OMG SLAM

[Impact]

Reluctant as I am to stick my head into the boxing-ring with Mikeh and Ken,

my initial reaction was 4NT wtp - but maybe closer to 5NT as this is a good hand with awful methods.

 

Then I thought about it in terms of my problem with 2C opener's handtype. I confess that lacking a system which allows convenient exposition of main suit D strong hands (or even worse minor 2 -suiters) my tendency will be to open 1D on anything less than overwhelming strength (and all the more so if I have to explore other strains).

 

Hence, a GF bid in D and then retreat to NT (as opposed to opening 1D or showing the appropriate NT strength) should be the real deal.

 

Then I think that since I would raise to 4NT on hands with a singleton D, my Jx is huge.

 

Let the strong hand retain control and ask about any holes via asking bids or cues: hence I bid 4D too.

 

As an aside, with plenty of extra strength opposite a 2C opening, I agree (with Ken) that it is better to show it immediately via a splinter or raise with real support than to look for alternative games when it is likely SLAM/grandslam is relevant.

 

IMHO the time to introduce your own suit when you have real support for 2C opener's suit and positive is when that suit may provide an unexpected source of tricks...

 

Trying to keep the discourse friendly but discursive and edifying between educated people.....you never know we all may end up not only better informed but perhaps wiser (to abuse the well-known line of F.E. Smith).

regards

[655321]

Agree with jdonn

[dburn]

you never know we all may end up not only better informed but perhaps wiser (to abuse the well-known line of F.E. Smith).

Judge: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?

Smith: No, my Lord. I am trying to conceal it.

[ochinko]

Transfering the responsibility with 4NT is wimpy. Partner is an expressed hand that was prepared to play 5♦ alone.

 

I blast off to 6NT now. If those 2♣ were real opps aren't going to take the first 4 or 5 spade tricks.

 

And 4♦ is, of course, madly distorting our shape.

[ArtK78]

Transfering the responsibility with 4NT is wimpy. Partner is an expressed hand that was prepared to play 5♦ alone.

 

I blast off to 6NT now. If those 2♣ were real opps aren't going to take the first 4 or 5 spade tricks.

 

And 4♦ is, of course, madly distorting our shape.

They don't need 4 or 5 - only 2.

 

Just for argument's sake, suppose partner had the following hand:

 

Jx AJ AKQTxx AKQ

 

Is this hand not consistent with the auction?

[fred]

Perhaps because I recently read his book, I find myself strangely empathetic (haha) toward several of Ken's post during the past few weeks. I say this is strange because this rarely used to happen.

 

I certainly agree with him here. IMO 4D is far superior to 4NT. One reason is this:

 

Suppose you had to guess the best final contract at this point. Don't you think there is a very good chance that the answer would be 6D? If so, letting partner in on this news might be a good idea.

 

I emphatically and empathetically disagree with those posters who suggest that 4D "promises" 3-card support or that bidding 4D "distorts" your distribution. 4D doesn't promise anything except for a hand that has promise when diamonds are trump (you have that). 4D doesn't "distort" anything - this is not even close to being an auction in which you are trying to describe your shape.

 

One important point that Ken makes which some of his critics seem not to appreciate is that 3D shows a really big hand. The reason is that 3D will sometimes get raised with a hand that turns out to be essentially useless. When that happens it would be nice to be able to put on the brakes in 5D and to usually have a reasonable play for that contract. In other words, 2C then 3D tends to deliver a hand that is worth at least 10 tricks with diamonds as trump.

 

Given that partner is all but certain to have the Ace of hearts, you are all but certain to have at least 2 tricks for him. On top of that, your Jack of diamonds is a great card opposite most of the possible diamond holdings for partner - perhaps the one and only reason he bid *only* 3NT with some truly massive hand is that he is lacking that card. Even your Queen of spades may prove to be valuable.

 

I do believe that it is going to be hard to have a highly accurate auction from this point forward. Opposite a partner who is not a great bidder (ie most people) it could be argued that bidding 4D now is the same as bidding 6D. If so then so be it. 6D will be a good spot much more often than not in my view.

 

Disclaimer: The previous opinion is based on what I would normally expect from my partners for 2C then 3D. I believe our views in this area are fairly close to mainstream in America, but how likely it is that your partner will have a hand for which 6D is a good spot will of course depend to a large degree on your partnership's style in this area.

 

And yes, I know that you can still get to 6D if you bid the "obvious" 4NT, but I think that bid sends the wrong message. 4NT is a high card invitation to slam but nobody really knows how many points it is supposed to show or when opener, who has not defined his range in any meaningful way, is supposed to accept such an invitation. Meanwhile 4D has the advantage over 4NT of saying not only that you might belong in slam, but that you have reason to believe that maybe diamonds should be trump. It turns out you really do have reason to believe just that!

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

For me 4♦ has to be a better bid than 4N. At this stage I can't rule out the possibility that partner has a singleton spade - maybe 1363 shape. That being the case, 6N would have no chance, but 6♦ may have reasonable play. Therefore to suggest 6N via a 4N invite while not announcing some sort of belated support for diamonds has to be a mistake in my opinion.

 

Nick

[benlessard]

My feeling is that the J of D make a big difference. I would support with Jx or stiff Q but probably not with xx and no ruffing power.

[cherdano]

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

[fred]

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

True but 4D doesn't preclude playing in 6NT any more than 4NT precludes playing in 6D. And, while it is not very hard to construct hands where 6NT is better (as you demonstrate), I think it is a lot easier to construct hands where 6D is better.

 

Obviously none of the bids come with any guarantees (which is why this is a good problem IMO).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Well, I think it is also a very likely possibility that 6N is the right contract, and 6♦ is wrong-sided. Is KJ AJx AKQTxx AQ not good enough for 3♦ (after partner has shown a little something with 2♦)?

A couple of other points regarding your example:

 

1) If you play Kokish there is a lot to be said for treating this as a big balanced hand (though it is hard to be too critical of a 3D rebid). If you don't play Kokish (or even if you do?), then maybe this is what a 3NT rebid is supposed to look like?

 

2) If partner does have this hand and if you do end up in 6D, at least that contract still has reasonable play. Most likely you will make 6D unless the defense leads a club and the finesse is wrong. But for many of the hands in which 6D is best, 6NT has no play at all provided that the defense finds the right lead. That right lead is very likely to be a spade and your opponents will have a Lightner double available to sometimes help them find that lead.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I completely agree we will belong in diamonds more often than in notrump, and in fact agree with just about every point made by Fred. And yet I still don't see why that means we should bid 4♦ instead of 4NT. I can't think of the hand on which partner blasts 6NT over that and we belong in diamonds. Even if we belong in diamonds, it seems nice that partner knows (for example) we will have no ruffing values for him.

[pclayton]

I'm with the 4N camp. Their food is better.

 

I don't think this boils down to the degree of support for opting between 4♣ and 4♦. I am far more concerned with offering up too much encouragement, and I think 4♦ does just that. If we bid 4♦, our hand should be very offensive and not suitable for NT. I keep looking and all I see are a lot of soft cards and a flat hand.

 

When I raise to 4N, I think I'm either semi balanced; 5332 looks optimal, but some weird 5♠1♦(43)'s and some weak 6♠2♦(32) certainly qualify.

[fred]

When I raise to 4N, I think I'm either semi balanced; 5332 looks optimal, but some weird 5♠1♦(43)'s and some weak 6♠2♦(32) certainly qualify.

Agree - 5431 is VERY possible. That is one of the reasons why it is so important IMO to bid 4D. Imagine that partner's diamonds are something like:

 

KQxxxx

AQxxxx

AKxxxx

AKQxxx

KQxxxxx

AQxxxxx

 

Where some of the x's may or may not be the 10 and/or 9 in each case.

 

With some of these holdings the concept of slam facing a singleton diamond will terrify partner. Even if he is not terrified, with some of these holdings it won't even occur to him over 4NT to give you the option of playing in 6D.

 

Meanwhile, if you mention the word "diamonds", look how his evaluation of these holdings changes. All of a sudden he will know that diamonds really is a viable trump suit and, if his hand looks like notrump, that his long suit really is a source of tricks (as opposed to trick).

