A slam

[mgoetze]

[hv=s=SJ65HAK2DAT86CQJ7&n=SAK32H87DKQJ97CK3&d=e&v=n&a=P1NP2CP2DP3DP3HP3SP3NP4CP4HP4NP5HP6NPPP]480|360[/hv]

 

(1) What do you think of the bidding?

(2) Alfredo Versace leads the ♠4. What's your line?

[lalldonn]

The first seven bids seem fine. I would then simply raise to 4NT as north since I don't think south has promised a diamond fit (I would make the same 3♥ bid if two of my diamonds were clubs to avoid 3NT when partner is short in spades.) I would pass that as south.

 

As for the play.... haha uhhhhhh well on this auction I think he might lead a spade from anything, not expecting south to have anything in spades and with no lead being definitely safe. Since his low lead makes me think he has length, and since east must have a middle spade card or two or he would have led a safer honor, I will just go with what I think are the odds and play low from dummy. If he led low from something where the queen was falling from the other side, or if someone has six hearts and the spade guard so there was a squeeze, he got me.

[cherdano]

I would also play low.

[lipeng2076]

i would bid 4d after 3nt as minorwood and the course may be 3nt-4d-4nt-6d.

[Codo]

If 3 ♥ agreed diamonds, I would prefer to be in 6♦. Not that that contract is much better, but...

If 3 ♥ did not agree diamonds, I had wished to have a way to agree a suit.

 

For the play: Without the lead, you more or less need Qx in spades.

Is the lead agressive- from Qxxx- or should you play for your DD chance?

 

I agree with anybody else so far that it is more likely to be from the queen and play a low card.

[PhilKing]

I don't see him leading from the queen at all on this auction.

[Codo]

Why not?

 

And is it more likely to lead from four small?

[PhilKing]

Why not?

 

And is it more likely to lead from four small?

 

I think the chances of him making an attacking lead from an unsupported honour are very low on this sequences.

 

He knows South has the AK of hearts, and likely a diamond fit. North is probably 45 in the pointed suits and has driven slam, so is probably a favourite to have the spades fairly locked. It's curious North did not try to keep diamonds in the frame, but when he chooses 6NT, that hardly bodes well for a random lead. Is this really the time to fish out a low spade from QTxx?

[Codo]

IF we had another reasonable line, I would not bet on a lead from Qxxx either. But my slam is bad enough to play for it.

Maybe he fears that diamonds are 6-3 and that partner needs a high diamond and a black honour to beat the contract?

[cherdano]

The first seven bids seem fine. I would then simply raise to 4NT as north since I don't think south has promised a diamond fit (I would make the same 3♥ bid if two of my diamonds were clubs to avoid 3NT when partner is short in spades.) I would pass that as south.

 

(I was North.)

 

Let me make a few points, partly defending my bidding, since I am curious about more opinion on this.

1. I agree 3♥ doesn't promise diamond support, but I think it's very rare to make this bid without three diamonds. This would have to be 3325 or 2326 with nothing in spades.
   
2. About 4♣: after discussion I prefer this to be shape-showing, but here I as confident Michael would take it as a cuebid.
   
3. With Michael's actual hand, I think he should bid 4♦ over 4♣, skipping 4♦ should deny such good trump support IMO.
   
4. Incidentally, bad diamonds with opener was very good news for my hand.
   In fact, if you make the ♦A the ♣A, then 6NT is lay-down (and the 4NT invite would miss it).
   

So I shouldn't have been as confident about my inferences (bad diamonds) in a pickup partnership. But still there are many hands where opener has bad diamonds, will pass 4NT, and slam is great. So I am not convinced that 4NT over 3NT is right. Over 4♣, I can drive to slam over 4♥ and invite opener's cooperation over 4♦. (I would cue 4♠ and leave it up to him.)

[cherdano]

The first seven bids seem fine. I would then simply raise to 4NT as north since I don't think south has promised a diamond fit (I would make the same 3♥ bid if two of my diamonds were clubs to avoid 3NT when partner is short in spades.) I would pass that as south.

 

(I was North.)

 

Let me make a few points, partly defending my bidding, since I am curious about more opinion on this.

1. I agree 3♥ doesn't promise diamond support, but I think it's very rare to make this bid without three diamonds. This would have to be 3325 or 2326 with nothing in spades.
   
2. About 4♣: after discussion I prefer this to be shape-showing, but here I was confident Michael would take it as a cuebid.
   
3. With Michael's actual hand, I think he should bid 4♦ over 4♣, skipping 4♦ should deny such good trump support IMO.
   
4. Incidentally, bad diamonds with opener was very good news for my hand.
   In fact, if you make the ♦A the ♣A, then 6NT is lay-down (and the 4NT invite would miss it).
   

