Judgement check

[jallerton]

IMPs, Unfavourable vulnerability

[hv=pc=n&n=saj87hq74dq65cat7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14)p3dp3sp4cp4dp4hp4sp5dp]133|200[/hv]

 

1NT = 12-14. 3♦ = natural FG, typically a single-suited slam try

3♠ = ♠ values, some interest in playing in diamonds

The rest of the auction is cue bidding, 1st or 2nd round controls. If partner had bid 4NT instead of 5♦, that would have been RKCB.

 

What do you do now, and how obvious is it?

[dboxley]

IMPs, Unfavourable vulnerability

[hv=pc=n&n=saj87hq74dq65cat7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14)p3dp3sp4cp4dp4hp4sp5dp]133|200[/hv]

 

1NT = 12-14. 3♦ = natural FG, typically a single-suited slam try

3♠ = ♠ values, some interest in playing in diamonds

The rest of the auction is cue bidding, 1st or 2nd round controls. If partner had bid 4NT instead of 5♦, that would have been RKCB.

 

What do you do now, and how obvious is it?

 

I don't have any working values that partner couldn't find with rkc so I pass. WTP?

[wanoff]

I don't think it's clear but purely on the fitting ♣A opposite a singleton or K, I would bid on.

[mcphee]

I can not be sure so I would have to pass. I do not see why you did not bid 5C rather than 4S which may have helped partner along the way. We can easily have a trick in each major to lose.

[the hog]

6D. Pd expressed interest in going on. I must admit that I do not understand your 4S bid. I think it is obvious to bid 6.

[aguahombre]

Having shown AKXX QXX QXX QXX while actually holding AJXX QXX QXX AXX ---I do have a problem when Responder signs off.

 

Why did I do that?

[gnasher]

Having shown AKXX QXX QXX QXX while actually holding AJXX QXX QXX AXX ---I do have a problem when Responder signs off.

 

Why did I do that?

You showed what your methods say you showed, as explained in the original post: 3♠ showed values in spades, and 4♠ showed control in spades. Presumably that could be a hand like QJxx xx Qxxx AKx, so 4♠ is necessary to show spade control.

[gnasher]

I think it's automatic to pass. I have only three diamonds, I don't have a doubleton, I have five points in queens and jacks, I have poor spots in my four-card suit, and partner didn't bid Keycard.

[aguahombre]

You showed what your methods say you showed, as explained in the original post: 3♠ showed values in spades, and 4♠ showed control in spades. Presumably that could be a hand like QJxx xx Qxxx AKx, so 4♠ is necessary to show spade control.

That certainly answers all the objections above. It also looks like system has endplayed us to make our own decision over 5D with that Club Ace. I guess I don't have to like it...just cope. Would rather have been the one to cooperate with Responder's probes than be the Captain.

[whereagles]

I find pard's auction inconsistent.. why no RKCB? Could it be that he thinks you have AKxx Qxx QJx xxx and fears spade wastage opposite his singleton?

 

Anyway, I'll pass, on grounds that when the player in control of slam sequences signs-off, he's supposed to have a reason for it.

[Fluffy]

Why didn't partner use blackwood? is it because he is down opposite a 5♥ response?

 

No, it is not, because we have promised some diamond support, so at worst we will be on a 2-2 break.

 

Partner is limited, now the problem is, we don't know if his short is hearts or clubs. And they are very different. If it is hearts we are toasted, but even if it is clubs, there are gonna be 3 spade rounds, and we know partner doens't have ♠KQ so at least one of them is missing. Also likelly 3 heart rounds will be played (maybe 2 if spades break 3-3, but we have the queen so third rounds is not the main problem) to take care off.

 

I think slam will be either hopeless, or on a spade finesse, best I can think we can grab is a 2 way finesse slam, something like ♠Kxx ♥AKx ♦AJ9xxx ♣x, rest of time it will be below 50%.

[Jinksy]

If what P wanted was the A♣s, he could have bypassed that suit when cueing, so I doubt he has a source of tricks there. I'm not so convinced he's not afraid of a 2♥ response, though.

 

Would we be expected to bid 3N over 3♦ with AKx xxx Jx Axxxx, for eg? Even if at worst we are on a 2-2 split, perhaps from his perspective it's at best on a 3-3 split or finesse, for eg (say KTx KJ9 AKxxxx x), so punting when he could include you in the decision doesn't seem great. But Fluffy's comments seem pretty sound to me otherwise.

 

I dunno. Doesn't seem at all clear to me. It would help to know more about the negative inferences. What did 4♦ show? Might responder have a five card suit? Could he have shown a 4-card side suit if he had one? Did he tank for ages then make careful eye contact when he bid 5♦?

[whereagles]

I dunno. Doesn't seem at all clear to me.

 

Hang on a second. We're forgetting something here.

 

Who is partner? Is he an active or passive player?

 

If he can bid properly and is an active player, he'll probably have a reason to sign-off.

If, on the other hand, he's the kind of person who's afraid of making decisions, just push it to slam because he's is too chicken to do it himself.

Finally, if he's some crazy mathematician who likes to complicate what is simple, just bid 6NT. At least you'll be playing it LOL.

[gnasher]

Hang on a second. We're forgetting something here.

 

Who is partner? Is he an active or passive player?

 

If he can bid properly and is an active player, he'll probably have a reason to sign-off.

If, on the other hand, he's the kind of person who's afraid of making decisions, just push it to slam because he's is too chicken to do it himself.

Finally, if he's some crazy mathematician who likes to complicate what is simple, just bid 6NT. At least you'll be playing it LOL.

It says "Expert-Class Bridge" at the top of the page. So he's an expert.

[MrAce]

I just tried to simulate hands in my head and gave pd some hands, as I would do at the table.I first checked the hands where he has a singleton. Gave him singles in all other suits.

 

x Axx AKJxxx Kxx

Kxx x AKJxxx Kxx

Kxx Axx AKJxxx x

Slam is not promising in those hands, #1 is almost hopeless, #2 needs a lot of good things, #3 is not any better than others, despite the fact that pd himself could drive to slam with those control rich and unbalanced hands perhaps. I suspect he is more likely to hold a semi balanced hand like 6322, which things get worse for the slam even with some extra hcps.

Qx Ax AKJxxx Kxx

Qxx Ax AKJxxx Kx

xx Axx AKJxxx Kx

 

Again, these are all control rich hands and pd could have RKCB himself, even though the hands I generated in my head shows, required key card formula would not help partner. All of these hands hold enough keycards for the slam. I think we have a lot of legit reasons to pass his 5♦

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=saj87hq74dq65cat7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14)p3dp3sp4cp4dp4hp4sp5dp?]133|200|

IMPs, Unfavourable vulnerability.

 

1NT = 12-14. 3♦ = natural FG, typically a single-suited slam try

3♠ = ♠ values, some interest in playing in diamonds.

 

The rest of the auction is cue bidding, 1st or 2nd round controls. If partner had bid 4NT instead of 5♦, that would have been RKCB.

What do you do now, and how obvious is it?[/hv]

IMO, 6♦ = 10, Pass = 9. Mr Ace's examples scare me. But partner knows what a weak notrump opening shows and he's made 2 slam-tries. Although your hand has a dull shape, you're near maximum in high cards, with 2 aces and ♦Q. The trump Q is no ordinary quack. Partner may have been reluctant to use RKC when 2 key-cards would take him above 5♦ e.g.

♠ x x ♥ A K ♦ K J x x x x x ♣ K x

[manudude03]

Partner does not have a singleton spade in this auction given that his interest seems only to be mild yet didn't just bid 3NT over 3S. That suggests that he does have spade values himself. So what else might he be concerned about? I assume that 4D showed a diamond honour (what would 4S over 4C have implied?). However the only hands I can come up with that are consistent with the auction are hands such as Kx x AJTxxxx KQx where partner is just hoping we have 3 key cards, yet can't ask in fear of a 5H response. With all that in mind, I pass, but do think it's close.

[mikeh]

I pass

 

3♠ showed some diamond interest and I made room for his heart cue, then bid 4♠, so I doubt that I could have a hand that looked less slamming than this one.

does.

 

I think that in these auctions, partner doesn't promise the moon for his calls...he needs us to feel that our hand meshes well, and it really doesn't....at least no more than we have implied. Yes, we hold 3 working cards, but our auction suggests something akin to that already. No ruffing value, no Q with our Aces, so no combined honours.

 

In sum...a medium hand for a diamond slam and we have bid it that way and should now respect partner's willingness to shut this down when we lack a good hand for a diamond slam.

[whereagles]

It says "Expert-Class Bridge" at the top of the page. So he's an expert.

 

Sure. But even experts have personalities. Unless, of course, you only consider as "expert" someone who has all-around skills.

[paulg]

I think it's clear to bid the slam. I presume partner has failed to use key-card because he has a void and whether it is in hearts or clubs I have a suitable hand. If it is in spades then he must be even stronger and my heart queen should be enough.

 

I'd be much more confident in this analysis if he could have bid 4♥ as key-card over 3♠. And although I think it's clear, it would take me some time to do it at the table.

[Jinksy]

If he had a club void, surely he'd have cued 5♣?

[jddons]

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church. My immediate thought, like paulg was that partner has not used RKCB (or minorwood etc if it was being played) because he has a void and 5H exclusion takes him too high. If it was in spades, then he would have signed off immediately knowing we had wasted values there; if it was in clubs he would have cued 5C giving me the chance to sign off with wasted values there; therefore it is in hearts. Would he seriously have made a slam invite with Kxx - AKJxxxx Kxx when 5D might be too high? One or both black Q's look much more likely. I'm bidding 6C looking for the grand.

[mikeh]

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church. My immediate thought, like paulg was that partner has not used RKCB (or minorwood etc if it was being played) because he has a void and 5H exclusion takes him too high. If it was in spades, then he would have signed off immediately knowing we had wasted values there; if it was in clubs he would have cued 5C giving me the chance to sign off with wasted values there; therefore it is in hearts. Would he seriously have made a slam invite with Kxx - AKJxxxx Kxx when 5D might be too high? One or both black Q's look much more likely. I'm bidding 6C looking for the grand.

He already knows we don't have values in hearts: our 3♠ call showed values there, and by bypassing hearts (I assume) denied values in that suit. I assume that with majors and diamond interest, we would bid hearts first.

 

If I am correct in that inference, then the one thing he doesn't have is a heart void.

 

As for your example hand, why wouldn't he look for slam with Kxx void AKJxxxx Kxx opposite a 12-14 hand that showed relative weakness in hearts and some interest in diamonds? AQxx xxx xxxx Ax makes grand laydown and that is only 10 hcp. AQxx Qxxx xxx Ax is still only 12 hcp and bad diamonds and yet grand is extremely good. And so on. Anyone who fears that 5♦ may be too high is spending way too much time as a pessimist.

[ahydra]

I'm going to pass - we showed lots of encouragement already, confirmed controls in all suits, and yet partner still signed off. So perhaps he's looking for general values rather than anything in particular - and we have a flat shape, only three diamonds, no trick source.

 

This is a really good problem though - the forum seems almost split down the middle.

 

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

The way partner bids, he has only 1KC, he cant bid 4NT, because 2KCs

commit us to 5D / 5NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe