ATB avoiding +510

[Fluffy]

♠x

♥Q98x

♦xxx

♣AK109x

 

 

♠Axxx

♥AKJxxx

♦Axx

♣-

 

 

1♥-3♥

3♠-4♣

4♥-pass

 

 

With my regular partner I play 3NT= no shortness slam try, anything else splinter, so I'd bid 4♣ and north would bid 4♥ ending the auction as well.

[karlson]

I think both underbid, but south by more.

 

I would force to game on the north hand, but obviously it's a minimum for it. Over that south just might bid a grand.

 

Given the limit raise, I think south is still worth at least a second slam try.

[Phil]

Both underbid which is frequently the case when you play a grand in game.

[bluecalm]

Is 3♥ limit raise ? If yes then lol. This hand is clear GF.

Then S made a slam try and N having this mega monster (having made limit raise) signed off.

N - 100% blame.

 

With my regular partner I play 3NT= no shortness slam try, anything else splinter, so I'd bid 4♣ and north would bid 4♥ ending the auction as well.

 

I don't understand why N should bid 4♥ after 4♣ indicating shortness. If anything I would prefer 6♥.

[neilkaz]

While North has a max limit raise and I wouldn't mind forcing directly to game, he did cooperate with a 4♣ cue bid. The blame goes to South. South clearly should continue to cooperate with 4♦ as his hand is monsterous opposite a limit raise. Perhaps South thought North was cue-bidding the K♣? But anyhow...South has a clear 4♦ bid if he doesn't want to try RKC yet and shouldn't s/off.

[kenrexford]

LOL North

[bluecalm]

Over that south just might bid a grand.

 

he did cooperate with a 4♣ cue bid. The blame goes to South. South clearly should continue to cooperate with 4♦ as his hand is monsterous opposite a limit raise.

 

I think you guys should forget about N hand and picture average limit raise with ♣ cuebid.

 

Qxx

Qxx

xx

AQxxx

 

KJx

Qxx

xxx

KQxx

 

etc. etc.

 

Also N didn't "cooperate". His hand is limited and partner's is not (as opener can have even slam force opposite limit raise within his 1♥ opening) his 4♣ cuebid is mandatory.

After judgment blunder which North made on first round of bidding his hand is huge opposite slam try. I mean, if we don't accept slam tries with a hand which is more powerful than any hand we should have in this position what is the point of bidding at all ?

[awm]

What was the meaning of 3♠ and 4♣ in this auction? Assuming they are cuebids, I'll blame 100% south.

 

North's hand is borderline between a game force and a limit raise. While bidding only 3♥ is a conservative view, there are many hands for south where game has no play. Ideal would be a mini-splinter or something on this hand, since game will be good opposite many minimums with no spade wastage (like xxx AKxxx Axx xx) but lousy opposite many minimums with spade wastage (for example KJx AKxxx Qxx xx). In any case, I don't think the choice of bidding only 3♥ was a substantial error.

 

With three little diamonds, north cannot possibly bid on over 4♥. It looks from the cuebidding sequence as if there could be three diamond losers. For example, south could hold a hand like ♠AKx ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxx ♣x, which is an easy slam if north's minors are reversed but could easily fail at the five-level on a diamond lead opposite the actual hand. In fact the 4♥ bid (failing to cuebid 4♦) should deny a diamond control. After a 4♦ cuebid, north can take control with keycard (since his hand is so maximum for the limit raise and all suits are controlled) or north can cuebid 4♠ (second round control) and south can bid on.

[karlson]

Over that south just might bid a grand.

 

he did cooperate with a 4♣ cue bid. The blame goes to South. South clearly should continue to cooperate with 4♦ as his hand is monsterous opposite a limit raise.

 

I think you guys should forget about N hand and picture average limit raise with ♣ cuebid.

To clarify, I was saying that south might bid a grand over a 1h-3s splinter which seems to me the alternative to the limit raise.

 

I don't think any of your example hands are even close to limit raises (which I and others assumed shows 4 hearts). I'll admit that north underbid by a trick, but south underbid by about 2 tricks, so +510 feels about right.

[pooltuna]

♠x

♥Q98x

♦xxx

♣AK109x

 

 

♠Axxx

♥AKJxxx

♦Axx

♣-

 

 

1♥-3♥

3♠-4♣

4♥-pass

 

 

With my regular partner I play 3NT= no shortness slam try, anything else splinter, so I'd bid 4♣ and north would bid 4♥ ending the auction as well.

