Avoiding a bad slam

[Fasteddy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqjxhakjxxdjxcakx&s=st9xxxhqtxdakqxcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Assuming you choose to open 1♠ with the South hand, is there a sensible way to stay out of slam? After 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥, can you make a case for North not bidding 3♠? If he does, even if South tries to sign off in 4♥ how does the auction not continue 5♣ - 5♦ - 6♥?

 

It looks like the slam might be avoided if North doesn't bid 3♠, but is that really the right way to bid the hand?

 

As an interesting footnote, 6♥ is cold if the opps don't lead a spade. Unfortunately, West held a stiff spade which she led, and then even 5♥ goes down.

[jdonn]

1♠ 2♥

3♥ 3♠

3NT (non-serious) 4NT (double keycard)

5♣ (1/4 for both suits) 5♠ (stopping, and easy to see the danger of a spade ruff playing in hearts as well as the possibility of protecting a diamond tenace)

 

If in your style south either cuebids or signs off in a major over 3♠ it can continue very much the same. And even if you don't play any form of double keycard I would consider spades the trump suit, responder sets trumps on this auction after a 2/1. Stopping at 4 is probably too tough but I have no problem stopping at 5. And I also think it's a waste of energy for north to worry about diamonds being uncontrolled. They almost always are controlled anyway when he has this much high card strength, and the opponents would still have to lead them.

[hanp]

If you play that 3S shows a double fit then this is very tricky. It could go something like:

 

1S - 2H

3H - 3S

3NT (frivolous) - 4C (showing a good hand)

4D - 5C

5H - pass, down one.

 

Playing serious you could bid

 

1S - 2H

3H - 3S

4C - 5C

5H - pass, down one.

 

If you play cuebids over 3H then you immediately see that you have no spade cue and you will play 4H making.

 

Yes, as Josh points out, playing 6-keycards you will also be able to stop in 5H or 5S.

[kenrexford]

First of all, I absolutely hate this style where 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ shows a double fit and is not just a cuebid in support of hearts. I see all sorts of problems because of people who use this style but no examples of where this style helps anything.

 

Staying out of slam should be easy, whatever you do. Staying at the four-level is much more difficult, with this start.

 

But, there actually is a fairly easy way to avoid this problem altogether.

 

I would respond 2♣ with Responder's hand. I am perfectly happy to focus spades as trumps and to hide the heart suit with this hand, and I can forsee a problem if I focus hearts and get a raise. 2♣ allows me to change tacks if partner does bid 2♥ and thereby show hearts to be a superior strain (probably superior in that event).

 

In practice, this hits paydirt (as it often does). Even if 2♦ by Opener is not possibly a fudgy space-saving bid sometimes (as I play), Opener in this situation has a clear ability to make an actual 2♦ bid for real because he has real diamonds. Nice when that happens.

 

Responder can now set trumps with a 2♠ call. As I play it, Opener now can bid 2NT to deny two of the top three spades. Responder bids 3♣ to show two of the top three clubs. Opener bids 3♦ to show two of the top three diamonds. Responder bids 3♥ to show a heart control. Now, when Opener does not cuebid 3♠, he denies any of the top three spades. His actual call would be 4♦, but that's immaterial to the point. Responder knows that we are off the A-K in trumps.

 

This makes for the easiest signoff at 4♠ you can imagine. As a bonus, you might get a MP top with an overtrick denied to those who focused on hearts.

[jdonn]

Ken at least make the best argument for one of your preferred methods. If it starts 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ and you play 3♠ is a cuebid, you will simply continue 4♣ (or 3NT), 4♥! See, piece of cake.

[OleBerg]

I would indeed open 1♠, and indeed bid 3♠.

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♥ - 3♠

4♥

 

As the South hand was opened with 1♠, I take the liberty of assuming it is within partnership style. In this case the North hand is only worth an invite, which South will refuse. Staying in four would not be possible with me in the North seat.

 

 

Wiking-Club handles this hand nicely:

 

1♠ - 1NT (Nat. 10-15 - GF Relay)

2♦ - 2♥ (10-13 minor-sidesuit - Relay)

2NT - 3♣ (Four-card diamonds - Relay)

3♠ - 4♣ (5-3-4-1 - Relay for aces)

4♦ - 4♥ (One ace out of four - Relay for kings)

4♠ - Pass (One king out of four)

 

Even if North can't completely write off slam, it is quite unlikely. Partners Ace-King combo has to be ♠K and ♦A. Furthermore partner has to have the ♥Q and ♦Q. The ♠T is also needed in case thrumphs are 4-1. Hearts 4-1 might also be troublesome. So even 5 could easily be in jeopardy. Pass is big odds-on.

