Missed slam

[jh51]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj7h7daqt8653c8&n=sa853h98dkj74ca64&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(3+%20%5B4+%20unless%204432%5D)1hd(4%20spades)p1s4h4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I was North. There were 12 tricks playing in either pointed suit. 6♠ would be worth all the match points, and 6♦ would share the top.

 

I felt that with partner's distribution and double fit, something more than 4♠ was called for. RKC perhaps? If I have 2 Aces, slam depends at worst on bringing in the diamond suit without loss.

 

Opinions. Comments?

[ArtK78]

I certainly agree that South should bid more. RKCB seems obvious. You made the correct point - opposite 2 aces and nothing else slam is on a finesse, and partner did open the bidding.

 

The risk of going down in 5 exists, but is not significant. If the partnership is off 2 aces, it should not be off a third trick unless there is an adverse diamond ruff or a very bad spade break.

 

This one is not that tough.

[the hog]

I would have bid 2D rather than make the sputnik x. The disparity between the two suits is too great for a x imo.

[Hanoi5]

Yes, definitely South has to do something else. KC sounds good.

[ArtK78]

I would have bid 2D rather than make the sputnik x. The disparity between the two suits is too great for a x imo.

Partner opened 1♦. We don't know if this partnership plays that 2♦ is forcing in competition.

 

Besides, it is matchpoints. You can't afford to overlook the possibility of a 4-4 spade fit.

[1eyedjack]

Double of 1H does not appeal to me. I am not averse to 1S or 2H as alternatives (or 2D if F). There is something to be said for a style that does not deny Spades when showing initial support in a forcing auction. I would not have expected a B/I player to be playing 2D as a forcing bid here, but if you are, then it seems to be a reasonable choice - no reason why the bid necessarily gives up on Spades. I suppose if double is one of these weird transfers to Spades that we keep hearing about (and there is some indication from the alerts that it might be), then I am not the right person to discuss the followups.

[Phil]

I would have bid 2D rather than make the sputnik x. The disparity between the two suits is too great for a x imo.

 

BUZZ. No inverted minors in competition in the B/I!!

[the hog]

BUZZ. No inverted minors in competition in the B/I!!

 

Why do you think an inverted 2D is beyond an intermediate player?

Yes, if 2D is nf, I guess you are forced into a double.

[matmat]

BUZZ. No inverted minors in competition in the B/I!!

 

I don't know of too many A/E who play inverted minors in competition, either.

[the hog]

I don't know of too many A/E who play inverted minors in competition, either.

Maybe that is a US thing? I don't know of many who don't use it after intervention.

[Phil]

Maybe that is a US thing? I don't know of many who don't use it after intervention.

 

Perhaps its an Aussie thing that the single raise is on after an overcall?

 

I mean, personally I don't hate the treatment and one partner likes them, but it is far from mainstream, even for the elite American players. Frankly, I can't think of one top partnership I know here that plays them, but my circle is not as wide as others.

[P_Marlowe]

4S is ..., the 5 level should be ok, if opener has 1 of the 3 missing Aces,

we have 10-11 diamonds between us, so it is safe to assume that opener has

the King, and it is possible, that opener does not have an Ace, but this is

also ...

 

So South needs to bid on.

 

Given the fact, that we have 10-11 card diamond fit, I am not even sure, that

showing the 4 card spade suit is sensible, ..., the only reason to do this, is,

that we are playing MP.

 

Most likely on the table I would forget about the spades and make a 4H splinter

bid, takes away the room, e.g. it also prvents a cheap 2H raise, showes the fit

and so on.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Looking if you have the choice between playing with your 7+? card suit and in a

4-4 fit, the 7+ fit will usually play better, trumps do break some of the time 4-1,

and than it can happen, that you get cut of.

This is not an issue with th 7-3 fit, but here we have the issue of ruffs.

