Reasonable Decision Point?

[kenrexford]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxhakxdxxcxxxx&s=sqxxxhqjxxxdaxxxc]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Multi-part question. First, as to the bidding up to a certain point, are the meanings of the bids for N-S reasonable or strange. Second, are the decisions to bid this way reasonable or strange. Then, assuming you get to this point, what should South do next?

 

North deals.

 

1♣(natural approach)-1♦(natural overcall)-X-2♣(explained as natural, and was)

2♠-P-3♦(GF)-P-

3♥(honor cue)-P-4♣(not two top spades, not serious, club control*)-X

P(extras of some variety)-P-XX(first-round*)-P-

4♥(no diamond control, second top heart honor)-P-???

 

*4♣ in the strange context of a 2♣ natural overcall seems likely to be shortness or the Ace, or KQ (although that won't happen), except that there was no splinter, but the later XX seems to confirm void or Ace anyway, by luck perhaps. Fourth seat is simply too likely to have AQ when Responder has K only, so why cue that meager control?

 

Again, do tha calls make definitional sense, and do they seem judgment-wise? If so, does Responder have enough info to try 4NT, or should he enter the 5-level some other way?

[hanp]

3D by south does not seem reasonable. North has shown a minimum, just bid game.

[Deevan]

The sequence sounds reasonable; subject to the following:

 

Would North bid any different with values in clubs or diamonds; e.g. Kxxx,AKx,xx,Axxx or Axxx,AKx,Kx,xxxx (or some variation of these hand) Would he/she still bid 3H (honour Que)? The answer to this question may perhaps determine subsequent bidding.

 

Assuming that 3H, and subsequent bidding all show working values; then it would appear there is enough information to move beyond game.

[Winstonm]

3D by south does not seem reasonable. North has shown a minimum, just bid game.

I agree that 3D is a massive oberbid - I wouldn't even bid game but would only raise and be prepared to apologize if pard bid a failing game.

 

Aside: We all have different perspectives on the best way to bid, but I have never grasped the effectiveness nor reasoning behind all this low-level cue-bidding with weak or weakish hands. My thinking has always been to show the relative strength first and worry about slam later - and I have never been accused of being a poor slam bidder or a conservative slam bidder.

[petergreat]

I would game-force, given the nice shape.

[MFA]

Seems to be quite a different style of bidding than what I'm used to.

 

I would have bid 3♠ in north. I bid 2♠ on all hands with a spade fit, and with very nice controls in the right places I don't want to be a bean counter ("only 14 hcp").

 

Opposite 2♠ I don't see how south realistically can try for slam.

 

Opposite a slam try from south, north's decision with ♠AK & ♥AK in partner's suits is not the hardest one I've ever seen... But ok, perhaps the point of this problem is how north forces to slam and caters best to a grand in the process.

[jdonn]

Adding to the criticism, I don't care for the double at all, I would only double with this shape with a very minimum response. I prefer 1♥ on this hand by a lot.