Phi Slamma Jamma

[Phil]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa62hakq98dak3caq&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p3c]133|200[/hv]

 

What is your plan. Here's how I started:

 

 

I doubled, pard bid 3♠, and I cued 4♣ (agree?). Pard tried 4♠ - now what?

 

[mikeh]

double for starters....that seems routine if only because, at worst, it defers tough choices for one round.

 

Ok...saw the spoiler: cuebid, again routine method of delaying the decision, while maybe learning something.

 

I can just see partner over there with Jxxx xxx xxx xxx cursing under his breath as I propel us ever higher....but KQxxx xxx xxx xx will bid the same way.

 

I can't help it... I bid 5♠.

[Fluffy]

Most likelly is partner has 5 spades, so I try 4NT.

 

Even if it is taken as nat, I have my bid.

[Echognome]

As a thought process, strong single suited hands can jump directly over a preempt and show a strong hand. (perhaps not this strong in terms of hcp, but may have considerable playing strength?) So double then cue then suit would (in my mind) show a strong flexible hand. That being said, what we really need are good spades. So why beat around the bush with 5♠, when we can ask with 4NT?

[mikeh]

As a thought process, strong single suited hands can jump directly over a preempt and show a strong hand. (perhaps not this strong in terms of hcp, but may have considerable playing strength?) So double then cue then suit would (in my mind) show a strong flexible hand. That being said, what we really need are good spades. So why beat around the bush with 5♠, when we can ask with 4NT?

I don't want to be in slam opposite Kxxx in spades....I do opposite KJxxx. Keycard (as is so often the case) doesn't tell me what I need to know. 5♠ is simple and unambiguous (we can't be asking for a club control....we wouldn't have bid 4♣ then 5♠ if that were the issue...we'd have bid an immediate 5♠....partner's 4♠ did not show any extra length).

 

What I want to know is whether partner thinks his spades are good in the context of having a bad hand...not whether he has the spade K or KQ.

[gnasher]

Double then 4NT (natural). If partner wants to accept and has five spades, he can bid 5NT.

 

If double then 4NT is Keycard, presumably

dbl-3

♠

4

♣

-something

4NT

is natural.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa62hakq98dak3caq&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p3c]133|200[/hv]

Using normal methods, Phil's approach seem's best.. Although it may be hard for partner to co-operate...

And I have known the eyes already, known them all-- The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase, And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall, Then how should I begin To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways? And how should I presume?

IMO, After (3♣) _X (_P) 3♠; (_P) 4♣ (_P) 4♠; (_P) ??

5♠ = 10, _P = 9, 4N = 8, 5♣ = 7, 5♥ = 5, 6♠ = 4, 5N = 4.

Pass is attractive but seems cowardly. Does 5♠ ask about ♠ or ♣? One way of finding out is to bid it :)

[Echognome]

While I agree with Mike's assertion that partner did not show or promise 5 spades, I think the odds are good that he has 5 spades, given that he did not pass 3♣X. I'm trying to simplify the auction here for partner and of course it means I'm taking the bull by the horns rather than consulting with partner. At the same time, I find it is very difficult for partner to know exactly what I'm asking when he has the weak hand. Of course, the better the partner you play with, the better he is at judging hands.

 

I agree with Andy that one of the 4NT sequences should be natural and one of them should be keycard. I do think that 3NT here has a pretty wide range, although this hand is too strong for it. So to show the moose, you have to double first and then do something else. To me it is double and then NT that is natural, although I'm not sure whether this falls under double and 3NT or double and 4NT.

[TimG]

Double then 4NT (natural).

I would expect all of

 

(3♣)-3N

(3♣)-DBL-3♠-3N

(3♣)-4N

(3♣)-DBL-3♠-4N

 

to be natural. Have I listed them in ascending order of strength shown? And, do any of them really do this hand justice?

[han]

While I agree with Mike's assertion that partner did not show or promise 5 spades, I think the odds are good that he has 5 spades, given that he did not pass 3♣X.

 

Most of us play the double of 3C as takeout.

[Echognome]

Most of us play the double of 3C as takeout.

That was my presumption. But partner may still pass with a balanced hand no?

[han]

Definitely, especially when he has club honors and fewer than four spades!

[mfa1010]

What does partner bid with 4♠+4♦? Or 4♠+4♥? Or perhaps even sometimes with 5♦+4♠? I guess 3♠. So there is no particular reason to count strongly on five spades with partner. Bidding 5♠ seems very unsatisfying. If he passes it is often a very shaky contract. If he raises, then it is often a 4-3 in slam. Should we correct to 6NT?

 

Why can't we just bid 5♥ now? Would that be something really technical? I don't think so, so that's my choice. If we had just hearts, we could have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠.

A 5NT bash is also possible, planning to bid 6♥ as a choice of majors. We could also go low and pass. Very annoying problem.

[mikeh]

What does partner bid with 4♠+4♦? Or 4♠+4♥? Or perhaps even sometimes with 5♦+4♠? I guess 3♠. So there is no particular reason to count strongly on five spades with partner. Bidding 5♠ seems very unsatisfying. If he passes it is often a very shaky contract. If he raises, then it is often a 4-3 in slam. Should we correct to 6NT?

 

Why can't we just bid 5♥ now? Would that be something really technical? I don't think so, so that's my choice. If we had just hearts, we could have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠.

A 5NT bash is also possible, planning to bid 6♥ as a choice of majors. We could also go low and pass. Very annoying problem.

We may not be able to count on 5 spades for the 3♠ call, but I think we can safely ignore his having 4 of a red suit when he rebids 4♠. Now the odds seem extremely high that he has 5+ spades.....not enough for me to keycard over, however, since I think he will raise 5♠ to 6 everytime that we'd get to a good six after keycard, and we'll stay at the 5 level when he has, for example, Kxxx xxx xxx xxx. Now, even 5♠ will be too high, but it rates to be better than 6♠.

 

As for bidding 5♥....I think that that suggests a better suit, altho equivalent hand than we have. I admit that this isn't based on a great deal of real life experience with this sequence. Maybe Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ? IOW, I wouldn't expect partner to correct hearts to spades when he is 5=2 majors.

[l milne]

(3♣)-4NT is not natural for me. Two suits, diamonds and a major (as both majors would go through 4♣ then raise), enough strength for the 5-level. Perhaps it should even be both reds, with (3♣)-5♣ showing diamonds and spades.

 

Double first seems obvious, as does 4♣. After that I am sorely tempted by 5♥. Partner should know this is flexible, otherwise I would have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠. I agree with mikeh that partner is unlikely to correct with 5-2, so that's bad, but 5♥ works opposite 4-3 and some 5-3 hands.

 

Greatly prefer 5♠ as a second choice to 4NT.

 

What about 5♣ over 4♠? Would this show this sort of hand with doubt about strain? Maybe I would do that instead, except in real life 5-major is probably less ambiguous.]

[Phil]

In spite of this being a long term partnership, we were on shaky ground. I simply guessed 6♥ over 4♠ - I was wondering if that at the time if it was a choice between 6♥ and 6♠, but I think 5N..6♥ would be that.

 

I bought a very acceptable 9xxx Txx QJx Kxx (haha RHO) but trump went 4-1, so I made only 11. Just what exactly is he supposed to do over 4♣ I wonder?

 

Perhaps there isn't a lot of benefit in trying to dissect these auctions but it would be nice to have some governing rules.

[gnasher]

I would expect all of

 

(3♣)-3N

(3♣)-DBL-3♠-3N

(3♣)-4N

(3♣)-DBL-3♠-4N

 

to be natural. Have I listed them in ascending order of strength shown? And, do any of them really do this hand justice?

 

I think dbl-3♠-3NT has the same upper limit as a direct 3NT, but with more interest in a suit contract - something like a 3442 shape with ♣Ax.

 

By analogy, maybe dbl-3♠-4NT is more suit-oriented than a direct 4NT.

[gnasher]

I bought a very acceptable 9xxx Txx QJx Kxx (haha RHO) but trump went 4-1, so I made only 11. Just what exactly is he supposed to do over 4♣ I wonder?

Bid 4♦, or perhaps 4♥.

[mikeh]

In spite of this being a long term partnership, we were on shaky ground. I simply guessed 6♥ over 4♠ - I was wondering if that at the time if it was a choice between 6♥ and 6♠, but I think 5N..6♥ would be that.

 

I bought a very acceptable 9xxx Txx QJx Kxx (haha RHO) but trump went 4-1, so I made only 11. Just what exactly is he supposed to do over 4♣ I wonder?

 

Perhaps there isn't a lot of benefit in trying to dissect these auctions but it would be nice to have some governing rules.

Ii don't have any idea what he 'should' do, but I (think I)know what I would do: I'd have bid 4♦. Partner is either coming in spades, in which case my detour into diamonds won't matter, or he may be about to bid 4♥, showing a hand too good to double and then bid 4♥, and I will pass and risk his wrath on a bad day, or he has some hand where we are probably doomed anyway. What I would try to avoid is rebidding xxxx when I have any plausible excuse to avoid doing so and I think I have found an excuse. I would rebid 4♠ on xxxx xxx xxx Kxx, however. Can I rationalize that distinction? Yes.

 

Maybe, despite being aware of the bias that arises from seeing the hands, I am being influenced....there's no way to be certain of that once the cat is out of the bag. But that's what I think I'd do more times than not.

 

Edit: one of the many disadvantages of rambling posts is being beaten to the punch by those more concise than I am.

[Hanoi5]

I agree with what you did, if partner shows no aces I'll bid 5♠, with one ace I'll try asking for the queen, to see if I end up playing 6 or 7NT.

[mfa1010]

We may not be able to count on 5 spades for the 3♠ call, but I think we can safely ignore his having 4 of a red suit when he rebids 4♠. Now the odds seem extremely high that he has 5+ spades.....

For me 4 of a red suit would be a cuebid and forwardgoing with spades. In a pinch I guess that it is possible to cuebid a queen if the hand is too good to sign off in 4♠. 4♣ is not a choice of strains, it is a strong raise in spades.

 

As for bidding 5♥....I think that that suggests a better suit, altho equivalent hand than we have. I admit that this isn't based on a great deal of real life experience with this sequence. Maybe Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ? IOW, I wouldn't expect partner to correct hearts to spades when he is 5=2 majors.

In my context partner has every reason to rebid spades with a five card suit. It would be exotic to start with 4♣ with 2-6 in the majors.

[mikeh]

For me 4 of a red suit would be a cuebid and forwardgoing with spades. In a pinch I guess that it is possible to cuebid a queen if the hand is too good to sign off in 4♠. 4♣ is not a choice of strains, it is a strong raise in spades.

 

 

In my context partner has every reason to rebid spades with a five card suit. It would be exotic to start with 4♣ with 2-6 in the majors.

 

I'm interested in how you'd bid, say, Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ after (3♣) x (P) 3♠ (or Ax AKQxx AKxx AQ)?

 

If 4♣ is unambiguously always spades, what do you have available?

 

Surely 4♥ now is an underbid, even tho I appreciate that it is different from an immediate 4♥ overcall....the discussions I've seen in the BW on this difference seemed to me to suggest that the hand strength was more or less the same for each approach, but the double then bid showed more 'flexibility'. The example hand seems to me to be much stronger than would be shown (if I understand the discussions correctly) than the 'normal' expectancy from double then hearts.

 

 

This isn't intended to be a criticism...more a reflection of ignorance on my part, and interest in learning how you'd distinguish my suggested hand from say Axx AKQxx Axx Ax, where I'd double then bid 4♥. Maybe the answer is that the ability to make these distinctions isn't that important, since the odds of ever having the problem seem vanishingly small....I've rarely held such a hand and the only time I remember doing so, it was partner who preempted :P

[mfa1010]

I'm interested in how you'd bid, say, Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ after (3♣) x (P) 3♠ (or Ax AKQxx AKxx AQ)?

 

If 4♣ is unambiguously always spades, what do you have available?

 

Surely 4♥ now is an underbid, even tho I appreciate that it is different from an immediate 4♥ overcall....the discussions I've seen in the BW on this difference seemed to me to suggest that the hand strength was more or less the same for each approach, but the double then bid showed more 'flexibility'. The example hand seems to me to be much stronger than would be shown (if I understand the discussions correctly) than the 'normal' expectancy from double then hearts.

 

 

This isn't intended to be a criticism...more a reflection of ignorance on my part, and interest in learning how you'd distinguish my suggested hand from say Axx AKQxx Axx Ax, where I'd double then bid 4♥. Maybe the answer is that the ability to make these distinctions isn't that important, since the odds of ever having the problem seem vanishingly small....I've rarely held such a hand and the only time I remember doing so, it was partner who preempted :P

Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ

 

On this I would gamble slam (X then 6♥). In principle I have only two losers, and they are deep, so there will be many ways for one of them to disappear. If you made the hand a little weaker, I would bid 5♥ over 3♠.

 

Ax AKQxx AKxx AQ

 

5NT over 3♠. Again, I need very little from partner for slam. If my hand were a little weaker, I would bid 4NT natural over 3♠. Here it comes in handy that 4♣ shows spade support. To keycard for spades, I would have to start 4♣ and then bid 4NT.

 

Axx AKQxx Axx Ax

 

Yes, double then 4♥ shows flexibility. This is a strong hand for this sequence.