Too high

[han]

We ended up too high on the following hand:

 

xx

J

AJxxxx

AJxx

 

KQJ

AQ

xx

KQxxxx

 

Our auction:

 

1C - (1S) - 2H (10+ with 5+ diamonds) - (2S)

3NT - 4C

4H - (Dbl) - p

Rdbl - 5C

6C

 

Your thoughts?

[gnasher]

I think North did too much. After 4♥ was doubled, he should just have bid 5♣. South's actions seem sensible to me - slam is cold opposite xx xx AKxxx AJxx.

 

The double of 4♥ should have helped here, because it gave North a chance to say that he was minimum.

Edited January 20, 2012 by gnasher

[rhm]

I prefer minorwood.

 

To start control showing bids above 4 of the agreed suit is inefficient and kickback is too complicated for simple souls like me.

With 4♣ agreeing ♣ and asking for key-cards there would have been no disaster.

Note, that minorwood makes 4NT a possible resting place, always welcome when you want to invite a minor suit slam after 3NT has been bid by your partner.

 

I agree with North's bidding, except that I would have bid 4NT if natural instead of 5♣.

I think South did too much. He had bid strongly before with lots of secondary honors and should have passed 5♣.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Me, the MP merchanr, would had passed 3NT. But having failed to do so I think gnasher is right as usual.

[rhm]

Me, the MP merchanr, would had passed 3NT. But having failed to do so I think gnasher is right as usual.

I think North though minimum in total point count, has good honors for slam. Give South the ♦K for the ♥Q and the ♠J and slam looks very good.

It is South, who looks at a small doubleton in partner's suit, missing 3 aces to boot and having bid strongly before.

Point count in itself is not a reliable guide to slam bidding in suit contracts.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

Would have started 1♣-(1♠)-3♦(fit) at which point it will become clear to South that there's a diamond and a spade loser unless partner has K♦.

 

Responder's 4♣ is slightly optimistic, but partner could easily have a stiff diamond here.

 

Opener's 6♣ is over optimistic also, he knows about the spade loser, and he's playing his partner to have ♦AK and ♣A.

 

Not sure exactly what methods are being played after 4♣, but I as responder playing my own methods, would have bid 4N with a really good diamond suit here, so partner should give up over 5♣ (unless of course you're playing MPs where it's 3N or 6♣).

[dake50]

As others noted, what bid shows NOT 2or3 diamond tops?

Contrarily, what shows a hand that wants DA,K, or DQ

to get excited?

What N bid showed NOT DAK, DAQ, DKQ?

What S bid showed NOT DQ, DK, DA?

[han]

Thanks for the thoughts thus far. Whether you play minorwood or 3D fit jumps here is not as useful to us as we do not. I am more interested in the evaluation part, how should we have bid given our simple methods.

 

After 4C, 4D would have shown support, and 4H was a cuebid, not mandatory as opener could bid 4NT or 5C with a truly unsuitable hand for slam. After the double, responder's pass allowed opener to show first round control by redoubling. After the redouble, we would both have taken 4S as a cuebid (not last train) and 4NT as RKC, so pass followed by 5C was not quite a sign-off.

 

I don't think that our methods are optional, but hopefully they are standard enough that you can imagine being in this position.

 

I forgot to mention that the form of scoring was IMPs

[han]

I think that gnasher and rhm could both be correct when they point out that north could have held

 

xx

xx

AKxxx

AJxx

 

while south could have held

 

KQx

Ax

Kx

KQxxxx

 

and they both would have bid the same up to 4H. Slam would have been excellent in both cases.

 

In fact, both players thought along these lines at the table. Are they both hoping for partner to hold the perfect hand? Or is one (or are both?) correct in expecting partner to hold more suitable cards?

 

I have an opinion of course, but since I was one of these players, I'm probably biased.

[Phil]

Do you have an agreement about the pass of 4♥ x'd?

[han]

Yes, but only that it allows opener to redouble to show a first round control. Redouble by responder would show a first round control as well.

[cherdano]

while south could have held

 

KQx

Ax

Kx

KQxxxx

 

Would 4NT over 4♣ have been keycard?

[benlessard]

Over the X its normal to play XX first round, pass = no control and bid 2nd round control. Here if north bid a simple 5C (2nd round of H, no S control no slam interest) south will spot the H duplication and pass 5C easily (AQ of H vs Kx or a stiff, xx in D and only 2 keycard are minus enough vs a partner who made only 1 slam try)

 

PS anyone else is tempted to bid 5C rather than 4C with north hand ? I think pulling 3Nt to 5m at MP is at least slightly slammish and tend to be distributional with prime values rather than soft values but show a weaker hand than 4C. (the downside is that it suggest a S shortness and even a likely void)

 

Also I really like to play minorwood and that a further 4Nt is to play.

[jmcw]

South started the problem by overstating his values.

On the given auction he shows a good 18+ IMO.

 

I like a 1NT call with the S hand, maximum for sure, but with so much in the short suits it feels about right.

 

My auction starts:

1NT 2NT(♦)

3♦ 3♥(short)

? probably a conservative 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

South started the problem by overstating his values.

On the given auction he shows a good 18+ IMO.

 

I like a 1NT call with the S hand, maximum for sure, but with so much in the short suits it feels about right.

 

My auction starts:

1NT 2NT(♦)

3♦ 3♥(short)

? probably a conservative 3NT.

This hand is an obscene 1N, as it makes 8.5 tricks opposite ♣Jx and out so is way better than a standard 1N.

 

I'm sure 1N is a great spot opposite 10xxx, xxxx, x, AJxx I'd rather be in 5 clubs which is about as good :)

[rduran1216]

I think south is certainly the culprit here. KQJ of spades isn't terrific for 6C, neither is having a doubler behind me, though the spades will produce pitches. ultimately xx in diamonds isn't terrific, and 5C is no show of strength IMO by partner.

[CSGibson]

My own thought? What would 4N have been after the redouble of 4H? If it is last train, and it was purposely bypassed by bidding 5C, then I think 6C was too much. I also think North can just bid 5C over the double, instead of showing interest in whether S has 1st or 2nd round control.

[DeadLock79]

Here are my thoughts:

 

0. In bidding the first mistake is always the biggest one..its very hard to recover from 1st mistake and even if you do the bidding will always be inaccurate

1. regarding 6♣ ♠xx ♥J ♦AJxxxx ♣AJxx is exactly as good as ♠xx ♥x ♦Axxxxx ♣Axxx so that makes this hand as a perfect 8HCP + good shape hand.

2 3nt = I want to play 3nt .. if Im strong (15+hcp and !D values) and interested in a potential slam I need to hear about ♣ fit on level 3 so I will x 2♠..you really need a very good reason to bid over 3nt which you dont have in this case (for me 4♣ is 1st major mistake therefor the biggest)

3. Back to your bidding

4♣-4♥ means pd lack ♦k which is a huge drawback for a 8hcp hand so you should bid 5C now directly over x

N overbid so many times it isnt funny

[Finch]

Hard to argue with anything up to and including 4C. North has an obvious slam try (I'm assuming that 2NT would not have been natural over 2S by South).

I don't see the merit, or indeed the benefit, of playing 4♣ as minorwood, not least because keycards weren't the issue. It seems that rhm is only prepared to play in slam with no keycards missing.

 

I don't understand why 4♦ shows support over 4♣, why isn't is a cue bid? If you have diamond support surely you must have a genuine club suit too? Would you really bid 4♦ on 3 low?

 

On the actual auction I think South overbid at the end with his 6C bid. North's pass of 4Hx was fair enough looking at a heart singleton and the ace of diamonds - couldn't partner have, say, AKx Ax xx KQxxxx and be worried about a heart loser, particularly after the double? But I don't think South has anything extra at the end, he's virtually driven to slam opposite North's 4C bid. If North had this hand with AK of diamonds and A of clubs I think he'd had bid slam himself.

[Fluffy]

Would 4NT over 4♣ have been keycard?

 

After 4C, 4D would have shown support, and 4H was a cuebid, not mandatory as opener could bid 4NT or 5C with a truly unsuitable hand for slam.

 

 

Looks like 4NT is to play

[TWO4BRIDGE]

♦

I prefer minorwood.

 

To start control showing bids above 4 of the agreed suit is inefficient and kickback is too complicated for simple souls like me.

With 4♣ agreeing ♣ and asking for key-cards there would have been no disaster.

Note, that minorwood makes 4NT a possible resting place, always welcome when you want to invite a minor suit slam after 3NT has been bid by your partner.

 

I agree with North's bidding, except that I would have bid 4NT if natural instead of 5♣.

I think South did too much. He had bid strongly before with lots of secondary honors and should have passed 5♣.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Kickback will also make 4NT as a final resting place.

Since suit agreement is first shown at the 4-level ( a non-jump ), then 4D! becomes Kickback.

( If ♣ suit agreement were at the 3-level, then 4C! would be RKC-ask ( Minorwood ).

 

Because of his 2 small Diam, South decides to use RKC to go to slam ONLY if their side has all the keycards ;

South..........North

1C - (1S) - 2H (10+ with 5+ diamonds) - (2S)

3NT - 4C

4D! - 4NT ( 3rd step = 2 - ♣Q )

pass

 

However, as has been mentioned, this is "masterminding" ( or resulting ) since if North has 2 Aces ( one of which is the ♦ AND the ♦K, then 6C is a lock .

[rhm]

I don't see the merit, or indeed the benefit, of playing 4♣ as minorwood, not least because keycards weren't the issue. It seems that rhm is only prepared to play in slam with no keycards missing.

A little understood but important enhancement, because it occurs very frequently, to key card asking is to play that if the key card asker has shown a primary side suit outside of trumps, this suit should be a second key card suit.

The king (but not the queen) of this side suit, in this case the ♦K, becomes a sixth key card. This is entirely logical. So 4♣ for me would be minorwood, and since North does the asking, both minors suits are key suits.

If you can not see the merit of a key card ask to avoid bidding slam, missing 2 key cards like here, I am lost. I do see the merit.

I am not claiming key card ask solves all problems in slam bidding, but neither does control bidding. I am not against control bidding, but when you run out of space, I believe key card ask solves more problems than control bidding.

The trouble with control bidding is, that you can always end up at the right level, but only in the postmortem. The actual table results look differently. Too much scope for misjudgment.

 

...

However, as has been mentioned, this is "masterminding" ( or resulting ) since if North has 2 Aces ( one of which is the ♦ AND the ♦K, then 6C is a lock .

This is only correct if South asks for key cards. South would show in response to minorwood 3 key cards, holding ♣K, the ♦K and the ♥A. The actual response of 4NT would indicate that 2 keycards are missing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[DeadLock79]

Its so funny everybody is discussing biding over 4♣ when 4♣ is just so wrong.

And you know why ..bec everybody see S hand with KQxxxx and think 4♣ is safe.At what point pd shows 6♣? 1♣? 3nt ?

Imagine now you dont see S hand and think pd has som like

♠KQJ

♥AKQJ

♦xx

♣Qxxx

 

♠KQJ

♥AKxx

♦KQ

♣109xx

 

Would you bid 4♣ now ?

Even 5♣ is not safe..

This reminds me of Vug commentors who are inventing bids only bec they fit to all 4 hands they see.

[rhm]

Its so funny everybody is discussing biding over 4♣ when 4♣ is just so wrong.

And you know why ..bec everybody see S hand with KQxxxx and think 4♣ is safe.At what point pd shows 6♣? 1♣? 3nt ?

Imagine now you dont see S hand and think pd has som like

♠KQJ

♥AKQJ

♦xx

♣Qxxx

 

♠KQJ

♥AKx

♦KQ

♣109xx

 

Would you bid 4♣ now ?

Even 5♣ is not safe..

This reminds me of Vug commentors who are inventing bids only bec they fit to all 4 hands they see.

With the first hand I would never open 1♣, which I consider an abomination with this hand, but 1♥. And yes I play 5 card majors, but I am also playing Bridge.

I do not mind ending in a 4-3 ♥ fit, should partner be short in one of the minors. Even a 4-2 ♥ fit could easily be the only game in town here, not that I actively look for 4-2 fits.

The second hand is more reasonable and yes I would stop in 4NT.

4♣ is quite safe provided you can stop in 4NT. 100% safety does usually not exist in Bridge bidding, which is a game of incomplete information.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Its so funny everybody is discussing biding over 4♣ when 4♣ is just so wrong.

And you know why ..bec everybody see S hand with KQxxxx and think 4♣ is safe.At what point pd shows 6♣? 1♣? 3nt ?

Imagine now you dont see S hand and think pd has som like

♠KQJ

♥AKQJ

♦xx

♣Qxxx

 

♠KQJ

♥AKx

♦KQ

♣109xx

 

Would you bid 4♣ now ?

Even 5♣ is not safe..

This reminds me of Vug commentors who are inventing bids only bec they fit to all 4 hands they see.

On the first one, I think opener should sign off in 4NT over 4♣. He may have an 18-count, but it's nearly all in the wrong place. The minor honours in the majors are known to be useless, and ♥K is far less valuable than ♦K would be.

 

Your second example is a card short.