 

Not a perfect sequence, but quite good.

[kenrexford]

Ken at least make the best argument for one of your preferred methods. If it starts 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ and you play 3♠ is a cuebid, you will simply continue 4♣ (or 3NT), 4♥! See, piece of cake.

If the auction goes 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠(cue), and then Opener bids 3NT, Responder will cue 4♣, not signoff at 4♥. If Opener bids 4♣, instead, then Responder might bid 4♥, but he will feel really bad if Opener has ♠Kxxxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣x. Now, maybe a 9-count should be shown as serious interest, and maybe this gets worked out anyway. But, the basic problem remains, namely that focusing hearts unnecessarily is predicted to result in an inability to find out about spade controls from partner effectively and an inability to show spade controls effectively either. Focusing spades, in contrast, by bidding 2♣ can be easily predicted to solve both problems.

[jdonn]

Ken at least make the best argument for one of your preferred methods. If it starts 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ and you play 3♠ is a cuebid, you will simply continue 4♣ (or 3NT), 4♥! See, piece of cake.

If the auction goes 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠(cue), and then Opener bids 3NT, Responder will cue 4♣, not signoff at 4♥. If Opener bids 4♣, instead, then Responder might bid 4♥, but he will feel really bad if Opener has ♠Kxxxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣x. Now, maybe a 9-count should be shown as serious interest, and maybe this gets worked out anyway. But, the basic problem remains, namely that focusing hearts unnecessarily is predicted to result in an inability to find out about spade controls from partner effectively and an inability to show spade controls effectively either. Focusing spades, in contrast, by bidding 2♣ can be easily predicted to solve both problems.

You seem to have misunderstood my auction. My point was that responder wouldn't cuebid spades at all...

[kenrexford]

Ken at least make the best argument for one of your preferred methods. If it starts 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ and you play 3♠ is a cuebid, you will simply continue 4♣ (or 3NT), 4♥! See, piece of cake.

If the auction goes 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠(cue), and then Opener bids 3NT, Responder will cue 4♣, not signoff at 4♥. If Opener bids 4♣, instead, then Responder might bid 4♥, but he will feel really bad if Opener has ♠Kxxxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣x. Now, maybe a 9-count should be shown as serious interest, and maybe this gets worked out anyway. But, the basic problem remains, namely that focusing hearts unnecessarily is predicted to result in an inability to find out about spade controls from partner effectively and an inability to show spade controls effectively either. Focusing spades, in contrast, by bidding 2♣ can be easily predicted to solve both problems.

You seem to have misunderstood my auction. My point was that responder wouldn't cuebid spades at all...

But, the point was wrong. Responder WILL cuebid spades, because he has the Queen (one of the top three spades).

[jdonn]

So I've got it now. We reply in our 3 card minor instead of our 5 card major, because if we reply in our 5 card major the auction is too difficult when partner has the gall to support us, because we have decided it is more important to cuebid queens in partner's major than to be able to show support for it. Or something like that? :)

 

I'm being semi-facetious rather than trying to start a long debate, as I believe we have had all these debates before. Please only reply if you will be completely facetious!

[louisg]

Here's a question for those who use Serious or Non-Serious 3NT (I'll assume Non-Serious, but I don't think it matters for purposes of this question).

 

Assume that the bidding starts 1S-2H-3H-3S, where 3S shows 3 card support. If opener's 3NT is Non-Serious and opener's 4C/4D are serious, what do opener's 4H/4S bids mean? Is there a lower limit to the Non-Serious 3NT, so that opener's 4M denies even that much? If so, I can imagine these hands stopping at the 4 level. Responder needs opener to have the equivalent of 4 working cards out of ♠AK, ♦AK, ♥Q, and can assume that opener would be worth at least a Non-Serious 3NT with this much.

[Phil]

Here's a question for those who use Serious or Non-Serious 3NT (I'll assume Non-Serious, but I don't think it matters for purposes of this question).

 

Assume that the bidding starts 1S-2H-3H-3S, where 3S shows 3 card support. If opener's 3NT is Non-Serious and opener's 4C/4D are serious, what do opener's 4H/4S bids mean? Is there a lower limit to the Non-Serious 3NT, so that opener's 4M denies even that much? If so, I can imagine these hands stopping at the 4 level. Responder needs opener to have the equivalent of 4 working cards out of ♠AK, ♦AK, ♥Q, and can assume that opener would be worth at least a Non-Serious 3NT with this much.

