Missed 3N

[1eyedjack]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=st872hakj5dq987ca]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S

P..1♦..P..1♥

P..2♦..P..??[/hv]

Leaving aside my distaste for the 2♦ rebid which I shall not regale you with here, and which on the hand in question was I believe instrumental in our failing to find 3N, I would be interested to know how this hand should be handled from my side of the table, as it would not require much change of partner's hand for his bidding to be reasonable, and then essentially the same problem would remain and the blame wholly attributable to me if I get it wrong.

 

To my mind, 2♠ overstates both heart length and Spade quality, but maybe it is the right bid? I cannot see an alternative forcing route that does not commit beyond 3N. And yet I can well see that 2♠ may stear us to 3N when 5♦ or even 6♦ is right.

[Jlall]

I would never consider playing 3N. We have a huge hand for a diamond slam with a 10 card fit, a stiff, and good controls.

 

x xx AKJxxx xxxx is a slam, and that is an 8 count.

 

I would just splinter with 4C.

[jdonn]

2♠ is sort of a backwards bid. It will steer you to 3NT when partner is short in spades and you don't want to be there, but steer you out of 3NT when partner is longer in spades and you do want to be there. In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

[Hanoi5]

In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

 

Is it beacuse it's imp's? Or would you do it in any form of scoring?

[aguahombre]

In any case I agree that I would never play 3NT after 2♦ anyway.

 

Is it beacuse it's imp's? Or would you do it in any form of scoring?

I think missing a slam is not a good idea at any form of scoring. See Justin's subminimum example. Agree with Josh's observation that 2S could have a backward effect, unless it is treated as just a forcing noise and creates a slow auction which uncovers spade shortness, etc.

 

4C seems more direct, and should not imply anything useful in spades. So, it would be a better choice, IMO.

 

Remember, though, that the OP indicated the 2D rebid was wrong, so things could go sideways. Responder can only work with the assumption that Opener's 2D rebid was appropriate.

[Winstonm]

I would never consider playing 3N. We have a huge hand for a diamond slam with a 10 card fit, a stiff, and good controls.

 

x xx AKJxxx xxxx is a slam, and that is an 8 count.

 

I would just splinter with 4C.

I like the idea of supporting diamonds like this, but how does partner ever recover from the idea that you hold x or void in clubs and therefore most likely some card in spades?

[helene_t]

I like the idea of supporting diamonds like this, but how does partner ever recover from the idea that you hold x or void in clubs and therefore most likely some card in spades?

Agree with that.

 

If 4♦ is not forcing I might bid 3♣. Second choice 3NT.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't want to rule out 3NT. xxx x AKJxxx xxx is a more likely 8-count than Justin's, and 3NT is the only making game.

 

I'd bid 2♠, followed by 3♦ if he bids 2NT or 3♣.

[eyhung]

I wouldn't want to rule out 3NT. xxx x AKJxxx xxx is a more likely 8-count than Justin's, and 3NT is the only making game.

 

I'd bid 2♠, followed by 3♦ if he bids 2NT or 3♣.

Uh, what? Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count. Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds. I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

 

Quick little sim (1000 hands) to make sure I'm not completely nuts here :

 

Makes 6 or 7 diamonds : 62.7%

Doesn't make 5D : 9.4%

Makes 3NT but not 5D : 8.8%

Makes 4NT but not 5D : 6.5%

 

If you have methods to diagnose the unsuitability of diamonds below 3NT, more power to you, but you're only gaining on 2.3% of the hands if you can stop in 4NT after 4♣.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a good hand for the methods I normally use.

 

1♦-anything except 1N-2♦-2♥ is artificial and asks opener to define his hand. Partner will now tell you a fair bit about his range and shape, and I think you'll be fairly well placed to pick the right game/slam.

 

I hate the auctions where you have a good hand opposite 1m-?-2m and have got in many messes before I started using next suit up as a relay.

[1eyedjack]

Interesting. Does this mean that you play 1♦-2♥ as a natural weak jump shift? Ie one which in natural methods would have bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♥? I have a bit of an aversion to weak jump shifts, but might change my mind if the benefits are worth it. Playing weak jump shifts if you have 4♠ and 6♥ partner opens 1♦ and you potentially miss the ♠ fit if you jump to 2♥ natural and weak, while if you respond 1♥ and happen not to have a ♠ fit you cannot now bail out in 2♥ after the 2♦ rebid. Just by way of example. There may be other problems, possibly mainly match-point related

 

Presumably you give up on the hands with 5♠ and 4♥ opposite the 1♦-1♠-2♦ sequence unless responder has a full-blooded game try? Not saying that is bad, just want to be sure that I identify the bad hands for the method, and I would tend to view with scepticism a claim that there are none.

[ONEferBRID]

I like Justin's 4C!-splinter.

[1eyedjack]

swap the club ace for the spade ten and 4C splinter would be perfect in my view. Goes beyond 3N but is simply too descriptive to resist. I agree that it may be the best of several imperfect options the way the cards are dealt.

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting.  Does this mean that you play 1♦-2♥ as a natural weak jump shift?  Ie one which in natural methods would have bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♥? I have a bit of an aversion to weak jump shifts, but might change my mind if the benefits are worth it.  Playing weak jump shifts if you have 4♠ and 6♥ partner opens 1♦ and you potentially miss the ♠ fit if you jump to 2♥ natural and weak, while if you respond 1♥ and happen not to have a ♠ fit you cannot now bail out in 2♥ after the 2♦ rebid.  Just by way of example.  There may be other problems, possibly mainly match-point related

 

Presumably you give up on the hands with 5♠ and 4♥ opposite the 1♦-1♠-2♦ sequence unless responder has a full-blooded game try?  Not saying that is bad, just want to be sure that I identify the bad hands for the method, and I would tend to view with scepticism a claim that there are none.

We don't play weak jump shifts, also 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ would be almost any game try or better, so 2N would show hearts and less than that, but would commit you to the 3 level unless partner could find a pass.

[rogerclee]

This is a good hand for the methods I normally use.

 

1♦-anything except 1N-2♦-2♥ is artificial and asks opener to define his hand. Partner will now tell you a fair bit about his range and shape, and I think you'll be fairly well placed to pick the right game/slam.

 

I hate the auctions where you have a good hand opposite 1m-?-2m and have got in many messes before I started using next suit up as a relay.

maggieb posted something similar over the auction 1C-1H; 2C-2S in a previous thread which seemed like a good idea to me. I think it was something like:

 

1m-1H

2m-2S

 

2N = minimum (3C asks shortness)

3m = max, balanced

3om/3H/3S = max, shortness

[Winstonm]

Perhaps we should create X, Y, X, which states: in any auction in which opener rebids his suit, the use of the cheapest club bid is an artificial force and relays to diamonds.

[gnasher]

Uh, what?  Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count.  Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds.  I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

 

Unsurprisingly, I don't think that partner has an 8-count. Nor, I imagine, did Justin when he posted an 8-count.

 

Justin's point, as I understand it, was that you could take his eight count and top it up with useless cards to make an opening bid, and 6♦ would be making. Similarly, there are several ways to top up my 8-count with useless high cards to make an opening bid, and 5♦ will still be poor or dreadful, with 3NT still cold. For example: Qxx x AKJxxx Qxx, xxx x AKJxxx Kxx, xxx x AKJxxx KQx, etc.

 

Given the bidding, in particular opponents' silence, it seems to me that partner is more likely to hold ♠xxx than a small singleton.

 

Quick little sim (1000 hands) to make sure I'm not completely nuts here :

 

Makes 6 or 7 diamonds : 62.7%

Doesn't make 5D : 9.4%

Makes 3NT but not 5D : 8.8%

Makes 4NT but not 5D : 6.5%

What criteria did you use?

If you have methods to diagnose the unsuitability of diamonds below 3NT, more power to you,

You make this sound difficult, but I don't think it particularly hard. If we bid 2♠-2NT;3♦-3NT, what do think partner is going to have?

 

but you're only gaining on 2.3% of the hands if you can stop in 4NT after 4♣.

How many pairs do you think can stop in 4NT after a 4♣ splinter? None of my partnerships can.

[eyhung]

My point about the unfairness of the 8-count example is that given that partner has a 1♦ opener, it requires a somewhat pathological distribution of high cards and shape in the side suits to make 5♦ poor. Yes, a spade singleton is unlikely -- but so is xxx given that partner has an opener and the opponents have failed to overcall or double. I expect a spade control or spade values very frequently, and the sim bears this out.

 

When a small slam is making approximately two-thirds of the time, it seems unwise to attempt to cater to 3NT especially when it's unclear to me that partner is making an intelligent decision on 3NT vs. diamonds. Part of this is because you have not told me what your 2♠ - 3♦ - 3NT sequence shows -- but I doubt most people really know either. How does partner know that you don't hold something like AKxx Jxxx Q987 A, where heart weakness is death; or AJ AKxx Q9xx xxx where club weakness is death? Partner is just rebidding 3NT with 0-2 hearts and stuff in the blacks. If your blacks fit well, sometime you're playing in 3NT when you're cold for 5 or 6D, and sometimes you're even down in 3NT when 5D is cold. I don't think finding a good 3NT is nearly as frequent as finding a good 6D.

 

If you can come up with a plausible sequence that could describe your hand so well that a "random expert North" could accurately judge 3NT vs. 6♦, then your approach has merit, but absent that, I think your hand needs to take control.

 

I reran the sim with tighter constraints :

 

West is a passed hand

North has 6+ diamonds, 12-bad 16 HCP, no side 4-card suits

East cannot act over 1D

West cannot act over 1H

 

Slam in diamonds makes = 690

Down in 5D = 69

Makes 3NT but not 5D = 67

No game makes = 2

Makes 5D but not 3NT = 85

 

 

And for what it's worth, my partnerships can stop in 4NT, because I explicitly define that 4NT is always strain-suggesting, never keycard, over a minor. I don't expect that treatment to be popular enough to use opposite a random expert North, but partnerships who use some form of redwood or kickback can probably do something similar. And even if 4C completely forecloses notrump, you're only missing out a small percentage of the time. I suspect trying 2♠ with the intent of stopping in 3NT on some auctions is going to lead to a missed diamond slam more frequently.

[jdonn]

Uh, what?  Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count.  Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds.  I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam.

 

Unsurprisingly, I don't think that partner has an 8-count. Nor, I imagine, did Justin when he posted an 8-count.

 

Justin's point, as I understand it, was that you could take his eight count and top it up with useless cards to make an opening bid, and 6♦ would be making. Similarly, there are several ways to top up my 8-count with useless high cards to make an opening bid, and 5♦ will still be poor or dreadful, with 3NT still cold. For example: Qxx x AKJxxx Qxx, xxx x AKJxxx Kxx, xxx x AKJxxx KQx, etc.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Justin's point is that on such a hand you could add any high cards and you would have slam. But opposite your example you could have a good slam opposite useful high cards that constitute a minimum strength opener, it would just be bad opposite (the admittedly more likely case of) wasted strength.

[mike777]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=st872hakj5dq987ca]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S

P..1♦..P..1♥

P..2♦..P..??[/hv]

Leaving aside my distaste for the 2♦ rebid which I shall not regale you with here, and which on the hand in question was I believe instrumental in our failing to find 3N, I would be interested to know how this hand should be handled from my side of the table, as it would not require much change of partner's hand for his bidding to be reasonable, and then essentially the same problem would remain and the blame wholly attributable to me if I get it wrong.

 

To my mind, 2♠ overstates both heart length and Spade quality, but maybe it is the right bid? I cannot see an alternative forcing route that does not commit beyond 3N. And yet I can well see that 2♠ may stear us to 3N when 5♦ or even 6♦ is right.

ok I dont get any of these posts

 

thought 4c as said long ago...was easy.

[gnasher]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Justin's point is that on such a hand you could add any high cards and you would have slam. But opposite your example you could have a good slam opposite useful high cards that constitute a minimum strength opener, it would just be bad opposite (the admittedly more likely case of) wasted strength.

True, except that there are some ways to add high cards to Justin's example which make it not a 2♦ bid. Would opener bid 2♦ with x xx AKJxxx KQxx?

[gnasher]

ok I dont get any of these posts

 

thought 4c as said long ago...was easy.

Are you saying that because Justin said he'd bid 4♣ the rest of us should just agree and move onto the next problem?

[mike777]

ok I dont get any of these posts

 

thought 4c as said long ago...was easy.

Are you saying that because Justin said he'd bid 4♣ the rest of us should just agree and move onto the next problem?

God in heaven...

 

 

NO

 

 

I thought 4c was easy ...even for me.....a ..nonexpert...

[gnasher]

My point about the unfairness of the 8-count example is that given that partner has a 1♦ opener, it requires a somewhat pathological distribution of high cards and shape in the side suits to make 5♦ poor.

Do you mean that my examples of real opening bids with ♠Qxx or worse tend towards the worst case (in the same way that a 1246 shape with ♦AK tends towards the best case)? That's what they were intended to do: my point is that we may well be able to find out how close partner's hand is to the worst case, before deciding whether to play at the five-level.

 

Yes, a spade singleton is unlikely -- but so is xxx given that partner has an opener and the opponents have failed to overcall or double.  I expect a spade control or spade values very frequently, and the sim bears this out.

It's certainly true that at this stage of the auction ♠Hxx or ♠HHx is more likely than ♠xxx, both because there are more ways to have a spade honour than not, and because partner opened the bidding. If, however, partner has such a holding, and bids notrumps twice, we won't often belong in 6♦. Or are you going to say that Kxx x AJxxxx KQx is also "pathological"?

 

And even if 4C completely forecloses notrump, you're only missing out a small percentage of the time.

Without accepting the premise that your simulation is a reasonable representation of reality, I would say that even if we belong in 3NT on only 7.3% of hands (67 / 913), that possibility is worth exploring. It's not as though we have to make a final decision now: there are nearly two whole levels of bidding between 2♦ and 3NT.

 

I suspect trying 2♠ with the intent of stopping in 3NT on some auctions is going to lead to a missed diamond slam more frequently.

Rather than dealing in suspicions and generalisations, why don't you provide some examples of hands where opener would bid 2NT followed by 3NT, and we would miss a good slam? As I understand it, you have dealt yourself 690 hands where we can make a slam. You could have a look at some of them. If the risk of playing in 3NT with 6♦ on is so great, it shouldn't take you long to find a few convincing examples.

 

When a small slam is making approximately two-thirds of the time, it seems unwise to attempt to cater to 3NT especially when it's unclear to me that partner is making an intelligent decision on 3NT vs. diamonds.  Part of this is because you have not told me what your 2♠ - 3♦ - 3NT sequence shows -- but I doubt most people really know either.  How does partner know that you don't hold something like AKxx Jxxx Q987 A, where heart weakness is death; or AJ AKxx Q9xx xxx where club weakness is death?

The sequence I suggested was 2♠-2NT;3♦-3NT.

 

Whilst the two hands you give are possible, neither is typical. When I bid hearts, spades and diamonds, partner should assume that I have length in hearts, spades and diamonds, and therefore shortage in clubs. When I support diamonds in a game-forcing sequence, I suggest that I am suitable for a high-level diamond contract.

 

If partner bids 3NT over 3♦, he should have a double club stop. If he has weaker clubs, and therefore values in one of the majors, he should bid where his values are. Isn't that just bridge?

 

Partner is just rebidding 3NT with 0-2 hearts and stuff in the blacks.  If your blacks fit well, sometime you're playing in 3NT when you're cold for 5 or 6D, and sometimes you're even down in 3NT when 5D is cold.  I don't think finding a good 3NT is nearly as frequent as finding a good 6D. 

 

If you can come up with a plausible sequence that could describe your hand so well that a "random expert North" could accurately judge 3NT vs. 6♦, then your approach has merit,

Over 3♦, partner doesn't have to make a choice between 3NT and 6♦. He has to decide between "3NT immediately", and "not 3NT immediately". If he does the latter, we will then continue our conversation about where to play the hand.

 

but absent that, I think your hand needs to take control.

This is a side issue, but does 4♣ "take control"? A splinter usually means "This is my shortage; please evaluate your hand opposite that shortage." If you bid 4♣, partner will think that what you're looking for is well-fitting major-suit cards. If I wanted to take control, I'd bid 4♦, which basically forces partner to bid 4♠ any time that he has spade control.

 

I reran the sim

I have some comments on this too, but I'll put them in a separate post.

[mike777]

Again

1) 4c over 2d seems easy

2) No No NO bidding a splinter very often means not being captain on the hand.

3 I am going to assume after 4c .......anyone bidding 4h is rkc for D.