partner having a void in spades (although stiff is possible). In addition, partner has at least six club (superfit), and probably 7. I am guessing partner is something like 0-4-3-6 or similiar. So I think our misfit points are 5+3+0, partner could have a spade more than 0, but then a diamond less, so our misfit points would be 4+3+1. Either way, "misfit points" are 8. So we count our zar points for clubs (10 hcp, 3 control points, 14 distibutional points, minus one for singleton Q = 26). Next we add the misfit points (8) to come to 26+8 = 34.

 

Next we try to figure out how many ZAR points partner has. He free bid 2C, so lets assume he has a touch more than a minimum, which is 26. If he has 30, we have a combined 64. Zar suggest for slam, you need 62+, for grand slam you need 67+. But if partner does have a minimum of 26, you have only a combined 60, not quite enough for slam.

 

So Zar point people would know that game must be bid (no chance they would bid only 3♣), and that slam is possible (there is a chance you are off two aces even with more than 62+ zars). So a strong slam invite seems just about right. That is why I think I like the Bluhmer bid of 4♠. If partners 2♣ bid promised EXTRA values, I would go with a forcing 4♣ bid planning on not stopping short of slam (surely partner has the club ace, and the odds are long a spade void).

[han]

Partner has - Kxxxx AJ AJxxxx, slam is quite good and I imagine you get there no matter what try you make. The hand came up in bidding practice.

[Vilgan]

I call the director, since declarer and dummy both have the A of diamonds! :)

[jillybean]

If anyone else is wondering what a Bluhmer is..

http://www.bridgehands.com/B/Bluhmer.htm

[han]

Partner has the diamond KJ.

[NickRW]

I suppose it is possible for partner to hold something where 5♣ doesn't make, but it seems long odds against. So I'm hoping for 6 and I don't see what is wrong with bidding 3♠ for now.

 

Nick

[inquiry]

Several people have mentioned bidding 3♠, two of these 3♠ bidders are clearly better players than me, the third and fourth I don't know, maybe they are better too, so maybe 3♠ is a good choice......

 

That leaves 3♠ and 4♠. Obviously they are both some form of cuebid supporting clubs. I think 3♠ is plenty. Over 4♠, how is pard supposed to know that void, Kxxx, Qxx, AJxxxx sucks, but void, xxxx, KQx AJxxxx is the subnuts

 

If I bid 4♠ it would be because I've never bid a Bluhmer before, but I think 3♠ is more sensible from a bridge perspective, partly because 4♠ uses up so much space and partly because our red suits aren't equal.

 

I guess I'd start with 3S and hope to get into a cuebidding sequence

 

I suppose it is possible for partner to hold something where 5♣ doesn't make, but it seems long odds against. So I'm hoping for 6 and I don't see what is wrong with bidding 3♠ for now.

The good news about 3♠ is there is no doubt that this agrees clubs, and is at least game invite. But might partner not take this as a cue-bid? Sending the message you have the spade ACE is exactly wrong with this hand. Partner will think your ace is wasted and some of their value for their bids must be a card of more imporance (say the diamond ace). If you play that 4♣ is not forcing, then your only recourse seems to be a 3/4♠ bid, but I think a forcing 4♣ bid does a number of useful things. . it will give you a chance to show a heart control when partner cue-bids his hoped for king of diamonds. If partner can only cue-bid hearts, you can still bid 4♠ to show slam interest despite the lack of a diamond cue-bid.

 

Now if 3♠ is just an old=fashion, fit and force cue-bid without implications for 3NT or showing a spade control (ACE OR KING), then it is fine. But I worry about turning partner off. If partner decides we are making a slam try without anything in spades, it seems better for me.

[kenrexford]

If anyone else is wondering what a Bluhmer is..

http://www.bridgehands.com/B/Bluhmer.htm

A "Bluhmer" is a safe empathetic splinter, in that you already know that partner has a stiff.

 

The problem with a Bluhmer here is the auction does not establish that partner has a stiff. Sure, in this auction, partner has a stiff (probably...). However, the same auction could occur on another day with Responder having a stiff and Opener 2 spades. So, if this is actually more precisely an empathetic splinter because you do not "know," you just empathize the splinter.

 

This is dangerous, however. The danger is in the assessment of what is going on, and reliance on partner to so assess. The 1♠ call should, IMO, be natural. However, it is conceivable to play 1♠ as pre-completion Michaels, and one opponent might have assumed this. Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid. What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

 

Further, fourth seat may be funny and picking off spades.

 

The stiff heart screams of a real risk that the opponents are intentionally or unintentionally messing around.

 

All that said, I like the spade jump here.

[gnasher]

If 4♣ is forcing, I agree that you should do that.

 

In competitive auctions I normally play bids in our suits as limited and non-forcing (though it's not clear how useful this is when it's a jump to four of a minor). As a corollary, a cue bid includes a strong raise, and neither shows nor denies a control in their suit.

 

Usually when each side has bid one suit, the raise is the only hand that cue bids - you can make a takeout double on any awkward strong hand without support. Here, however, the auction is complicated by our not having a takeout double available. So I suppose that a cue bid includes both a clubs raise and a 3NT try, asking partner to bid 3NT with a singleton spade honour.

 

I expect that the auction will continue 3♠-4♣-4♦. I hope that will be interpreted as a cue bid in support of clubs.

[gnasher]

Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid. What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

I'd try a double. Six tricks are easier than ten, especially when it's the same trump suit in each case.