The upper hand, the first hand posted, I would normally call that North but no indication that is correct - 100% of the blame first error rule applies :) His hand is too good for a Limit raise, not by much but a singleton, the trump queen and a side AK combo is worth a GF.

[bluecalm]

With three little diamonds, north cannot possibly bid on over 4♥. It looks from the cuebidding sequence as if there could be three diamond losers.

 

Of course if you have an agreement (very reasonable one) that cuebid below game is mandatory even from strong hand once cuebidding is started S is to blame because he has hidden ♦ cue.

I am not if this agreement is standard. I think for many people 4♦ would be move forward (or LTTC).

I also don't think this problem would be here if S just violated agreements.

 

♠AKx ♥AKJxxx ♦Qxx ♣x, which is an easy slam if north's minors are reversed

 

The rule I strongly believe in is this: if you slam is not very good opposite perfect minimum you don't invite it. Here you need ♥Qxxx and ♦AKxx and still slam isn't laydown I don't think this hand is slam invite.

 

I don't think any of your example hands are even close to limit raises (which I and others assumed shows 4 hearts)

 

You can't deny they are too strong for simple raise though. I think we would hear more from OP if 3♥ promised 4♥.

[655321]

Probably both, but it would be nice to be told what 3♥ meant.

 

The North hand looks like a GF, I think showing it as a limit raise is a clear error. I like to splinter with this sort of hand. And South making the decision to bypass 4♦ just because his partner cued clubs also seems excessively pessimistic.

 

Bluecalm, your examples don't look like limit raises to me either.

[awm]

So I generated 20 random hands with five hearts, no singleton, and 12-13 points (roughly the type of hand I'd expect to open 1♥ but reject a limit raise). Opposite the north cards, it looks like:

 

Game has no play against best defense 3

Game is substantially worse than 50% against best defense 5

Game is roughly on a finesse against best defense 3

Game is better than a finesse against best defense 9

 

Combining these, it seems pretty close to 50/50. The form of scoring and vulnerability were never specified -- not game forcing vulnerable at IMPs might be a fairly serious error, but making a limit raise at matchpoints could easily be the percentage choice.

 

While it's true that you don't always get best defense in practice, the usual opportunity to misdefend involves leading a spade (establishing declarer's spade honors for discards before establishing diamond tricks), which is pretty unlikely after the suggested splinter auction. In fact, the auction 1♥-3♥-4♥ is much more likely to get you a spade lead which might be another advantage to the limit raise sequence.

[bluecalm]

Bluecalm, your examples don't look like limit raises to me either.

 

I am probably out of touch with English bridge terminology then.

I thought limit raise = invite to game. Can you please tell me what limit raise is ?

 

So I generated 20 random hands with five hearts, no singleton, and 12-13 points (roughly the type of hand I'd expect to open 1♥ but reject a limit raise). Opposite the north cards, it looks like:

 

My simulation (on 1000 hands) tells me game makes 62% of cases opposite balanced 12-13 with exactly 5hearts. Of course this is double dummy but those should be pretty accurate.

[jdonn]

North gets blame for making a limit raise, but south gets more blame for never having bothered to learn how to play bridge. I hope no one gives any blame to north for passing 4♥ knowing he was off a diamond control though.

[MarkDean]

So I generated 20 random hands with five hearts, no singleton, and 12-13 points (roughly the type of hand I'd expect to open 1♥ but reject a limit raise). Opposite the north cards, it looks like:

 

Game has no play against best defense 3

Game is substantially worse than 50% against best defense 5

Game is roughly on a finesse against best defense 3

Game is better than a finesse against best defense 9

 

Combining these, it seems pretty close to 50/50. The form of scoring and vulnerability were never specified -- not game forcing vulnerable at IMPs might be a fairly serious error, but making a limit raise at matchpoints could easily be the percentage choice.

 

While it's true that you don't always get best defense in practice, the usual opportunity to misdefend involves leading a spade (establishing declarer's spade honors for discards before establishing diamond tricks), which is pretty unlikely after the suggested splinter auction. In fact, the auction 1♥-3♥-4♥ is much more likely to get you a spade lead which might be another advantage to the limit raise sequence.

While this analysis is helpful, I do not think it tells the whole story. The lighter you GF, you either have to widen your splinter range, or make another move with some of the heavier splinters.

 

I would GF this hand, but think it is close.