Missed grand

[kupi007]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdc&w=skq943ha9d8cakt95&n=shdc&e=sa87htdakjtcq7632]399|300[/hv]

 

Bidding went(opps pass)

 

W opens bidding is 2seat: 1♠-2♣(2+ 3way GF, deny 4♠ if balanced) -3♣(4+extras)-3♠-4♣-5♣-6♣

 

context is 2/1 with weak NT and sound 1M openings

 

I had disagreement about this hand with my partner, and i would like to ask how you understand subsequent bids playing or not playing minorwood if that matters.

[the_clown]

Not cuebidding over 4♣ is beyond me.

 

Also I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ splinter. Not sure if that was available.

[Cyberyeti]

We have no issues with this one playing our bent version of acol, we open this 1♣ intending to rebid 2♠ over 1 red to show a 5-5 with 2 good suits but not a stellar overall hand, partner bids an inverted 2♣ and we're off to the races.

 

Teams/pairs ? If you're in a small slam, you may want to be in spades or NT to rescue some MPs, so need to put those in the frame.

 

In your auction, 5♣ is a terrible bid, give partner KQJxx, xx, x, AKxxx, 6 is cold and you just missed it because you didn't tell partner you had any red suit controls and extras.

 

4♦ kickback over 4♣ makes it pretty trivial, (4♥(0/3)-5♦(K)-7♣ for example)

 

4♦(cue)-4♥-4♠-4N(rolling)-5♦(K)- now the worst the grand can be on is opposite ♣xxxx and it's very likely excellent opposite Qxxx or xxxxx so I'd bid it.

 

Alternatively 4♦(cue)-4N(blackwood)-5♠(2+Q)-5N(anything else, both sides know 6♠ is a viable spot if answer not what was wanted, although W knows there is no wrong answer)-6♦-7♣

[Zelandakh]

Talking of alternatives to 2/1...

 

1♠ = 10-17, unbal, 5+ spades

... - 1NT = INV+ relay

2♥ = max, 4+ clubs, GF

... - 2♠ = relay

2NT = 5+ clubs

... - 3♣ = relay

3♥ = 5215

... - 3♠ = relay

4♥ = 6 controls

... - 4♠ = relay

5♥ = controls all suits except diamonds

... - 5♠ = relay

6♦ = 2 of top 3 in spades and clubs, only 1 of top 3 in hearts

... - 7♣/7NT

 

I am happy to take my chances in 7NT at MPs but prefer 7♣ at IMPs.

 

I find it difficult to comment on the OP auction without knowing what agreements are in play. With that caveat it seems that the obvious bid to point the finger at is 5♣. However, if for example 4♣ was slam try Minorwood then 5♣ accepts a slam try and shows 2 key cards plus ♣Q. OK, if that were the case then I am sure the OP would have mentioned it but the auction is such that I am not 100% sure precisely what Responder showed. I am assuming that Opener showed at least 5-5 in the black suits and slam interest though. Opposite that it seems inconceivable that East would not cooperate so surely East had a different view of what was shown, or thought their 5♣ bid was positive (perhaps 4♠ was negative?).

[kupi007]

Can 4♣ be taken as minorwood if 2C not promise 3? And what you think about 4♣ insterad of 3S?

[Zelandakh]

One more question, can 4♣ be taken as minorwood? And what you think about 4♣ insterad of 3 spades

4♣ is Minorwood if agreed to be so. It might also just be agreeing clubs to start cue bidding, or a slam try, or some combination of these 3. It could even be a cue with spades agreed if 3♠ set trumps - you did mention that 2♣ might contain 4 spades after all. It is all a matter of agreements.

 

When you play a complex, multi-way method then you have to have good agreements to unwind the hand types in the resulting auctions. This is the problem and one of the reasons I cannot say with certainty what East showed. It sounds like you are playing this method without having had enough discussion about these follow-ups. To answer the specific question you would have to tell us what 3♠ showed and what 4♣ would have shown. At some point you have to actually show your hand type in a bi-directional bidding system.

[kupi007]

you did mention that 2♣ might contain 4 spades

It may contain 4♠ only with hand with 5+♣, other hands with 4♠ go via Jacoby. I was sitting as W, my p said that he took 4♣ as minorwwod and 5♣ was mentioned answer (2A+Q). From my point of view the bid that made most of the damage was 3♠, i just see no point in setting weaker suit on slam going hand, and later 4♣ was intended as cue on "agreed" ♠, partner said he show me Hxx in ♠, imo w/o suit agreed first it cant be.