People play Non-Serious in two different ways:

 

Say you have a (simpler) start of:

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♥ - ?

 

Method 1:

 

1. 4♥ = I HATE my hand for slam. Proceed at your own risk.

2. I'm not ashamed of my opening. If you really like your hand, please cue.

3. Cue = I have extras (at least an Ace more than a minimum). Please cue.

 

Method 2:

 

1. 3N = I have a minimum

2. Cue = I have extras

3. 4♥ = Not only do I have a minimum, but I have no controls in the minors.

[kfay]

When given this problem I almost was able to pass game, knowing who my partner was, but I couldn't.

 

Given this new evidence I think we can conclude that it is impossible to stay below the 5-level.

[mikeh]

Arguing with Ken on slam auctions is a waste of time since he uses his idiosyncratic methods... whether they actually work is irrelevant because they are not generally in use.

 

As for using 3♠ as a double fit, I can't imagine using it any other way. Contrary to Ken's pov, I find it very useful to let opener know that we have the double fit, especially since we can then invoke 6 card keycard... yes, I know.. there I go slagging ken for his nonstandard treatment then I suggest something that may strike some as equivalent... but 6 card keycard is actually a fairly common treatment amongst experienced pairs. It can be very useful, as for example if we can find out that one of our majors is Axxxx opposite Kxx... if that suit were spades, and 3♠ were a cuebid... we might have real trouble finding out that we lack third round control. We might be able to bid around it, but we might not be able to do so conveniently.

 

Also, knowing of the double fit can help one partner to count tricks.. always key in deciding on small v grand decisions.

 

As others have pointed out, if one opens the S hand, one has to be very careful as North....

 

1♠  2♥

3♥

 

 

Seems normal. While I have been persuaded by this forum to like 2♣ in reponse to 1♥ with gf 4=4 blacks, I really don't like 2♣ here... surely bridge is a partnershipp game, absent a relay method, and how is S ever going to value his hand appropriately? It may not matter on this hand, but what if he has long clubs? And a reasonable hand?

 

But to return to the auction: if one were going to create a masterbid here, maybe it should be 2♠, not 3♥... intending to return to hearts later if the opportunity arose.

 

Realistically, I don't see it. So we are at 3♠... S bids 4♠.

 

This is consistent with an approach in which one partner estalishes a force, and the other can cue to show a hand not strongly adverse to slam...below game cues are not strong slam tries.. they just show a hand that is a little better than so far announced.. with the worst crap consistent with the bidding, sign off.

 

If North trusts partner, he should pass 4♠.

 

We don't need serious/frivilous 3N: we just need S to annouce he has a pile of crap.... which seems like an honest description to me.

[louisg]

So we are at 3♠... S bids 4♠.

 

This is consistent with an approach in which one partner estalishes a force, and the other can cue to show a hand not strongly adverse to slam...below game cues are not strong slam tries.. they just show a hand that is a little better than so far announced.. with the worst crap consistent with the bidding, sign off.

 

If North trusts partner, he should pass 4♠.

 

We don't need serious/frivilous 3N: we just need S to annouce he has a pile of crap.... which seems like an honest description to me.

Just one quibble....isn't it better for South to bid 4H? He can see potential discards of spade losers on diamonds, for example facing a hand like

 

Axx

AKJxx

xx

Kxx

 

4H looks to be a much safer contract than 4S.

[kenrexford]

...

FWIW, I would much rather use methods that allow me to find out that we are missing the A-K of trumps below 4♠ than methods which allow us to check on six keycards and end up at the Binsky Level.

 

This is more than just a single-situation observation. This is the reality, IMO, with much of the CW expert practice these days. Much of the real work to slam sequences must be deferred until the 5-level, which results in too many 5-level sets and too many protective stops at four for fear of a five-level set.

 

As for the "partnership game" semi-problem with 2♣ ("semi-problem" because you are one who does like the approach in some sequences), keep in mind that 2♣ is not a violation of any partnership rules if the partnership routinely bids 2♣ with GF hands and the "right hand" for this approach, the "right hand" being three-card (or longer) support for Opener's major and a five-card (or shorter) other major. Hence, Opener should and would expect this possibility. He knows how to handle that possibility in the same way that a person can handle the possibility that his partner might open 1♣ even though it is his partner's third-longest suit (4423).

