Bid these 2

[Lord Molyb]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjt875hq6da82c&n=shat742dj93cajt72]133|200[/hv]

 

North deals, east bids 3♣ when it is his turn.

[CSGibson]

S 4♠, all pass.

 

Edit… Whoops, misread the auction. I might be more inclined to the following; 1♥-(3C)-3♠; 3N-4♣; 4♥-5♠ all pass.

[monikrazy]

Start with a double.

 

Auction could easily go wrong but I think the way it should probably go is

 

P - (3C) - DBL

ops stay silent rest of auction

 

DBL - 4H - 5C* - 5S** - P

*Control-showing, slam try

** Control-showing for hearts

 

At Imps 6S might be a good gamble, but 5S should be safe any form of scoring.

 

 

Edit: If EW is vulnerable I expect N to convert for penalty.

[Lord Molyb]

Double

Double is not a valid call in first seat

[monikrazy]

Double is not a valid call in first seat

 

Oh I see, I mistook the OP as N passing before the preempt.

 

In that case:

 

 

1H - (3C) - 4C* - 4H - 4S

 

*Good hearts or unspecified gameforce

[CSGibson]

Start with a double.

 

...

 

Edit: If EW is vulnerable I expect N to convert for penalty.

 

No matter what the colors, I'd expect N to convert for penalty.

[mikeh]

Oh I see, I mistook the OP as N passing before the preempt.

 

In that case:

 

 

1H - (3C) - 4C* - 4H - 4S

 

*Good hearts or unspecified gameforce

Since everyone and his dog plays 3♠ as forcing over 3♣, I doubt that anyone or his dog would ever dream of using the 4♣ cuebid as either hearts or an unspecified gf.

 

I know it is all the rage to play that one must open the N hand, and I confess that I would as well if I held spades as one of my suits, and I also confess that it is exceedingly unlucky that E can overcall 3♣, but I think that an opening pass is the better call. At least nobody has so far invoked the moronic rule of 20.

 

If N did open 1♥ I defy anyone in real life to avoid slam.

 

On Chris' auction, to 4♥, a 5♠ call by S asks for a diamond control (the unbid suit) which fetches a pass opposite say x AKJxx xxx KQxx. So that is silly.

[CSGibson]

Since everyone and his dog plays 3♠ as forcing over 3♣, I doubt that anyone or his dog would ever dream of using the 4♣ cuebid as either hearts or an unspecified gf.

 

I know it is all the rage to play that one must open the N hand, and I confess that I would as well if I held spades as one of my suits, and I also confess that it is exceedingly unlucky that E can overcall 3♣, but I think that an opening pass is the better call. At least nobody has so far invoked the moronic rule of 20.

 

If N did open 1♥ I defy anyone in real life to avoid slam.

 

On Chris' auction, to 4♥, a 5♠ call by S asks for a diamond control (the unbid suit) which fetches a pass opposite say x AKJxx xxx KQxx. So that is silly.

 

I disagree. I think it asks for a general evaluation of hand for slam suitability - we weren't cue-bidding, except for 4♣ which I think establishes a club control when followed by 5♠ (differentiating between that and 5♠ immediately)

[mikeh]

I disagree. I think it asks for a general evaluation of hand for slam suitability - we weren't cue-bidding, except for 4♣ which I think establishes a club control when followed by 5♠ (differentiating between that and 5♠ immediately)

so are you saying that x AKJxx xxx KQxx is slam suitable? Really? What about x AJ10xx Kxx KJxx. Actually, we probably don't even need the heart 10, since W will often be red suit squeezed or the Kxx of hearts will be onside, etc...and note we are speaking, on the first hand, of 13 winners.

 

Or a myriad of other hands that are not much more than minimum openings, with club wastage and no fit for spades?

 

Seriously, I think you are in denial, whatever 5♠ means to your partner: I am sure it doesn't mean I have '8 solid spades, the Qx in your major, the A of diamonds and a club void'.

 

As is often the case, showing both hands leads to distorted bidding and I am not suggesting that this is intentional.

[Fluffy]

I like this one:

 

1♥-3♠

3NT-4♣

4NT-pass

 

Which could be real at MPs

[Zelandakh]

How about:

 

1♥ - (3♣) - 3♠;

3NT - 5♣;

5♥ - 6♠?

 

Or do you want to avoid the yucky slam? Then P - (3♣) - 4♠.

