How to find this 6[_CL]?

[xx1943]

We missed a nice slam in this hand and I have no idea how to bid it.

Maybe it is a matter of the system (Roman 2♦, big ♣, answers to strong jump-shift)

EDIT 11/18: Sorry this last sentence was bad verbalized. We play 2/1. I wanted to say: "Maybe some other system (Roman 2♦, big ♣, artificial answers to strong jump-shift) had done better. "

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj63h4dakt6caq87]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

You open 1♦ and after partners expected 1♥ your jump to 2♠ shows 17+HCP and not a balanced hand.

Partner's second bid is 3♣ 4th suit forcing (game forcing and asking for ♣-stopper)

you bid the normal 3NT, LHO leads ♣6 and dummy goes down and you realize that you missed a nice 6♣ slam, which only depends on a trump 3-2 distribution:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq85hakq9d85ck942&s=skj63h4dakt6caq87]133|200|Scoring: IMP

The bidding went:

SOUTH NORTH

   1♦       1♥

   2♠       3♣

  3NT       pass

[/hv]

 

Now my question are:

1) Is South's bidding ok?

2) Would you prefer 1♠ instead of 2♠?

3) Would you prefer 4♣ instead of 3NT?

 

4) Is North's bidding ok?

5) Facing a partner who showed ♦, ♠ and a♣-stopper and therefore very probably shortness in ♥. So looking at wasted values in ♥ should he bid 4♣ instead of the final pass?

 

6) If South decides to bid 4♣ instead of 3NT, what is the logical continuation now?

 

7) How do you think you and your favourite partner would bid this hand?

 

8) Is there need for artificial answers to a the strong jump shift? Is 3♣ in the above sequence 4sf??

 

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Thanks

Al

[ArtK78]

From your explanation, it seems that the jump to 2♠ was required by system. Personally, I would rebid 1♠ on these cards, since I would not expect partner to pass 1♠ on any hand where we have a game.

 

In any event, if the jump to 2♠ shows an unbalanced hand (meaning there is a singleton or void somewhere in the hand) and 17+ HCP (what is the upper limit of +?) partner should not pass 3NT. Opener must be either 4153, 4144 or 4054 on this auction (would opener bid 3NT with a void in hearts just to show a club stop?). It is easy to picture a 17 count that is 4144 that will produce a club slam - AKxx x Axxx AQxx. Depending on how much the + in 17+HCP can be, there may even be a grand - AKxx J Axxx AQJx is enough on normal breaks. If opener must bid 3NT with a club stopper, responder cannot afford to pass.

 

Responder should bid 4♣. If opener is 4153, then you may wind up getting to 4NT instead of 3NT. But responder cannot afford to pass 3NT.

 

Another issue: Why 3♣ fourth suit forcing? Doesn't the jump to 2♠ create a game forcing auction? This is the problem with the jump to 2♠ - you are using up your bidding room in an auction where you have not found out what strain you are playing in. If 3♣ were natural, then opener would have an easy 4♣ call and the slam would certainly not be missed. Responder should have some natural call available to him over 2♠. If he doesn't, then he can be endplayed into 2NT, which could wrong-side the hand, but it at least allows for natural suit bidding.

[whereagles]

4-4 club slams are hard to find playing 5 card majors. Somehow, the clubs get easily buried.

 

I don't like the actual auction much. Prefer 1♠ instead of 2, and 3NT instead of 3♣. But truth is, after 2♠ I wouldn't bid less than 6 with the North hand, and would seriously consider 7 something.

[matmat]

I really dislike the jump to 2♠. For most this is game-forcing.; that doesn't seem to be the case in your system.

 

i think my auction would have started

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣*

3♣ - ?

 

* - 4th sfg.

3♣ patterning out.

 

I am not sure i'd find 6♣ over this, might depend on how optimistic I was feeling.

[kenrexford]

Simply because of the advertisement power of this problem, I'll start with a gadget plug. I like 2♣ as an artificial GF after a 1♦ opening, showing nothing in particular in clubs but simply denying a 5-card major (EDITED). In conjunction with this, Opener bids one under what would normally be the natural response. In this case, the auction would be:

 

1♦-2♣(GF)

2♥(four spades)-3♣... (a painless and easy start)

 

That said, I'm not sure that ALL of this is necessary. If 2♣ is just GF, then I think Responder does the auction a favor by starting with 2♣ anyway. The auction is again simple, because Opener can focus the club suit himself if transfers are not used.

 

If 2♣ is not GF, the auction is the same, but then Responder forces game later. solving that problem.

 

One recurring theme that seems to cause trouble in auctions like this is in this insistance upon bidding 4-card majors at the one-level rather than initiating the discussion in a side minor when Responder has game-forcing values. There seem to be countless posts on BBF with the same theme, and with as many responses about how a 2/1 response in the minor would solve the problem.

 

Granted, heart auctions are tougher, in a sense, after a 2♣ response, but that is solved by Opener using transfers. In fact, it is largely better than solved, as an assured GF is established, removing ambiguities betweem slam-or-game invites.

[kfay]

Playing any normal system, Ken, no one in their right mind would bid 2♣ instead of 1♥.

 

I definitely think that N needs to realize that 3NT is definitely making overtricks so there is basically no risk in going higher. Passing 3NT is really incredibly wimpy, in my mind. Within system constraints I would put the blame on North.

 

Does the OP say you are playing a big club? I don't understand why, playing a big club, you don't open a big club hand 1♣. This defeats the purpose of the system.

 

Most people play 2♠ as GF. I guess this isn't the case in your partnership. Is 2NT not lebensohl then? If it isn't game forcing then shouldn't you be playing a lebensohl 2NT or something?

 

Really the blame, I think, goes to a system in which you don't use a strong opening that's available to you on a strong opening hand and then using crazy jumps to describe unbalanced hands that aren't game forcing. Do you only open 1♣ with 17-19, 20-21, 22-23 etc. etc. etc. balanced hands? I just don't get it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 sure

#2 sure, but I guess 1S would deny a hand, which was able to

bid 2S, so the answer is no.

Assuming you play a strong NT, 1S will be either unbal. with

max. 16, or bal. with 12-14, so you wont be well placed on

other partner hands, if you bid 1S.

I guess, 2S showes at least 4 diamonds, 4 spade?

<Added Later: In a 2/1 system 2S showes 5-4 and is GF, so

the answer is no, 1S is the system bid>

#3 No, 3NT is fine, partner asked, you answer.

#4 I guess, partner can ask about the distribuition with a 2NT bid?

If yes, he should have used this, if no, ... well why play such

a complicate system, if you dont go the full way?

#5 No, Pass is fine.

He does not know about the club fit, so why should he go beyond

3NT, if he would see the fit, it would be different, he would see,

that AKQ are discards for ..., it is wastage, but it could be worse.

#6 4H, a cue, you may also consider the 4S cue, which may be more

helpful for partner, it is in the current situation, given that 4C should

show a power house, hence lots of spade values, 4S is certainly better

than 4H.

#7 We finish in 3NT.

 

1D - 1H

1S - 3NT (13-15)

 

#8 No idea, but 2NT as asking bid is certainly sensible, one possible

schema set maybe the schema you use after a precision 2C opener,

after you discovered, that the 2C opener is 5-4.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Lobowolf]

I really dislike the jump to 2♠. For most this is game-forcing.; that doesn't seem to be the case in your system.

 

i think my auction would have started

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣*

3♣ - ?

 

* - 4th sfg.

3♣ patterning out.

 

I am not sure i'd find 6♣ over this, might depend on how optimistic I was feeling.

Agree entirely, including the question of whether or not I'd get there anyway. 2♠ burns up too much bidding room. You're at 3♣ and neither player has shown clubs...not much chance. At least in the suggested auction, N knows about the club fit by now.

[effervesce]

Given you play a Roman 2♦, isn't the hand a textbook 2♦ bid? A 4441 with 17-24 HCP. Or are you referring to a mini-Roman 2♦ or a different point range?

 

The bidding

2♦ - 2NT*

3♣* - 3♦*

3♠ - 4♣*

4♠* - 6♣

 

2NT asks

3♣ shows minimum, stiff major

3♦ asks for long major

4♣ asks for AK controls

4♠ shows 6

[kenrexford]

Given you play a Roman 2♦, isn't the hand a textbook 2♦ bid? A 4441 with 17-24 HCP. Or are you referring to a mini-Roman 2♦?

I think the suggestion was that Roman would help with this hand, not a claim to playing Roman.

[655321]

I think the suggestion was that Roman would help with this hand, not a claim to playing Roman.

I read the initial post to mean that OP was playing a weird system, but I think you are right. (Also, this is SAYC and 2/1 Forum...)

 

I don't have any auction to offer, but I would like to say that 2♠ is a horrible bid playing natural methods.

[effervesce]

Given you play a Roman 2♦, isn't the hand a textbook 2♦ bid? A 4441 with 17-24 HCP. Or are you referring to a mini-Roman 2♦?

I think the suggestion was that Roman would help with this hand, not a claim to playing Roman.

Oops yes you're right. Playing standard or 2/1, bidding 1♠ is correct. The hand given isn't good enough for a jump shift. Playing standard or 2/1, it's tough.

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♣

3♣-3NT

4NT-6♣

 

is possible, though whether opener should bid 4NT quantitative is another matter - opener doesn't know there is a club fit.

If responder raises clubs instead of bidding 3NT, it should be reached. However, given the 3♣ bid could be on a fragment I think 3NT is correct.

 

 

In contrast, in fact I think it's easier after the original auction's unsuitable jump-shift the slam should have been reached, since opener knows responder actually has clubs. After a jump shift by opener (which is game-forcing) there is no need for 4SF - you're already in a GF situation so bids should be natural.

1♦-1♥

2♠-3♣

4♣-4NT

5♠-6♣

 

Mind you, if responder's hand wasn't quite as good, 5♣ or even 4♣ could already be too high (or 3NT could be better) - that's why 2♠ is a poor bid.

[mikeh]

I truly dislike the 2♠ call: in standard methods, this call shows a gf.. usually with 4=5 or better in the 2 suits, but I can understand the occasional 4=1=4=4, since the alternative is an unattractive 2N.

 

If using 2♠ as gf, then 3♣ is no longer needed as 4sf...in that we are going to game anyway. Some prefer to use 2N, over 2♠, as a form of lebensohl, such that 3♣ is natural, strength showing.

 

However, it is futile to discuss that as a means of solving the problem since the hand doesn't qualify for 2♠ in this suggested method.

 

But, 1♠ should leave a chance... responder uses 2♣ as FSF, and opener contents himself with a natural, shape showing 3♣.

 

North would, I assume, bid 3N... he has no interest in a 5 level adventure and he has hearts well stopped.

 

Now S should bid 4N, quantitative, and the spotlight shifts to North.

 

He can picture a 17-18 point 4=1=4=4 (4=0=5=4 is possible, but that is a rare hand type)

 

Most such hands will offer a play for slam... but KJxx x AKQx Axxx, as one example, is hopeless in 6♣ and nearly hopeless in 6N.

 

I don't think I can be objective in saying what N should do on this posited auction, since I happen to see that slam is good :P

[matmat]

He can picture a 17-18 point 4=1=4=4 (4=0=5=4 is possible, but that is a rare hand type)

Isn't 4=1=5=3 possible too?

[mikeh]

He can picture a 17-18 point 4=1=4=4 (4=0=5=4 is possible, but that is a rare hand type)

Isn't 4=1=5=3 possible too?

no... such a hand should NOT bid 3♣... certainly, I don't think you can construct a hand that would bid 4N that lacked a club stopper, and such a shape/holding would readily fall within 2N over 2♣. At least, that's my view :P

[han]

This is the SAYC and 2/1 forum so 2S is wrong.

[the hog]

I would have opened 1C and rebid 1S, showing an unbalanced hand with Cs and Ss. You should be able to find the slam now.

[rogerclee]

I like 2♣ as an artificial GF after a 1♦ opening, showing nothing in particular in clubs but simply denying a 4-card major.

lol.

[cherdano]

I like 2♣ as an artificial GF after a 1♦ opening, showing nothing in particular in clubs but simply denying a 4-card major.

lol.

Nice I missed that.

Anyway, I play 2♣ over 1♦ as denying a 4-card major (unless clubs are longer), as denying four-card support (unless clubs are longer), but otherwise, it doesn't say anything about clubs for me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I have a problem with the suggestted start

 

1D - 1H

1S - 2C (1)

 

(1) FSF inv.+ or GF, what ever

 

If you receive a 2H response, showing 3 card support,

you are dead, because if you now bid 2NT or 3NT, the

bid showes at least 15HCP, i.e. partner will onece in a

while be strong enough to drive to 6NT, and you wont

be able to stop him.

 

2C is fine, if opener is limited (*), in which case he wont

kill you, but with the given hand the bid is ...

 

(*) or if 1S promises an unbal. hand, not sure about this

scenario.

 

 

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

I like 2♣ as an artificial GF after a 1♦ opening, showing nothing in particular in clubs but simply denying a 4-card major.

lol.

Whoops -- supposed to be FIVE-card major. LOL

[mcphee]

Most I believe will not enjoy bidding 2S with this hand. Your range of 17+ must not be GF. I can appreciate why the responder was not so anxious to look for slam.

 

In a more simple world of 4th suit art gf,

1D 1H

1S 2C*

3C ?

 

if you choose to bid 3N I think the control rich hand should bid 4N (4C second choice) all of which will lead to the club slam.

[helene_t]

Mikeh's auction sounds good to me.

[mike777]

1d=1h

1s=2c

3c=4c

etc.

 

 

seems like a good start if we can assume opener rebids 2nt with 4=1=5=3 shape or 2d with super diamonds and horrible clubs.

 

Now opener is 4=0=5=4 or 4=1=4=4.

[mikeh]

1d=1h

1s=2c

3c=4c

etc.

 

 

seems like a good start if we can assume opener rebids 2nt with 4=1=5=3 shape or 2d with super diamonds and horrible clubs.

 

Now opener is 4=0=5=4 or 4=1=4=4.

Since opener could have Kxxx x KQxx Axxx, choosing 4♣ rather than the obvious 3N seems more than a little weird