So I shouldn't have been as confident about my inferences (bad diamonds) in a pickup partnership. But still there are many hands where opener has bad diamonds, will pass 4NT, and slam is great. So I am not convinced that 4NT over 3NT is right. Over 4♣, I can drive to slam over 4♥ and invite opener's cooperation over 4♦. (I would cue 4♠ and leave it up to him.)

[PhilKing]

(I was North.)

 

Let me make a few points, partly defending my bidding, since I am curious about more opinion on this.

1. I agree 3♥ doesn't promise diamond support, but I think it's very rare to make this bid without three diamonds. This would have to be 3325 or 2326 with nothing in spades.
    
   Agree. I think it denies a misfit.
   
2. About 4♣: after discussion I prefer this to be shape-showing, but here I was confident Michael would take it as a cuebid.
   
   Agree 4♣. Prefer cue.
    
   
3. With Michael's actual hand, I think he should bid 4♦ over 4♣, skipping 4♦ should deny such good trump support IMO.
    
   Why should cue bidding deny support? I just don't agree it denies diamonds.
    
   
4. Incidentally, bad diamonds with opener was very good news for my hand.
   In fact, if you make the ♦A the ♣A, then 6NT is lay-down (and the 4NT invite would miss it).
    
   See above.
   

 

So I shouldn't have been as confident about my inferences (bad diamonds) in a pickup partnership. But still there are many hands where opener has bad diamonds, will pass 4NT, and slam is great. So I am not convinced that 4NT over 3NT is right. Over 4♣, I can drive to slam over 4♥ and invite opener's cooperation over 4♦. (I would cue 4♠ and leave it up to him.)

 

I agree with driving slam - you were unlucky it was poor. But I think your reasons for rejecting diamonds were obscure.

.

[winkle]

I looked up the hand. What a brilliant lead!

[lalldonn]

(I was North.)

 

Let me make a few points, partly defending my bidding, since I am curious about more opinion on this.

1. I agree 3♥ doesn't promise diamond support, but I think it's very rare to make this bid without three diamonds. This would have to be 3325 or 2326 with nothing in spades.
   
2. About 4♣: after discussion I prefer this to be shape-showing, but here I was confident Michael would take it as a cuebid.
   
3. With Michael's actual hand, I think he should bid 4♦ over 4♣, skipping 4♦ should deny such good trump support IMO.
   
4. Incidentally, bad diamonds with opener was very good news for my hand.
   In fact, if you make the ♦A the ♣A, then 6NT is lay-down (and the 4NT invite would miss it).
   

So I shouldn't have been as confident about my inferences (bad diamonds) in a pickup partnership. But still there are many hands where opener has bad diamonds, will pass 4NT, and slam is great. So I am not convinced that 4NT over 3NT is right. Over 4♣, I can drive to slam over 4♥ and invite opener's cooperation over 4♦. (I would cue 4♠ and leave it up to him.)

If you knew partner would take it as a cuebid then ok. I'm sure you know that wouldn't occur to me. I agree with you that I would think it should show my shape so I would never do it with this shape, I would just make some quantitative bid. I don't expect that to work perfectly, just to work pretty well. If I thought I was worth a slam force (not completely insane on this hand but surely odds against) I would bid 5NT over 3NT. And it's not like cuebidding would work perfectly either (in fact this hand proves it).

 

I still prefer playing low. Without thinking of why he would lead that, the odds the queen of spades is on my left are much higher than the odds it's dropping from my right. We would have to be pretty confident he wouldn't lead a spade from the queen here to reject that. Why shouldn't he when he can be pretty sure RHO has nothing or almost nothing in spades? Even if he would lead a spade from Qxxx or Qxxxx just half as often as he leads one from xxxx or xxxxx (and remember we are off T98 and he didn't lead an honor) then the odds are in favor of us playing low, since Qxxx is twice as likely as xxxx and Qxxxx is five!! times as likely as xxxxx.

[cherdano]

Hmm, is it really obscure to think that skipping the trump suit in a cue-bidding auction denies good trumps (in context)? What does 4♦ mean in this auction, if not good trumps?

[Fluffy]

I haven't played against Versace online, but I would make this hand against serbians.

 

I agree with PHil and disagree with Cherdano, my view is that 4♥ shows better diamonds than 4♦ would.

[han]

Arend, I don't think that there is a standard. With some partners I played that 4D would be somewhat negative, with you I played that it showed good trumps.

 

There is something to be said for bidding 4H here anyway, given that you have the AK and don't really way to ask for keycards. If you bid 4D and partner bids 4S, you'd have to bid a murky 5C. After 4H-4S you can just sign off in 5D which is much clearer.