[Cyberyeti]

Since everyone and his dog plays 3♠ as forcing over 3♣, I doubt that anyone or his dog would ever dream of using the 4♣ cuebid as either hearts or an unspecified gf.

 

I know it is all the rage to play that one must open the N hand, and I confess that I would as well if I held spades as one of my suits, and I also confess that it is exceedingly unlucky that E can overcall 3♣, but I think that an opening pass is the better call. At least nobody has so far invoked the moronic rule of 20.

 

If N did open 1♥ I defy anyone in real life to avoid slam.

 

On Chris' auction, to 4♥, a 5♠ call by S asks for a diamond control (the unbid suit) which fetches a pass opposite say x AKJxx xxx KQxx. So that is silly.

 

This is a really obvious 1♥ opener as it makes game opposite a number of flattish indifferent hands and you probably will never get in the aucion in the face of a spade barrage. Give partner xxxx, K9xx, Ax, KQx and the bidding probably goes 1♠-P-4♠ which could conceivably make with 6♥ also on. With the two 10s in the long suits, this is worth much more than a 10 count, not sure I'd go as far as K&R's 14.05 but it's an easy 1♥.

 

If you bid 6N by N, this has lots of potential chances if they don't lead a spade and is laydown if the man tables K♣ from KQ98...

 

1♥-(3♣)-3♠-3N-4♣-4♥-5♣-5♠ should do, you know partner doesn't have either red K so slam is unlikely to be better than a finesse unless he has ♦QJ and ♣A or KQ.

[HighLow21]

In 3♣ doubled East will be lucky to take 4 tricks. Beats the pants off 6♠ (poor slam), or 5♠ or 4♠ (lower score).

[Free]

1♥-(3♣)-3♠

3NT-4♠

pass

[Free]

In 3♣ doubled East will be lucky to take 4 tricks. Beats the pants off 6♠ (poor slam), or 5♠ or 4♠ (lower score).

Dunno how you plan on making 9 tricks in defense...

[cherdano]

In 3♣ doubled East will be lucky to take 4 tricks. Beats the pants off 6♠ (poor slam), or 5♠ or 4♠ (lower score).

Are you actually suggesting South should double?

[mikeh]

1♥-(3♣)-3♠

3NT-4♠

pass

This is either the funniest post here in years or reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the game combined with monumental intellectual dishonesty.

 

Altho, come to think of it, I do see a suggestion that S should make a negative double of 3♣.

 

Just goes to show: posting both hands causes a lot of posters to make silly posts 'demonstrating' how they would get a good result. Do any of these posters ever think about how they would actually bid either hand without the 'wire' from seeing the other hand?

[Zelandakh]

While you are here Mike, are you happy with the idea of using 5♣ over 3NT as XRKCB for spades or do you have a better meaning for this?

[mikeh]

While you are here Mike, are you happy with the idea of using 5♣ over 3NT as XRKCB for spades or do you have a better meaning for this?

My default rule for keycard of all flavours is that a call is keycard asking only if we have clear suit agreement before the keycard ask or there is no other plausible meaning to the call. Now, if we have a specific agreement, that specific agreement prevails.

 

Thus 1♠ (4♥) 4N is in my partnerships keycard rather than 2 places to play, but 1m (4M) 4N is two places to play rather than keycard. Not because of the default rule, but because we have expressly agreed these meanings, so the default rule is inapplicable.

 

The default rule is intended to allow both partners to analyze previously undiscussed situations and come up with, we hope, similar interpretations.

 

We clearly haven't established suit agreement. So the question is whether it is safe to infer suit agreement. To answer that, we look at whether we have any agreements about 5♣. If we have no agreements, then we go to default principles.

 

I do have a generic rule that covers auctions in which one partner has bid a natural 3N, suggesting we play there, and the other partner is unlimited.

 

4N becomes a quantitative ask. 4♣ is either natural and forcing (obviously only when we may wish to play in clubs) or a cuebid (when it is clear that we aren't playing in clubs), and this means we have no clear way to ask for Aces/keycards. This means that in all my partnerships, we use a jump to 5♣ as 'supergerber'...it is ace asking. I think this is a pretty common expert treatment: I believe I first read about it in the Bridge World MSC some 30 years ago or so, so it isn't some esoteric agreement I or my partners cooked up.

 

Since 3N was a suggestion to play, and responder was unlimited, it seems to me that using 5♣ as Ace asking is a plausible option, and that means that my default analysis would lead me to conclude that it wasn't exclusion.

 

I am not, in saying that, arguing that simple ace asking is the best use, or that it is better than exclusion. I am saying that I have an agreement in place that assigns a meaning to 5♣ and that I don't have any default rule that the fact that an opp pre-empted changes the meaning. Nor do I see anything in the fact that RHO pre-empted that renders it illogical to suppose that I could ever have a hand on which I wanted to ask for Aces. Indeed, I suspect that such a hand is more common that the type of freak I hold on this thread.

 

 

Say RHO had bid 3♦, rather than 3♣, and that partner had bid 3N (which means he has a different hand, of course). Would we want 5♣ to be exclusion? I doubt it. Note that I'd think 5♦ would, in this auction, be exclusion but only because I don't have a pre-agreed meaning for that call. The only caveat I have on that use of 5♦ (after rho bid that suit) is that I'd be a little worried about which suit is trump. Responder has no way of setting hearts! Pulling 3N to 4♥ is non-forcing, so with slam interest in hearts, what is he to do? He can't bid 4♣ as a cue and hope to bid 4♥ next, since that would be another cue rather than natural.

 

Maybe exclusion, on this sort of auction, should be 5 keycard exclusion, involving opener's suit as well as responder's....indeed, given that responder will be void in overcaller's suit, it seems improbable that he has no interest in opener's major at all. I raise this to show that even having default rules that sound good doesn't answer all the issues.

 

A further note of caution: even if one were to conclude that 5♣ (in the OP hand) should be seen as void-showing, that isn't the same as saying that it should seek a keycard answer. Sometimes we want to show a void and then let partner cuebid. In this situation, I'd expect us to have bid 4♣ with the void, so my own take is that (absent my supergerber agreement) the void showing would indeed be inviting a keycard response. I add the word of caution to stress that it is very dangerous, outside of finely attuned partnerships, to start thinking that partner will always see ambiguous auctions in exactly the same way as we, looking at our hand, think to be 'obvious'.

 

Again, unless in a finely attuned partnership or being in a position where you think you have to risk the disaster that can flow from a misunderstanding, I prefer to find an alternative, if possible, even if that alternative is somewhat inferior to the call I am considering. I then, much later, discuss with partner: 'I was thinking of 5♣...how would you have taken that call had I made it?' is usually a much less stressful discussion than: 'Sorry, I was hoping you'd read 5♣ as exclusion....my fault'

[CSGibson]

so are you saying that x AKJxx xxx KQxx is slam suitable? Really? What about x AJ10xx Kxx KJxx. Actually, we probably don't even need the heart 10, since W will often be red suit squeezed or the Kxx of hearts will be onside, etc...and note we are speaking, on the first hand, of 13 winners.

 

Or a myriad of other hands that are not much more than minimum openings, with club wastage and no fit for spades?

 

Seriously, I think you are in denial, whatever 5♠ means to your partner: I am sure it doesn't mean I have '8 solid spades, the Qx in your major, the A of diamonds and a club void'.

 

As is often the case, showing both hands leads to distorted bidding and I am not suggesting that this is intentional.

 

You are right, I posted a semi-plausible auction that allows you to stop, but in real life I'm driving to slam when partner opens 1H and they preempt my void in the circumstance that I have 9 indestructible tricks. Actually, a more likely auction would be 1H-(3C)-5C (exclusion?) or something like that, signing off in 6♠ opposite a 1 response.

 

Although this is not a completely horrible slam on a likely club lead - all we need is the J of hearts onside...(planning to ruff, draw trump, float ♥Q whether covered or not).

[aguahombre]

This is either the funniest post here in years or reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the game combined with monumental intellectual dishonesty.

Having read Free's posts in the past, I assumed humor...much along the same lines as the infamous jump to 6 in a previously unmentioned 4-card suit.

 

I know I would have gone belly-up on this board, but would have had company in a decent event. Would have chosen to open North, would have certainly gone beyond our limit with the South hand.

 

Maybe, just maybe, we could stop in 4NT...but this would take inspiration from both of us to get there and stay there.

Much more likely we would get to the point where North figures to have V AXXXX QXX AJXXX or V AJXXX XXX AJXXX at worst...and just rely on the respective red King being in West.

[Zelandakh]

Say RHO had bid 3♦, rather than 3♣, and that partner had bid 3N (which means he has a different hand, of course). Would we want 5♣ to be exclusion? I doubt it. Note that I'd think 5♦ would, in this auction, be exclusion but only because I don't have a pre-agreed meaning for that call. The only caveat I have on that use of 5♦ (after rho bid that suit) is that I'd be a little worried about which suit is trump. Responder has no way of setting hearts! Pulling 3N to 4♥ is non-forcing, so with slam interest in hearts, what is he to do? He can't bid 4♣ as a cue and hope to bid 4♥ next, since that would be another cue rather than natural.

I had not thought of 5♣ after a 3♣ overcall and 5♦ after 3♦ as different since I do not play any form of Gerber but I can certainly agree in treating them differently if you have such a Super-Gerber agreement. It was a more a case of not knowing any general standard for a jump cue after 3NT from partner and not finding anything more appealing than XRKCB.

 

I disagree that Responder did not have a forcing way to set hearts though. They could have made a cue bid after the overcall, or even just jumped directly to 5 of their suit, if all they wanted to do was set hearts and ask for key cards outside. There is also no alternative way of setting spades as trumps in a forcing way here so my feeling is that this is unmistakeably agreeing spades, similar to an autocue.

 

The question of whether it should show a void or ask as XRKCB is quite different. I tend to like void-showing jumps below game quite a lot but find them much less useful above game. There is often a way to bid around the shortage on slam try hands but no alternative way of asking the specific question. But I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

[mikeh]

 

I disagree that Responder did not have a forcing way to set hearts though. They could have made a cue bid after the overcall, or even just jumped directly to 5 of their suit, if all they wanted to do was set hearts and ask for key cards outside. There is also no alternative way of setting spades as trumps in a forcing way here so my feeling is that this is unmistakeably agreeing spades, similar to an autocue.

 

 

my point was that, having shown spades, responder has no forcing heart call after 3N. That begs the question, of course, as to whether, woth long, strong spades and a good heart fit, responder should perhaps suppress the spades over the pre-empt. That is another question altogether, altho definitely one responder should internally answer before making his first call.

[cherdano]

We clearly haven't established suit agreement. So the question is whether it is safe to infer suit agreement. To answer that, we look at whether we have any agreements about 5♣. If we have no agreements, then we go to default principles.

 

I do have a generic rule that covers auctions in which one partner has bid a natural 3N, suggesting we play there, and the other partner is unlimited.

 

4N becomes a quantitative ask. 4♣ is either natural and forcing (obviously only when we may wish to play in clubs) or a cuebid (when it is clear that we aren't playing in clubs), and this means we have no clear way to ask for Aces/keycards. This means that in all my partnerships, we use a jump to 5♣ as 'supergerber'...it is ace asking. I think this is a pretty common expert treatment: I believe I first read about it in the Bridge World MSC some 30 years ago or so, so it isn't some esoteric agreement I or my partners cooked up.

 

Since 3N was a suggestion to play, and responder was unlimited, it seems to me that using 5♣ as Ace asking is a plausible option, and that means that my default analysis would lead me to conclude that it wasn't exclusion.

 

I am not, in saying that, arguing that simple ace asking is the best use, or that it is better than exclusion. I am saying that I have an agreement in place that assigns a meaning to 5♣ and that I don't have any default rule that the fact that an opp pre-empted changes the meaning. Nor do I see anything in the fact that RHO pre-empted that renders it illogical to suppose that I could ever have a hand on which I wanted to ask for Aces. Indeed, I suspect that such a hand is more common that the type of freak I hold on this thread.

Good for your partnership if your default agreements are good enough to ensure you are on the same page after a 5♣ bid.

But I disagree with your suspicion that this is the optimal agreement. I don't recall the last time I used Gerber, and in general you don't seem to be a big fan of it either. I don't see how it can become more important in a cramped auction where RHO preempted. I think the hands where we want to try for slam with a club void are more common than the ones where all we need to know is the number of aces in partner's hand. In addition, the latter type of hands can probably get by most of the time starting with 4♣.

 

My guess is that it would be superior to restrict your 5♣ default agreement to non-competitive auctions.

 

N.B.: I also think 5♣ as showing a spade slam try with a club void is superior to exclusion on this auction.

[HighLow21]

Are you actually suggesting South should double?

Possibly... the auction could go in one of any number of directions. What I'm saying is that, given that E will bid 3♣, best results on the hand is likely 3♣ doubled. I doubt it's going to be played there, but it beats game.