[mike777]

Not cuebidding over 4♣ is beyond me.

 

Also I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ splinter. Not sure if that was available.

 

 

this

[aguahombre]

Given the auction, through the first Minorwood response:

 

I don't understand why 5C and not 4N is the answer showing 2 keys plus the club queen.

 

I don't understand the conditions under which opener cannot then discover there are 13 tricks at clubs.

[Cyberyeti]

Given the auction, through the first Minorwood response:

 

I don't understand why 5C and not 4N is the answer showing 2 keys plus the club queen.

 

I don't understand the conditions under which opener cannot then discover there are 13 tricks at clubs.

I think you can play a variant where one bid (4♦?) shows a rock bottom minimum for your bidding so far, and partner can re-ask if he still wants to know, while other responses are MW, this pushes 2 with and extras to 5♣. If this is what happened, bidding 6♣ over this is criminal.

 

We use this in some voidwood auctions where your 11 count with a KJ10 becomes not an opening bid when you find out it's opposite a void.

 

Agreed on the last point, all W needs to know (given that he knows 3♠/4+♣) is that E has A♠, A♦, stiff ♥ or either red K, Q♣ or a 5th one, so if W can ask for keycards, this is relatively easy. The extra red control may even be unnecessary. AJx, xxx, Axx, Qxxx is plenty.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdc&w=skq943ha9d8cakt95&n=shdc&e=sa87htdakjtcq7632]399|300[/hv]

 

 

Only East will know of the 9+ card ♣ fit:

 

1S - 2C !

3C - 3S ( 3 cards, ♠ now becomes the agreed suit )

4C ( this is a cue for ♠) - 4NT ( RKC for ♠ )

5C ( 0/3 ) - 5D ( ♠Q-ask )

6C ( ♠Q + ♣K; denies ♦ or ♥ K ) - 7C ( chances are if pard has 5 cds ♣, can ruff/set-up ♠ or

.......................................................... if 4 cds ♣, then can ruff ♦ or at worst finesse for ♦Q )

all pass

[Antrax]

Don, can't two of West's clubs be diamonds on this bidding? Or do you require opener's raise of the 2/1 to be a 4+ suit?

[Phil]

East has an easy 4♦ call. Some sort of agreement about serious / non-serious 3N would help too.

[aguahombre]

Antrax' question is a good one. West should be the Captain, not East. Partial blame to the dreaded nebulous 2C style. Lots of people love it, but some fuddy duddies would surely have a boat ride using a natural 2C response (4+, usually 5+).

[han]

The 5C bid is absurd, and blaming any convention for this mishap is ridiculous.

[aguahombre]

The 5C bid is absurd, and blaming any convention for this mishap is ridiculous.

Another excellent point. If 4C was Minorwood, it should be just that; no 4D refusal as a first-step response. 5C over 4C would mean one thing only to me ---that partner did not take 4C as Wood.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Don, can't two of West's clubs be diamonds on this bidding? Or do you require opener's raise of the 2/1 to be a 4+ suit?

If West has 2 cds ♦, they are covered by East's A K .

OP said Opener's 3C bid showed 4+ cds ♣. I would require that too .

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Can 4♣ be taken as minorwood if 2C not promise 3? And what you think about 4♣ insterad of 3S?

If East rebids 4C ( instead of 3S ) , and I don't think he should deny the 3 card ♠ support, then East has taken control because 4C would be Minorwood -- sooo, he'll never find out about the ♠ Q.

[kenrexford]

My start would be identical in form, with one caveat -- I do not deny four-card support if balanced because I only bid Jacoby 2NT if I lack lots of Quacks on the outside. Otherwise, identical.

 

1♠-2♣(could be fit only)

3♣*-3♠(clubs now ambiguous)

 

*While I agree with the idea of bidding 3♦ for some folks, for me that shows great clubs (which I have), slightly better spoades (which I lack), and no heart control (which I have). Thus, I bid 3♣ because my diamond splinter is so heavily defined.

 

So far, the same auction.

 

Over 3♠, I would have bid 3NT myself, as a Serious 3NT call. With only four losers, control of all suits, great clubs and great spades, and "three key cards plus the queen" for a spade contract, I am serious as heck. But, if 3NT would be non-serious, then I love 4♣ as a serious cue. If 4♣ is a neutral cue because 3NT would (strangely) be an offer to play, then you are kind of forced into this. If 3NT means something else, this is not stated and might be important to state.