[han]

I like to play 2D as forcing, with double showing 4-5 spades, 2H showing 6+ spades constructive or better and 2S being weak. I think I learned this from JLOGIC, who probably learned it from other US players. I wouldn't call this standard in the US, but if the Hog says that inverted in competition is standard down south then I have no reason to disbelieve him (apart from that it is the Hog), or even downvote him for thinking so. What's up with all the downvotes!?

 

Anyway, back to the hand, I must say I have never seen this. Responder had an opening strength 7-4, partner opened in his 7-card suit and he never supported. Quite a story.

[gwnn]

Concealing 7-card support is just plain rude.

[655321]

I don't know of too many A/E who play inverted minors in competition, either.

 

Maybe that is a US thing? I don't know of many who don't use it after intervention.

 

 

if the Hog says that inverted in competition is standard down south then I have no reason to disbelieve him (apart from that it is the Hog), or even downvote him for thinking so. What's up with all the downvotes!?

 

To be fair to hog, he doesn't explicitly claim that most Australians play inverted minors in competition, he could have been talking about his circle of peers at his local club (maybe in Australia, maybe in Laos) - then his mention of the US was a distraction that made his claim appear larger than he intended.

 

I would be very surprised if there were any country in which most players play inverted minors in competition.

[SimonFa]

Double of 1H does not appeal to me. I am not averse to 1S or 2H as alternatives (or 2D if F). There is something to be said for a style that does not deny Spades when showing initial support in a forcing auction. I would not have expected a B/I player to be playing 2D as a forcing bid here, but if you are, then it seems to be a reasonable choice - no reason why the bid necessarily gives up on Spades. I suppose if double is one of these weird transfers to Spades that we keep hearing about (and there is some indication from the alerts that it might be), then I am not the right person to discuss the followups.

On this bidding sequence (1m (1H) ?) in SAYC dbl =4♠s and 1♠=5♠s.

[jh51]

Partner opened 1♦. We don't know if this partnership plays that 2♦ is forcing in competition.

 

We do play inverted minors, but not in competition.

 

On this bidding sequence (1m (1H) ?) in SAYC dbl =4♠s and 1♠=5♠s.

 

That was our agreement.

[1eyedjack]

On this bidding sequence (1m (1H) ?) in SAYC dbl =4♠s and 1♠=5♠s.

 

Are you saying that pass and double the only available calls when you hold precisely 4 Spades? I am no SAYC expert but I would find that surprising. Most basic and natural systems allow for a considerable degree of flexibility.

 

What if responder had held (say) a long Club suit and 4 Spades? The way that I was taught, and my experience of others playing SAYC is that their methods are mostly similar, is that with a hand strong enough to bid both suits in a forcing context you would bid the suits naturally and in descending order of length. To start with a double and then bid Clubs (once a Spade fit has failed to come to light) would be a non-forcing bid showing values short of bidding Clubs then Spades. On the same theme, I would expect (say) a 2H "unassuming cue" to show a sound raise in Diamonds and, when followed up by a bid of Spades, to show a hand that is too strong to double (to show Spades) and then support Diamonds (NF). The reverse treatment (which I think goes by the description "negative free bids") start with double on forcing auctions, and I know that there are a few who play this, but I would expect that to be a minority and non-standard.

 

Of course the 2H UCB is superfluous if playing inverted raises in competition as outlined by Hog. I am rather ambivalent about the manner by which the diamond support is shown, but I strongly feel that it should be shown first.

[jh51]

Are you saying that pass and double the only available calls when you hold precisely 4 Spades? I am no SAYC expert but I would find that surprising. Most basic and natural systems allow for a considerable degree of flexibility.

 

Who ever said that those were the only available calls with 4 spades? I think the quoted statement simply meant that if responder chooses to show her spade suit, a double shows 4 and 1♠ shows 5. I would not think that any other bid says anything about spades. BTW, I did not previously mention it because I did not see the relevance in this case, but we were playnig 2/1, not SAYC.

