Anyone to blame ?

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj75hk973dq5cq3&w=sthaq6daj87cakjt4&n=s96432h84d964c862&e=sa8hjt52dkt32c975&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sdp2hp3cp3sdpp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

IMPS, NS red. Anyone to blame ? If so who ?

[ceeb]

West should have anticipated the positional power of his aces over the opening bidder, which makes slam nearly certain.

[jschafer]

I think East could redouble instead of bidding 3NT. It may or may not get you to slam but I think it certainly makes it easier for West to evaluate that possibility (especially if he is counting on a certain ♠ loser).

[whereagles]

No blame. Seems normal to me. I wouldn't dream of slam, although it's a good one.

[Fluffy]

I agree with jschafer, thx to the double, east can redouble to show ♠A and west knows that suit contracts are good.

[nigel_k]

Slam is not that great since there is room for North to have a minor suit queen. Any auction that reaches slam on these cards will probably also reach it when you don't have those tens that make it decent. But I would not sit for 3NT with West when partner cannot bid it directly over 3♣. Probably I would end in five of a minor.

[Trinidad]

West should have anticipated the positional power of his aces over the opening bidder, which makes slam nearly certain.

You mean: "... which makes the slam depend on two out of three finesses (that are supposed to work on the bidding), if East holds the ♠A, ♥JT and ♦KTxx."

 

Given that I would have bid exactly the same as East with e.g. ♠Axx ♥Jxxx ♦9xx ♣xxx, I don't see any reason to blame West.

 

I don't see any reason to blame East either. For me XX shows that you want West to declare 3NT.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

For me XX shows that you want West to declare 3NT.

 

Rik

 

Thats why i bid 3 NT, i thought if pd has Qxx ♠ it wouldn't matter, but what if he has Qx or Jxx ? To be honest i didn't think of slam at that point, i was trying to figure which contract and from which side would be safest for us. If he has a really huge hand, i thought i did my job by 3♠ first instead of direct 3 NT, as someone mentioned above.

[mfa1010]

It seems wrong that west accepts to play 3NT with a singleton spade and a suit oriented hand but no particularly good source of tricks in clubs. Without a double EW would have been past 3NT, so east shouldn't have a model hand for 3NT.

 

XX would not show ♠A as I play it (it would ask for a stopper, since west could pass and then bid 3NT when in doubt).

[the_dude]

Am I way off base here? I would have bid 2S instead of 3C as west... Not giving up on the 5-3 Heart fit and showing a big 2344 or 1345/1354... Or is there some other modern agreement for 2S that I have missed?

 

Of course I don't know what to do as East in response .. now his hand is gigantic given his earlier lack of jump .. seems like he would bid 3D but that doesn't do it justice. He'd be alot less wont to bid 3NT tho opposite known spade shortness.

[ceeb]

You mean: "... which makes the slam depend on two out of three finesses (that are supposed to work on the bidding), if East holds the ♠A, ♥JT and ♦KTxx."

By "which makes slam nearly certain" I do mean the same as "which makes the slam depend on two out of three finesses (that are supposed to work on the bidding)" (though 6♦, if you can find it, may be a shade better yet). To say that slam being good is conditional upon East having some useful cards is true enough and goes without saying but is not what I meant. By bringing up the positional value of West's aces I meant that slam is very good compared to what it would be based on the same E-W cards but no knowledge of the opening bid.

 

My first instinct was that while West is more than minimum for double-then-3♣, I wasn't going to put any blame. But on reconsideration of the potential in West's aces I decided West is a lot more than minimum and since East has given the partnership an opening to go further West should take it. Slam may still not be reached.

 

Given that I would have bid exactly the same as East with e.g. ♠Axx ♥Jxxx ♦9xx ♣xxx ...[/Quote]I would not. I would pass 3♣ with that, and at most consider a non-forcing 4♣ or taking a flyer with 3NT. Getting involved with a cue bid seems outrageous.

[gnasher]

My first instinct was that while West is more than minimum for double-then-3♣, I wasn't going to put any blame. But on reconsideration of the potential in West's aces I decided West is a lot more than minimum and since East has given the partnership an opening to go further West should take it. Slam may still not be reached.

What would a minimum for double-then-3♣ look like?

[rhm]

The slam is hard to bid.

However, I would not stay in 3NT with the West hand when East did not bid notrump directly. The double of 3♠ was stupid and served no purpose for North-South.

 

In a well oiled partnership, East might rebid 3♦, which should be forcing for one round, instead of 3♠.

The bidding might go

 

(1♠)

DBL-2♥

3♣--3♦

3♥--3♠

4♦--4♠

6♦

 

 

West has given a good description of his hand and over 4♦ East can see that all his values are working and makes a slam try with 4♠.

West of course accepts.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gszeszycki]

it is very difficult for E to imagine slam after the paltry 3c bid by their p. A much

better start is 2s. There is no reason to hurry and show 5 card suit (even thought its nice) when your hand is so much better than normal because of the opening bid on your right. keep bidding low and go slow when you are very powerful. I know 2s is only 2 pips below 3c but reverse your minors and the advantage of 2s becomes even clearer.