 

I also do not like 4♣ here as Kickback for clubs. Hate that. Spades are agreed tentatively, so cuebid, IMO.

 

Now, as to Responder. If 5♣ was meant as 6KCB, that is a perfect bid. If it was intended as a cue, that is a dumb bid -- you skipped diamonds. If intended as something else, what meaning has been assigned?

 

The "answer" to this issue is that you seem to need good agreements, and nothing has been stated as to what these are.

 

 

My general rule is that 5♣ in this sequence is RKCB, but Opener is expected to show the club King and Queen as key cards and not the spade King and Queen (often used because Responder is looking at the spade King and Queen or because cuebidding has exposed those cards already). 6KCB works too, and better in this situation.

[kupi007]

Reading all the posts, now i realized problem is more complex...

1. I dont think neboulous 2♣ made damage, even if it would promise 4, still responder may prefer to support ♠ with and marginal hand, creating same issues to what suit is actually agreed.

2. If responder take capitancy he will never get known about Q♠ or K♣, dependig on what suit will be agreed.

3. I dont think 3♦ by opener may be splinter, couse we cannot splinter into side suit w/o known support to this suit...maybe nebolous 2♣ isnt so great after all:)

4. I also dont think 4♣ after 3♠ may be minorwood, couse of same reasons as 3, although minorwood here would make grand easy to bid.

5. 3NT as sirious/non sirious, problem of suit agreement still exist, but even if not, i m not great fan of removal of jugment from chossing 3NT instead of 4M on 8card fit.

6. After reading everything i still dont see purpose in 3♠, i think that simple 4♣ as agreement of ♣ would lead to grand(unless opener have problems with counting to 13)

[kenrexford]

Reading all the posts, now i realized problem is more complex...

1. I dont think neboulous 2♣ made damage, even if it would promise 4, still responder may prefer to support ♠ with and marginal hand, creating same issues to what suit is actually agreed.

 

A good rule of thumb is that 3♠ establishes spades as trumps unless a slam is bid. Then, fewer issues exist.

2. If responder take capitancy he will never get known about Q♠ or K♣, dependig on what suit will be agreed.

 

If OPENER takes captaincy, using my methods, he can bid 5♣ as RKCB for clubs, where he will find out the club Queen and will know himself about the spade King an Queen. Thus, for example, a possible auction might be:

 

1♠-2♣

3♣-3♠

3NT(serious)-4♦(diamond control, not two top clubs)

5♣(RKCB clubs)-5NT(two key cards plus the club Queen)

6♦(diamond King?)-7♣(yes, and real clubs)

 

 

3. I dont think 3♦ by opener may be splinter, couse we cannot splinter into side suit w/o known support to this suit...maybe nebolous 2♣ isnt so great after all:)

 

This is why I define 3♦ as a picture bid (three of the top four spades, two of the top three clubs, stiff in diamonds, no heart control), namely because I want this bid to be very precise as to what I have, in case partner's 2♣ was funny. Helps with deciding to bid or not bid 3NT and whether to try a 5-2 game in my major.

 

4. I also dont think 4♣ after 3♠ may be minorwood, couse of same reasons as 3, although minorwood here would make grand easy to bid.

 

Agreed.

 

5. 3NT as sirious/non sirious, problem of suit agreement still exist, but even if not, i m not great fan of removal of jugment from chossing 3NT instead of 4M on 8card fit.

 

 

I just do not think it to be practical, after 1M-2♣-3♣-3M to have clubs, the major, AND 3NT in focus. You are trying to do too much to land on a dime in 3NT, when Opener cannot possibly have the info necessary to make 3NT seem right. If he has a hand where 3NT might be right, he should not bid 3♣, IMO, but should instead bid 2NT (or preferably 2♦ waiting).

 

6. After reading everything i still dont see purpose in 3♠, i think that simple 4♣ as agreement of ♣ would lead to grand (unless opener have problems with counting to 13)

 

 

(See notes above in the quote...) Frankly, this last point makes no sense. How is Opener supposed to know this? Opener, again, is the one bidding 4♣, but Opener cannot see Responder's hand. It might make more sense (not my idea) for Opener to bid 3NT as "Serious for Clubs" and then to allow Responder to THEN bid 4♣ as "I agree with that idea," even if that is not my preference. But, Opener cannot demand to play in clubs, as OPENER does not know Responder's club situation.