 

For those who object to my partner's negative double, how would you do after

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1h2hp3d4h]133|100[/hv]

 

Are you still thinking slam?

[the hog]

Perhaps its an Aussie thing that the single raise is on after an overcall?

 

I mean, personally I don't hate the treatment and one partner likes them, but it is far from mainstream, even for the elite American players. Frankly, I can't think of one top partnership I know here that plays them, but my circle is not as wide as others.

 

Maybe it is an Aussie thing. Though I must admit that most would not include a 4 card M in the inverted minor bid.

[1eyedjack]

Who ever said that those were the only available calls with 4 spades? I think the quoted statement simply meant that if responder chooses to show her spade suit, a double shows 4 and 1♠ shows 5. I would not think that any other bid says anything about spades. BTW, I did not previously mention it because I did not see the relevance in this case, but we were playnig 2/1, not SAYC.

OK, understood now.

For those who object to my partner's negative double, how would you do after

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1h2hp3d4h]133|100[/hv]

 

Are you still thinking slam?

I think on the original hand as posted opener would bid 2S rather than 3D, assuming 2H does not deny a major. But that said, on the auction that you now state I think yes, personally I am still thinking slam. I was thinking slam when I bid 2H. What has changed since then is that partner has made the weakest rebid, which is bad news but the opponents have kindly informed me that partner is unlikely to have much in the way of wasted Heart values which is good news. I have a lot in reserve for 2H, and all I need from P is a smattering of top controls, which is well within the realms of his 3D rebid. Not worth a slam force, for sure, but I personally think worth something a bit more encouraging than a 5D raise.

[SimonFa]

Are you saying that pass and double the only available calls when you hold precisely 4 Spades? I am no SAYC expert but I would find that surprising. Most basic and natural systems allow for a considerable degree of flexibility.

 

What if responder had held (say) a long Club suit and 4 Spades? The way that I was taught, and my experience of others playing SAYC is that their methods are mostly similar, is that with a hand strong enough to bid both suits in a forcing context you would bid the suits naturally and in descending order of length. To start with a double and then bid Clubs (once a Spade fit has failed to come to light) would be a non-forcing bid showing values short of bidding Clubs then Spades. On the same theme, I would expect (say) a 2H "unassuming cue" to show a sound raise in Diamonds and, when followed up by a bid of Spades, to show a hand that is too strong to double (to show Spades) and then support Diamonds (NF). The reverse treatment (which I think goes by the description "negative free bids") start with double on forcing auctions, and I know that there are a few who play this, but I would expect that to be a minority and non-standard.

 

Of course the 2H UCB is superfluous if playing inverted raises in competition as outlined by Hog. I am rather ambivalent about the manner by which the diamond support is shown, but I strongly feel that it should be shown first.

 

Of course there are other bids available, but you need to consider that with SAYC the aim is to find a major fit first. Partner may be bidding with 3 of a minor and 4/4 in the majors so the idea is for responder to show their 4-card majors to see if you have an 8-card trump suit.

 

The sequence described is a very good way of working out if you have 5-3 in spades as well.

 

While on the subject the sequence::

 

1♣- (1♦)- X -

 

Shows at 4/4 in the majors so that again you can quickly locate an 8-card trump fit before worrying about minors.

[Free]

While I agree that there's a large difference in the suits, I think looking for a double fit has merit. Also, Dbl allows opener to play ♠s, chances are bigger for East to have a ♦ void than West (vacant spaces). So in MP I would also Dbl, while in imps I might conceil the ♠ suit (I only need to know keycards for ♦).

 

After the 1♠ rebid by North, I think South should definitely do more than just signoff in game. He has a monster.

 

I know some people play inverted minors after competition (but most I know don't), I've tried it myself, but I didn't like it. I was always under the impression that the standard treatment was that inverted minors were off after intervention, but apparently there's no international standard for this either... :huh: