OMG SLAM

[rogerclee]

IMPs

 

♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jx ♣xxx

 

2♣ - 2♦

3♦ - 3♠

3NT - ?

 

2♣ was strong, 2♦ was GF.

[mike777]

editl

[gwnn]

Go play 2♠=8-10 bal.

 

Otherwise you should bid 4N now.

[whereagles]

Too many ifs here. Opposite a 2♣ opener by me, pass is 200% clear-cut :)

[P_Marlowe]

I would go with 4NT.

 

2D being game force means, that declarer did

not promise a gameforcing hand with 2C?

 

Which may imply, that 3NT may still be something

around 21-22 with a strong 6 card diamond suit?

 

More precise, would it have been possible to sign

off in 3D?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Let's transfer the blame. 4NT. Second choice pass.

[ewj]

Definitely not going to pass, I might not have bid 3S last time around...Choice between 4D and 4NT now for me.

[brianshark]

Closer to 6NT than Pass. But I'll probably just try 4NT.

[ArtK78]

It depends upon this 2♣ bidder's style.

 

If his style, like mine, is that an opening 2♣ bid is a last resort - a hand just too strong to risk opening a one bid - then 4NT makes sense. Slam is a possiblity.

 

If his style is like so many players that I see who use 2♣ openings on almost any 20 count because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, then I pass and I hope 3NT makes.

 

By the way, assuming that 2♦ was a positive response, I would not criticize my partner for this bidding if he held:

 

x Jx AKQTxxx AKQ

[skjaeran]

I'm very close to bidding 6NT here, but I'll just give partner a little push with 4NT.

[blackshoe]

Pass is wimpy. 4NT.

[skjaeran]

Pass is wimpy. 4NT.

Pass isn't wimpy, it's unbelievable.

[mikeh]

It depends upon this 2♣ bidder's style.

 

If his style, like mine, is that an opening 2♣ bid is a last resort - a hand just too strong to risk opening a one bid - then 4NT makes sense.  Slam is a possiblity.

By the way, assuming that 2♦ was a positive response, I would not criticize my partner for this bidding if he held:

 

x Jx AKQTxxx AKQ

 

I see these as inconsistent statements: is there ANY real prospect of the auction going 1♦ P P P when we hold 19 hcp, and 3 cards in the majors????

 

Not to mention the lack of anything resembling a stopper in the suit the opps rate to lead.

 

However, I agree with 4N and with the criticism addressed to those hosts of bad players who don't understand how to bid and thus announce 2♣ mostly as a means of celebrating a big hand (and also to try to mastermind the auction).

[mike777]

As a nonexpert, 2c followed by 3d shows a long D suit and 3 loser hand with lots of controls.

 

I may have 2 winners in my hand....so cannot pass.

 

I understand 4nt but I think another option is 4d which would allow partner to bid a rkc 4h for D or start cuebidding.

[kenrexford]

IMO, 4NT describes the hand well, and was my first inclination, but I think 4♦ has more to offer. We should have a fit. Opener does not bid 3♦ without six of them (presumably). Therefore, I can set trumps low enough for lots of options, including perhaps 4♥ as RKCB, which would allow me to bid 4♠ to show slam interest but no key cards, all below 4NT. BTW, I think that 4NT by Opener in this sequence as his next call should be passable -- thoughts?

 

As an aside, this would be a good auction for me with the tools I would like. As 3♦ would deny a four-card major, 3♠ by Responder would promise five spades but would deny five hearts (else, Responder would bid 5-5 majors up-the-line). Therefore, 4♥ would unambiguously be a cue in support, which might be even better.

[whereagles]

but I think 4♦ has more to offer. We should have a fit.

should have a fit? u gonna stick your head on what should be true? you willing to put that much trust in pard??

 

j/k. If you wanna bid, I agree 4♦ is superior to 4NT. Opener might well be something like 1363 with a mini-monster.

[mike777]

"Therefore, I can set trumps low enough for lots of options, including perhaps 4♥ as RKCB, which would allow me to bid 4♠ to show slam interest but no key cards, all below 4NT. BTW, I think that 4NT by Opener in this sequence as his next call should be passable -- thoughts?"

 

 

 

NOOOOOO :(

 

 

4nt is a Queen trump ask. 4d=4h(rkc)=4s(0-3)=4nt(trump Q ask)....... :)

 

Playing kickback you just need to give up ever playing 4nt/5nt as natural after start of kickback auction. :)

[ArtK78]

It depends upon this 2♣ bidder's style.

 

If his style, like mine, is that an opening 2♣ bid is a last resort - a hand just too strong to risk opening a one bid - then 4NT makes sense.  Slam is a possiblity.

By the way, assuming that 2♦ was a positive response, I would not criticize my partner for this bidding if he held:

 

x Jx AKQTxxx AKQ

 

I see these as inconsistent statements: is there ANY real prospect of the auction going 1♦ P P P when we hold 19 hcp, and 3 cards in the majors????

 

Not to mention the lack of anything resembling a stopper in the suit the opps rate to lead.

 

However, I agree with 4N and with the criticism addressed to those hosts of bad players who don't understand how to bid and thus announce 2♣ mostly as a means of celebrating a big hand (and also to try to mastermind the auction).

Sure there is a chance that the auction will go all pass.

 

I am not going to open 1♦ with 10 tricks in hand. It makes no sense to me. Opening 1♦ on x Jx AKQTxxx AKQ will not allow me to describe my hand any better than by opening 2♣. What magical rebid are you going to come up with to announce 10 tricks in hand after a 1♦ opening (again, assuming that you will have the opportunity to make a rebid)?

 

There are many strong hands which are easier to describe by opening a one-bid. This is not one of them.

[mikeh]

Those who opt for 4♦, in my view, are heading for trouble... it may not arise, but I think you are certainly risking it.

 

Why?

 

4♦ suggests that your hand is suit oriented: that it affords at least a chance of scoring a ruffing value... while in reality, diamonds is your shortest suit.

 

It is also an unlimited bid. That, in itself, will usually not become an issue, but when you combine it with suggesting a ruffing value, partner may get too carried away, expecting a more useful hand even after or especially after cue-bidding or keycard (and I don't like keycard in these auctions, since both hands are so ill-defined that merely knowing the keycard situation rarely solves anything, but I recognize that 100% of bad players and 90% of good ones are addicted to the method).

 

As for those who think that 4♦ will allow us to play 6♦ rather than (I assume) 6N..... when opener has a monster 1=3=6=3, as an example... just how weak a player is your partner???? You bid 2♦ then 3♠. Just how strong a spade suit did you promise? He KNOWS you don't have AQ or AK or KQ... and you did invite in notrump, which hardly sounds like a stiff or void in diamonds to me. If 6♦ is best, you should trust partner to bid it. If, instead, you fear that partner is unable to bid properly, then misdescribing the 'suitability' of your hand for a diamond contract is not the best way to avoid trouble.

[kenrexford]

I have to disagree with you, Mike.

 

First, if I have shortness in the true sense (stiff or void), then 3♠ was a really bad bid. 3♦ was a huge call. If I have a stiff or void on the side, and diamond support, I have a clear splinter over 3♦, IMO, or at least an immediate raise. Majors are nice, but you don't pass up showing fit plus shortness after the 3♦ call. Thus, I would expect 4♦ to probably show 5332 shape.

 

Second, I don't think 4♦ should say that I am "suit oriented." My hand is irrelevant. Partner has the monster and the shape. 4♦ simply announces fit plus willingness to bypass 3NT.

 

Third, because of these two, 4NT should actually, IMO, deny a diamond fit.

 

Where I tend to agree is that 4♥ as RKCB may not be ideal. Perhaps the best use is simply a cue. If cues are in use here, then 4NT by Responder should, IMO, be a negative cue, suggesting poor trump contribution.

 

I also would note that the reason to bid 4♦ is not to get to 6♦. The reason to bid 4♦ is to create space for more "here's what I have" bidding. If 6♦ is the end contract, it will be a more informed end contract.

 

In practice, if I bid 4♦ and partner cues 4♥, I can now bid 4NT to (1) deny either the Ace or King of spades and (2) deny one of the top three diamonds. If partner bids 4♠, instead, I can bid 4NT to deny a top diamond. Either way, partner has a better picture of my hand.

 

Tweak my hand to Qx in diamonds, and I can complete either pictuire by bidding 5♦ instead to add the message that I have no club control but that I do have one of the top three diamonds.

[mikeh]

Ken, we all know (I hope) that your approach to constructive bidding is idiosyncratic. It matters not whether your approach is, in whole or in part, superior to more common approaches, because posters here are looking for guidance in how they should deal with real life situations, and for better or for worse, very few of us will ever likely sit across the table from you and have to tailor our bidding styles to your ideas.

 

Whereas all of us (apart maybe from you and whereagles) hope that we can learn enough about more mainstream ideas that we can sit down with an expert (or at least a partner better than we are) and make decisions that, while our partner might disagree with them, are at least more or less what he'd or she'd expect.. in other words, we learn to play 'expert standard', while recognizing that this approach has many variants surrounding a central approach.

 

I have two main responses to your ideas.

 

1. With Kxxxxx x xxx Kxx, the idea of never bidding spades seems silly. Now, I am assuming that we have strength and suit quality constraints that require or at least permit 2♦ on this spade holding. If your style requires some suit quality constraints, but 2♠ is the right bid over 2♣ with this holding, then imagine the longest/strongest spade suit with which you would NOT bid 2♠.

 

For one thing, knowledge of a long but relatively weak spade suit may greatly assist partner in evaluation of his hand... Ax is a great holding if we end up in diamonds, Axx probably means a loser in the suit and so on.

 

For another, I have never played on a team that can afford to not even enquire about a possible AQx opposite Kxxxxx major as a trump suit, or a source of tricks in a slam auction. Or AKJ opposite Qxxxx or, in a pinch, AKx... I've heard that such suits often break 3-2 against us.

 

2. Using the pull of 3N to 4♦ to suggest a hand that may afford some advantage if played in diamonds rather than notrump, with 4N reserved for invitational hands that, in themselves, appear to afford no such advantage, allows for intelligent decision making. While I would have thought that this distinction was self-evident, let me pose a question. I assume that we'd all agree that partner's bidding is acceptable on x AJx AKQ109x AKx.

 

Now compare two hands... the one you would bid 4♦ on and the one that I would need: Qxxxx KQx Jx xxx or Qxxxx KQx Jxx xx.

 

6♦ has virtually no play opposite the actual hand, yet is virtually cold opposite the slightly amended one. It is not a coincidence that the amendment leaves basic shape unchanged, both being 5332, and honour cards in the same position, with the only change being the creation of a RUFFING VALUE!!!!!

 

I am sure that Ken will now retroactively invent some reverse-empathetic anti-splinter method that he and his partner, without discussion, would both work out at the table that would allow them to stop in 5♦ opposite his 4♦ bid while still arriving at 6♦ opposite my hand (oh... I forgot, Ken never rebids 3Major on a 5 card suit if he has 3♦, even on a 5332 hand).

[jdonn]

4NT. Wtp? It's amazing that hands like these can spur debates and long posts!

[han]

I'm also a 4NT bidder. I must say I'm happy also quite happy with the 2C-2S= 8-10 balanced gadget.

[dburn]

He KNOWS you don't have AQ or AK or KQ...

How does he know this? The original post stated only that 2♣ was strong and 2♦ was forcing to game. Perhaps, as is played in many Scandinavian countries, the sequence 2♣-2♠ can be passed. I don't know whether the original poster was playing such a method, nor what other responses to 2♣ would have shown in his system, since he did not trouble to tell anyone.

 

If I were going to bid over 3NT (and whether or not I would bid over 3NT depends on the system, which I do not know) then it is at least clear, if not CLEAR, to bid 4♦. If partner's diamonds are not headed by the ace, but the rest of the hand is solid facing my impressive holding in hearts, then it is imperative that I show the support I have. Even if partner's diamonds are such as AQ10xxxx, it is critical that I show genuine support and not an insistence on playing in notrump (for which my black-suit holdings are far too weak in any case).

 

I have read the interchange between krexford and mikeh with interest bordering at times on incredulity. When I was young, I believed that if two people violently disagreed with one another about what should be done, then one of them must be wrong and the other right. Now, however, I am beginning to have doubts about the principle of the excluded middle. For well it was said by the bard:

 

For many system-shoppers, it's

a good-for-nothing system

that classifies as opposites

stupidity and wisdom,

 

because by logic-choppers it's

accepted with avidity:

stupidity's true opposite's

the opposite stupidity.

[kenrexford]

I mean, Mike, with the hand that you proposed for when 6♦ fails, Opener's continuation after 4♦ will be 4♥, right?

 

Responder, both times, will then bid 4NT with either hand, as expected, denying any top diamond and denying the spade Ace or King. After hearing 4NT, Opener might make one last stab at slam, with a 5♣ cue. If Responder has the hand with three trumps and a doubleton ruffing value, he accepts. With the same hand but only two trumps and no ruffing value, he declines.

 

My way, our contract will be 5♦ when 6♦ probably does not make (J8 doubleton, a 3-2 trump split, and a 4-3 spade split would work). Your way, that same hand plays 4NT, which could fail on a spade lead.

 

In contrast, give Responder something like 5413 or 5314 shape with tweener values (maybe the same honors, with the club Jack or Queen instead), and Opener with a lesser diamond contribution internally than AKQ109x. How about ♠x ♥AJxx ♦AKQxxx ♣AK? Same hand, tweaked ever-so-slightly. Now, the key is in knowing whether the diamonds are likely to play for no loser, and opposite a stiff or void, not so much.

 

Agreeing diamonds at a lower level does not commit us to diamonds, but it is wildly interesting and relieving to most partners who are looking at six-card suits. Being able to deny a fit is equally powerful information.

 

Backing up to your first question, namely what spade suit could I possibly have but want to conceal. Hxxxxx or HHxxx is usually yielding a positive, assuredly if I will have the strength to bid either 4NT or 4♦ at this point. So, the best conceivable would be AJ1098, and even that's probably a bit rich. If I held ♠AJ1098 ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxx, a hand with three controls, three-card support for diamonds, and a stiff, I'm sure as Hell splintering. We are way closer to a grand slam now than to any desire to play 4♠.

 

I agree that it would be nice for partner to know that we have diamonds, short hearts, and a trick source in spades. This would work out tremendously if the auction was something like this:

 

2♣-P-2♦-P-

3♦-P-3♠-P-

3♦-P-4♥.

 

Unfortunately, however, the opponents rarely accept insufficient bids when we are in a slam sequence. The reality is that strain selection is incredibly difficult after a 2♣ opening, especially when Opener has a long minor. If we have a strong dummy with great support for the diamond suit, and friggin' shortness as a kicker, this should be cause for celebration and immediate relay of that news, not muddied nonsense about major suits scoring better than minor suits or hoping to somehow send the full message in the limited space remaining. It ends up being like watching football, with 2:00 to play and our team down by 12. Sure, it could work out, maybe. But, had we just made the practical call earlier, this would be nothing.

 

What you end up with, as does Mike, apparently, is 4♦ showing anything from perhaps ♠Axxxxx ♥x ♦Qxx ♣Kxx to that sickly ♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jxx ♣xx. Wow. I'm the idiosyncratic one as to constructive bidding?

 

Sure, if you want to discuss theory and bidding from the standpoint of what most experts who do not think about theory as much as you have learned from most other experts who also do not think about theory as much as you and have perhaps adopted out of fear of being (labeled) idiosyncratic, then by all means have at it. Personally, I think the CW is often absurdly simplistic and unmanageable. I'd rather think through how to actually bid hands effectively than to bids hands traditionally but then make wild guesses as to which of many possible and diverse hands partner actually has.