 

My final point, though, is that this same theme comes up over and over and over again on the BBF, as you and others have noted. The common theme is a Responder with three-card support and 4-5 cards in the other major, with GF values. Over and over again, bidding 2♣ with these hands makes the auction easy, whereas a traditional approach causes someone to post the problem and all sorts of strained nonsense and poor results. Does that ever make you wonder?

[Fasteddy]

How about:

 

1♠  2♥

3♥  3NT (frivolous)

4♣  4♦

4♥  P

 

Is it reasonable for responder, having made a serious slam try after hearing a limited rebid from opener, to settle for 4♥ "knowing" that opener may not have three of the missing keycards -- the ♠A, ♠K, ♥Q, ♦A -- and willing to hope that opener will continue if he does?

 

As far as the 3♠ bid is concerned, there seem to be three schools of thought: 1) it's a cuebid promising the A or K; 2) it's a cuebid, but perhaps just the queen; 3) it shows support with no guarantee of a high honor. Even though it doesn't look good on this hand, I don't see how you can have a cooperative auction if responder suppresses 3-card support for opener's major. Opener never assume that's the case, so he could easily misjudge and discover he has an extra loser when there's xxx opposite his Axxxx or AKxxx. Showing support also helps reach 7♥ with something like AKxxx Qxx Axxx x opposite QJx AKJxx Jx Axx.

[hanp]

Ken started it:

 

1S - 2K (relay)

2D (min without 4 hearts) - 2H (relay)

2S (no exiting shape) - 2NT (relay)

3S (5341) - 4C (RKC for spades)

4D (1/4) - 4S, off two keycards.

[hanp]

As far as the 3♠ bid is concerned, there seem to be three schools of thought: 1) it's a cuebid promising the A or K; 2) it's a cuebid, but perhaps just the queen; 3) it shows support with no guarantee of a high honor. Even though it doesn't look good on this hand, I don't see how you can have a cooperative auction if responder suppresses 3-card support for opener's major.

You hit the nail with your first sentence, and I'm sure you agree that it is most important to have an agreement about this auction.

 

I don't agree with your second sentence but we've had many discussions here and some very good players do agree with you.

[mikeh]

...

FWIW, I would much rather use methods that allow me to find out that we are missing the A-K of trumps below 4♠ than methods which allow us to check on six keycards and end up at the Binsky Level.

 

This is more than just a single-situation observation. This is the reality, IMO, with much of the CW expert practice these days. Much of the real work to slam sequences must be deferred until the 5-level, which results in too many 5-level sets and too many protective stops at four for fear of a five-level set.

 

As for the "partnership game" semi-problem with 2♣ ("semi-problem" because you are one who does like the approach in some sequences), keep in mind that 2♣ is not a violation of any partnership rules if the partnership routinely bids 2♣ with GF hands and the "right hand" for this approach, the "right hand" being three-card (or longer) support for Opener's major and a five-card (or shorter) other major. Hence, Opener should and would expect this possibility. He knows how to handle that possibility in the same way that a person can handle the possibility that his partner might open 1♣ even though it is his partner's third-longest suit (4423).

 

My final point, though, is that this same theme comes up over and over and over again on the BBF, as you and others have noted. The common theme is a Responder with three-card support and 4-5 cards in the other major, with GF values. Over and over again, bidding 2♣ with these hands makes the auction easy, whereas a traditional approach causes someone to post the problem and all sorts of strained nonsense and poor results. Does that ever make you wonder?

Valid points, but:

 

1. Your arguments are really arguments in favour of 2♣ as an artificial bid, whether promising gf values or not. I like the approach and have used it with some success as the beginning of a relay mathod... and one of the non-trivial advantages is that we would have found out that partner lacked any high spade in plenty of time

 

2. But there is NO need to invoke artificialty here. One could, quite plausibly, suggest that S should not open.... however, I concede that opening is relatively normal... I don't know whether I would open or not at this point in the discussion.

 

Having opened, and independent of whether one plays some form of serious or non-serious 3N, it should be easy to stop... and one should always play spades on these auctions... I forget the name of the rule, but it is usually, rather than always, best to play in the weaker of two otherwise equivalent trump suits. It may be purely coincidental here that spades makes while hearts fail on a spade ruff.

 

Frankly, I do not think it to be masterminding to construct an auction that stops at the level of game. I do play, on a regular basis, with someone who would consider the S hand an automatic opener, and have learned to respect the screeching of brakes that a 4♠ over 3♠ would engender.

 

And that S has a hideous hand is obvious: he has 2, count them, 2 hcp in the double fit... if partner can make slam, he sure as heck isn't passing 4♠... he needs, at a minimum, AKx AKxxx and the club Ace, and even then we are not safe against a 4-1 trump break break. So I cannot imagine ever cuebidding below game as South no matter what form of 3N we play.

 

As for your observation about expert slam bidding, i respectfully disagree with you. I commend to you a regular read of the BW.. i don't recall seeing many matches, over the past 20 years, in which expert pairs had the problems you speak of.. it seems to me that this type of problem arises far more often with non-experts... who tend to get far too enthusiastic about slam whenever they hold a good hand and partner opens.

[wclass___]

IMO bidding a good slam should be the title.

 

Stereotyped people and wretched mathematicians(or psychologists) are welcome :)

[kenrexford]

...

...

Valid points, but:

 

1. Your arguments are really arguments in favour of 2♣ as an artificial bid, whether promising gf values or not. I like the approach and have used it with some success as the beginning of a relay mathod... and one of the non-trivial advantages is that we would have found out that partner lacked any high spade in plenty of time

 

2. But there is NO need to invoke artificialty here. One could, quite plausibly, suggest that S should not open.... however, I concede that opening is relatively normal... I don't know whether I would open or not at this point in the discussion.

 

Having opened, and independent of whether one plays some form of serious or non-serious 3N, it should be easy to stop... and one should always play spades on these auctions... I forget the name of the rule, but it is usually, rather than always, best to play in the weaker of two otherwise equivalent trump suits. It may be purely coincidental here that spades makes while hearts fail on a spade ruff.

 

Frankly, I do not think it to be masterminding to construct an auction that stops at the level of game. I do play, on a regular basis, with someone who would consider the S hand an automatic opener, and have learned to respect the screeching of brakes that a 4♠ over 3♠ would engender.

 

And that S has a hideous hand is obvious: he has 2, count them, 2 hcp in the double fit... if partner can make slam, he sure as heck isn't passing 4♠... he needs, at a minimum, AKx AKxxx and the club Ace, and even then we are not safe against a 4-1 trump break break. So I cannot imagine ever cuebidding below game as South no matter what form of 3N we play.

 

As for your observation about expert slam bidding, i respectfully disagree with you. I commend to you a regular read of the BW.. i don't recall seeing many matches, over the past 20 years, in which expert pairs had the problems you speak of.. it seems to me that this type of problem arises far more often with non-experts... who tend to get far too enthusiastic about slam whenever they hold a good hand and partner opens.

As to #1: True. I think 2♣ should be deemed articial, in a sense. When I open 1♦ as unbalanced, a 1♣ opening shows 2+ clubs and either (1) real clubs and unbalanced, or (2) any balanced. So also I like 2♣ in this sequence as either (1) real clubs, or (2) completely convenient and very possibly doubleton. We seem to agree that this solves a world of hurt, regardless of whether 2♣ grabs a lot of possibilities or a few less. I don't think a "pure" relay is necessary, but it might be good. I think just as 2♣ as "sort of artificial" is workable, so also 2♦ as "sort of artificial," meaning either (1) real diamonds, or (2) roughly balanced is workable.

 

As to #2: This part sort of went into multiple issues. Most of it I agree with entirely. I agree, as well, that a quick signoff has some merits, especially after a 2♣ start. (1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-4♠ is imminently reasonable, and it might even be "right.") I think the hand is harder to evaluate, though, when Opener knows of the heart fit but does not know of the likelihood of a club mis-match (1♠-2♥ as a start looks really interesting.)

 

On the issue of "Expert CW." I don't think we disagree here. The Bridge World analyzes what I would call "Super Experts," and none of them are bidding according to CW rules anyway, instead using their own specific gadgets and understandings fine-tuned for the level of play that merits reporting. When you take run-of-the-mill "experts" and ask them what the conventional wisdom is to certain bids, you end up with something different than they play with each other and certainly different from the all-stars. That said, I think the higher-level Binsky problem is possession of insufficient info to warrant leaving the safety of the four-level rather than departing painfully.

[JLOL]

Why would you ever bid 3N non serious after partner bids 3S lol.

[benlessard]

Unless you play keycard at a low level its near impossible to stop at the 4 level. QJx is enough to cue-bid and south hand isnt minimum after the 2H response.

[MarkDean]

I do not play the non-serious 3NT convention. Does it mean "for the love of God partner do not bid past the four level because my hand is absolutely terrible for slam in the context of the auction so far"? If that is not what 3NT means, is that what 4♠ means?

 

I know Han will call me an old man, but I would not have opened the hand.