 

Summary: I think if you bid 4NT, partner's lack of the Jack of diamonds will not infrequently cause him to Pass when you have a laydown slam. And, if he happens to bid over 4NT, it is far from unlikely that you will end up in 6NT when 6D is a much better spot.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I wholeheartedly apoligize to the bridge community for perhaps dragging a previously sane and well-respected individual into my PKD world. LOL :rolleyes:

[pclayton]

When I raise to 4N, I think I'm either semi balanced; 5332 looks optimal, but some weird 5♠1♦(43)'s and some weak 6♠2♦(32) certainly qualify.

Agree - 5431 is VERY possible. That is one of the reasons why it is so important IMO to bid 4D. Imagine that partner's diamonds are something like:

 

KQxxxx

AQxxxx

AKxxxx

AKQxxx

KQxxxxx

AQxxxxx

 

Where some of the x's may or may not be the 10 and/or 9 in each case.

 

With some of these holdings the concept of slam facing a singleton diamond will terrify partner. Even if he is not terrified, with some of these holdings it won't even occur to him over 4NT to give you the option of playing in 6D.

 

Pard will usually be 6♦2♠(32) or 1363 for 3N. With the 2362, pard will frequently rebid 2N or Kokish if the diamonds are marginal.

 

5413 / 5314 are just two of the eight hand patterns available for 4N. In the other cases if pard decides to be more bullish, he can check back for doubleton support with 5N (PAS).

[fred]

5413 / 5314 are just two of the eight hand patterns available for 4N. In the other cases if pard decides to be more bullish, he can check back for doubleton support with 5N (PAS).

Sorry friend, but I think you are being rather bullish here :rolleyes:

 

What 8 hand patterns are you referring to? I assume that the only 5332 pattern you would bid 4NT on is 5323. That's one. There are two 5422 patterns and two 6322 patterns that don't have primary diamond support. That's five in total, but hands of these patterns do include the ruffing value for diamonds that many people seem to think is so important. Wouldn't you bid 4D and not 4NT with at least some of these hands?

 

And why not 6313, 6412, or 6214? If these patterns might qualify for for 4NT then they should be added to my count since the same considerations apply here as with 5431s. Furthermore I could see bidding 4NT with some 5-5 hands or even hands with diamond voids.

 

So I think it is at least even money (to put it mildly) that, whatever hand 4NT is meant to describe, a singleton diamond will be part of it. But even if I have counted badly...

 

1) I still think 4D will often make it (much) easier for partner to evaluate his hand accurately and that this call has virtually no downside versus 4NT.

 

2) Sure you might be able to back into diamonds some of the time after inviting slam with 4NT, but often there won't be any after - partner will Pass 4NT when you are cold for slam.

 

Obviously having Jx of instead of x in diamonds will often be the key to slam. IM(strong)O, you should try to get this point across in the bidding.

 

Anyways, I think I have spent enough time on this one so I am going back to work. If some future post manages to convince me that 4NT is better than 4D, I will be happy to admit it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I'm glad I didn't start with my first thought, namely that in theory it might even be a winning idea to have any bid over 3NT agree diamonds...

[fred]

I'm glad I didn't start with my first thought, namely that in theory it might even be a winning idea to have any bid over 3NT agree diamonds...

Now you have disappointed me, Ken.

 

I was sure you were going to suggest using transfers :lol:

 

Fred Gitelman

Biridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I'm glad I didn't start with my first thought, namely that in theory it might even be a winning idea to have any bid over 3NT agree diamonds...

Now you have disappointed me, Ken.

 

I was sure you were going to suggest using transfers :lol:

 

Fred Gitelman

Biridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Don't tempt me. LOL

[mike777]

". 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."

 

 

As a nonexpert I thought the example hand was a borderline 2c opener. I could understand opening 1D and planning to rebid 3nt over 1s. STrong one suited minor suits hands are tough to bid or rebid. :lol:

 

As I mentioned I understand and have no issue with 4nt but I thought 4d was an option and one I would have chosen. Granted I use/rely on rkc minor suit auctions much more often than MikeH :)