A dull 9-count

[gnasher]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sqjhq8xxdxxca987x]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Pass-2♣

2♦-2♠

3♣-3♦

3♠-3NT

?

[JLOL]

First instinct was 4N, it actually seemed quite normal, but I am really worried 6S is the right spot (AKTxx Ax AKQx Kx etc) and we won't get there if I bid 4N. Maybe partner will bid 5N and pass 6S though with that... I don't really see what else I can do anyways.

 

Actually reconsidering it maybe I am supposed to just drive to slam? I think that's too much though... so back to 4N heh.

 

Actually I have changed my mind again, I think it's not worth a slam force but I like 5S. It gives us a presumably safe out, and makes sure we get to spades when it's right. Good problem.

[MFA]

I would expect 4♣ from me to be natural, so all there is left, if I want to show a good spade raise, is 4♥. So that's my bid. I want to emphasize spades with this hand. I have ruffing power and I need to tell him about my good support.

[H_KARLUK]

Pass

[rogerclee]

Nice post, Michael, I agree with your logic.

[jdonn]

I would bid 5NT then 6♠ over whatever he does to offer a choice between that and 6NT, which I think emphasizes spades just about the right amount. I am willing to force to slam on this hand.

[ASkolnick]

I bid 4N even if spades is right. We already showed tolerance with 3♠ and I don't think you have enought to force to slam. So if 6♠ is right, he could bid 6♠.

[jdonn]

I have to say, good problem. 6 posters, 5 answers (P, 4♥, 4NT, 5♠, 5NT). One of them is a LOL but good problem anyway.

[Finch]

I'm only not answering because I know the hand (I was a team-mate).

 

Clearly you can't pass 3NT (that's the LOL), but whether you invite or drive slam depends a bit on your style of 2C opening. If partner likes to open hands at the 1-level unless he has a serious monster, this is a drive (in which case I like 5NT if that's pick). If partner opens 2C rather more often, this is an invite.

 

I quite like this super-scientific 4H bid. And as I know who your partner was, he would very much like any super-scientific bid we were to choose.

[OleBerg]

I would expect 4♣ from me to be natural, so all there is left, if I want to show a good spade raise, is 4♥. So that's my bid. I want to emphasize spades with this hand. I have ruffing power and I need to tell him about my good support.

In this context, what would a 4♠ bid show? Choice of games?

[Phil]

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on. Usually, when we make this cue bid, its when we haven't had an opportunity to support spades on a previous round.

 

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

[jdonn]

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

Why not bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ on that?

 

Anyway I sort of agree with your point that while 4♥ is kind of a cool bid, I'm not sure it accomplishes the intended goal.

[OleBerg]

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

[jdonn]

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

Can you please show me a hand for partner where 5♠ is "hopeless"? It's hard enough for me to even think of one that is any worse than making unless a suit breaks 5-1, or something like that.

[Phil]

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

Why not bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ on that?

Eh; 3♥ sounds like a punt to me that doesn't want to move past 3N. Something like x Qxx xxx KJxxxx.

[jdonn]

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

Why not bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ on that?

Eh; 3♥ sounds like a punt to me that doesn't want to move past 3N. Something like x Qxx xxx KJxxxx.

Looks like a wtp 3NT to me, I think partner will never pass that with a singleton heart. But if we can't even agree on 3♥ I don't see how we'll ever agree on 4♥ a round later...

[orlam]

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

Why not bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ on that?

Eh; 3♥ sounds like a punt to me that doesn't want to move past 3N. Something like x Qxx xxx KJxxxx.

Why wouldn't this hand bid 3N?

[Phil]

Frankly, pard could have a 5=3=4=1 here, and I'm starting to think 4♥ is natural. Give me ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣A9xxx and wouldn't we want to bring hearts into the picture opposite ♠AKxxx ♥AJx ♦AKQx ♣K?

Why not bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ on that?

Eh; 3♥ sounds like a punt to me that doesn't want to move past 3N. Something like x Qxx xxx KJxxxx.

Why wouldn't this hand bid 3N?

Because of the lousy heart stopper? Because 3♥ will get pard to bid 3N with a heart stop himselfl from the correct side? with a holding like AJ or KT.

[mikeh]

I liked 5♠ before I read the posts, and I still prefer it.

 

As for the super-scientific 4♥.. I admire the partnerships who can successfully claim that this call will be understood... my partners would play me for something like Qx Axx xx Kxxxxx... I would never bid 3N over 3♦ with this hand....and this is too good to do anything other than 4♥, imo.

 

I am not especially interested in suggesting 6N. Given my spade honours, partner rates to hold a 6 card suit most of the time, and AK10xx when he holds 5.. and so the possibility of ruffing a diamond for the extra trick is simply too high to stay out of the suit contract.

 

Opposite me, I'd bid 6♠

 

Opposite a more moderate 2♣ bidder, 5♠ is enough.

 

BTW, I suspect that all of us 5♠ bidders (or just thinkers) treat this as a general 'do the right thing' slam try rather than a call carrying implications about a specific suit.

[mikestar]

Mark me down for 5♠ as well.

[jdonn]

I am not especially interested in suggesting 6N. Given my spade honours, partner rates to hold a 6 card suit most of the time, and AK10xx when he holds 5.. and so the possibility of ruffing a diamond for the extra trick is simply too high to stay out of the suit contract.

I'm a bit worried about the possibility of a heart ruff against 6♠, or spades breaking 5-1 (I don't see why partner rates to hold the ten). I mean certainly if you knew you had 12 running tricks you would want to play notrump not spades.

 

Actually that's why I think it makes sense to bid 5♠ if you're inviting (so of the view that you may not quite have enough tricks) but to offer 6NT via 5NT then 6♠ if you're slam forcing (so you believe there are enough tricks for slam.) It just depends on what you expect for a 2♣ opener.

 

A sidenote this hand reminds me of is that I find it interesting that the people I see who are so reluctant to open 2♣ on two-suited hands or hands where it's close are often the same people who don't seem to be particularly aggressive when their partners open 2♣. I'm not referring to anyone in particular but I have definitely noticed that a few times.

[OleBerg]

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

Can you please show me a hand for partner where 5♠ is "hopeless"? It's hard enough for me to even think of one that is any worse than making unless a suit breaks 5-1, or something like that.

Okay, I was "a little" to fresh with that comment. But thrumphs are sometimes 5-1.

[fred]

I am somewhat surprised that nobody mentioned (or at least I didn't notice anyone mention) bidding 3S instead of 3C.

 

IMO that would have been a good bid (though I wouldn't quite go as far as to consider 3C a bad bid).

 

Given the way that the auction has actually developed, I think this is a close call between 5S and 6S. Whatever you do now is obviously largely dependent on what you would expect your partner to have for this sequence in light of the fact that you are looking at the Queen-Jack of spades.

 

As you may have guessed from the font, I think the part in bold is interesting. That is because your spade holding means that you know more about partner's hand (specifically that he doesn't have a marginal 2C opener with only 5 spades) than you normally would know when the auction goes this way. Also, so far there is no way that partner can know that you know this, but if part of the message of 5S is "my doubleton spade is VERY strong" then bidding 5S will tell him that you already know he has a sound 2C opener. I do think it makes sense that this is part of what 5S is all about - with a lesser doubleton in spades you might choose 4NT (or something else) as your slam try.

 

Even if you don't buy the part about 5S suggesting a very strong doubleton spade, let's assume it is true (because it leads to something interesting). Now suppose you bid 5S. Now partner knows that you know that he does not have a marginal 2C opener. Is he supposed to take that information into account in deciding what to do over 5S?

 

Before you answer that, keep in mind that he knows that you know that he knows that you know that he has a sound 2C opening :)

 

Perhaps the answer is you should just bid 6S yourself.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

PS The above post was not really meant to be taken seriously and it may not make any sense at all. Please keep that in mind before you spend a great of time twisting your brain in knots thinking about this!

[JLOL]

I know this is not for everyone, but I would still expect partner to open 2C with almost all 5422/5431 22 counts even with AKxxx of spades. Some 5422s would rebid 2N but I think most should rebid 2S. I used to think you should not do this but now I think it just becomes too hard to catch up later if you open 1S. Also partner can still be 55 on this auction.

 

So basically I think his minimum is not affected THAT much overall. Re responders second bid, I think I like 3C followed by bidding spades strongly because it paints a good picture of our hand and also gives partner more room on his third bid (he might bid 3H on a good day heh). Sometimes our missing 3rd trump is quite important to partner, and also sometimes our 5 card suit is important. The downside to bidding Axxxx in an auction like this is obviously that partner might misevaluate his own holding though, so I think starting with 3S is quite reasonable also.

[Finch]

I'm with JLOL here - I think 5♠ zeroes in on our values better. While I respect 4♥ (and the 4♥ bidders and supporters), I just don't see what it gets pard to focus on.

Sometimes it will get partner to focus on playing the good 4♠, instead of a hopeless 5♠

Can you please show me a hand for partner where 5♠ is "hopeless"? It's hard enough for me to even think of one that is any worse than making unless a suit breaks 5-1, or something like that.

gnasher will accuse me of thread-hijacking if I tell you what happened at the other table.