Sanity Check

[ArtK78]

Swiss Teams. IMPs converted to VPs.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa94hat742da2cq73&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2cp3cp5cp?]133|200[/hv]

 

 

2/1 game forcing.

[Zelandakh]

"glp, sorry I am a club light"

[billw55]

Anything other than pass seems inconceivable. Even ignoring fast arrival, partner is just bidding what he thinks he can make.

[PhilKing]

I'd bid 6♣. Partner clearly has a lot of shape, but minimum high cards and poor controls.

 

Putting that together I expect slam to be good most of the time and possibly laydown, but there are no guarantees in an auction like this.

[ArtK78]

Interesting. A couple of posters think this is a pass, while PhilKing will bid 6♣.

 

My partner passed, and it was wrong. Here is the full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa94hat742da2cq73&n=sq6h5dk83cak86542]133|200[/hv]

 

Our cue bidding style is Neanderthal, meaning aces first. So I had no cue bid available over 3♣. Still, I thought that a jump to 5♣ after making a game forcing 2/1 described my hand pretty well - an overwhelming club suit with nothing to cue bid, but no desire to play 3NT.

 

Quite frankly, a grand on these cards is not unreasonable. You only need 4-3 hearts, and there are some other chances.

 

The other table never sniffed at slam, playing in 3NT.

 

I think that opener, with 3 aces and what rates to be a useful shortness, should bid one more. Opener could certainly have a far less useful hand - for example, the hearts could be KQJxx rather than ATxxx, and the spades could be KJx rather than Axx. But I would be interested to hear from others.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

6C.

 

If it does not make, shoot partner.

 

Sry, but 5C does not exist, there are lots of bids between 3C and 5C,

opener is unlimited, why kill space.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: After seening the partners hand, what is wrong with 3D.

Why rule out 3NT?

[billw55]

Our cue bidding style is Neanderthal, meaning aces first.

That might have been helpful information. The lack of cuebid or minorwood or whatever, suggested that partner was not particularly interested in slam. Maybe the method is bad .. or maybe my thinking was just bad. To me a jump straight to game in a 2/1 auction is a signoff and not a slam try, but perhaps this was an opportunity to think outside the box.

 

Anyway, a 3♦ cuebid by north would really simplify reaching slam here, for me at least.

[mikeh]

Interesting. A couple of posters think this is a pass, while PhilKing will bid 6♣.

 

My partner passed, and it was wrong. Here is the full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa94hat742da2cq73&n=sq6h5dk83cak86542]133|200[/hv]

 

Our cue bidding style is Neanderthal, meaning aces first. So I had no cue bid available over 3♣. Still, I thought that a jump to 5♣ after making a game forcing 2/1 described my hand pretty well - an overwhelming club suit with nothing to cue bid, but no desire to play 3NT.

 

Quite frankly, a grand on these cards is not unreasonable. You only need 4-3 hearts, and there are some other chances.

 

The other table never sniffed at slam, playing in 3NT.

 

I think that opener, with 3 aces and what rates to be a useful shortness, should bid one more. Opener could certainly have a far less useful hand - for example, the hearts could be KQJxx rather than ATxxx, and the spades could be KJx rather than Axx. But I would be interested to hear from others.

 

I would have passed 5♣.

 

I don't find your explanation or PK's reasoning to be persuasive, since wild horses could not have made me bid 5♣ with your hand, notwithstanding that systemically I wasn't permitted to cuebid.

 

What the heck would have been wrong with 4♣?

 

Please, please don't tell me that not only have you barred yourself from cuebidding absent a 1st round control, but you have also barred yourself from showing a slam-interested hand with no cue-bid? If you choose to play minorwood here, then, with all respect, you and partner have not given this situation much thought.

 

When partner signs off in an auction in which he had lots and lots of room to describe his hand, then I am not taking any further action unless I have significant undisclosed values. Yes, I will be puzzled by what hand thinks that bidding 5♣ makes sense, but since I know he cannot have the hand you held, nor any hand that makes slam good opposite 3 Aces, I will trust him.

 

If I was asked to fill in for a player who was silly enough to play a method that prohibits cuebidding absent a 1st round control AND played minorwood, I might bid 6♣ However, I would never agree to play with anyone who advocated those methods, since I don't like intentionally playing silly methods. The old-fashioned cuebidding is bad, but survivable....adding minorwood isn't.

[broze]

I pass as well and would never consider 5♣ on the actual hand!

[gnasher]

I agree with almost everything that Mike says, except that if I had the responding hand and had to choose between 5♣ and a 4♣ Keycard-ask, I'd bid the Keycard ask.

[gszes]

With this pluperfect 3 aces, trump Q and possible ruffing value wild horses could not keep me from bidding 6c. Having said that I do not understand at all why the N hand would not like to play NT. The overwhelming majority of normal opening bids will make 4n far far far more often than they will make 5c (assuming the partnership agrees that 3n is feasible via the bidding). Worst case scenario this hand should be more than willing to investi- gate 3n and then issue a mild slam try of 4c. A typical sequence 1h 2c 3c 3d 3n 4c should get us to 6 easily enough yet still leave us with a vastly more practical 4n vs 5c if we do not bid slam.

[rmnka447]

Guess I'm just a basher also. I'd bid 6 ♣.

 

Would you expect partner to make any kind of slam try missing all the outside 1st round controls AND the trump Q? No! Yet partner has contracted to play 5 ♣ only knowing that we have support. Partner likely has long ♣s, but even with AKJxxxx partner needs something else to make the 2/1 GF bid. With 4 sure tricks for partner versus the 2 or 3 partner might expect for the 5 ♣ bid, I think it's right to go on.

[TylerE]

Pass and detest 5♣.

[Trinidad]

I really don't understand 5♣.

 

I would be torn between 4♣ and 3♦ (which is not a cuebid). It would have never occurred to me to bid 5♣.

 

Rik

[dave_beer]

Partner's auction doesn't make a lot of sense unless he has a void (I would expect it to be in ♥) and two fast losers in one of the other suits. He doesn't want to show his featured side suit because he is afraid it will give the opponents the information they need to beat game. My construction is something like xx-(void)-QJTx-AKJxxxx.

 

So I bid 6♣ hoping we are on the same wavelength.

[MrAce]

I really hate the 5♣ bid as well. But we need to remember that in the context of cue bid style of OP, it is not as bad as it looks imo and he made this bid in this context. Had we known this was the cuebid style, as he knew at the table, perhaps some of us could predict this type of hand for 5♣ bid.

[rhm]

I agree with almost everything that Mike says, except that if I had the responding hand and had to choose between 5♣ and a 4♣ Keycard-ask, I'd bid the Keycard ask.

I would have passed 5♣.

When partner signs off in an auction in which he had lots and lots of room to describe his hand, then I am not taking any further action unless I have significant undisclosed values. Yes, I will be puzzled by what hand thinks that bidding 5♣ makes sense, but since I know he cannot have the hand you held, nor any hand that makes slam good opposite 3 Aces, I will trust him.

I think this attitude is wrong.

We are playing Bridge. I might not like the 5♣ bid, but this can not mean I refuse to cooperate.

Partner must have a hand where he expects 5♣ to be the right level opposite most club raises.

Your hand is extraordinary.

Philking put it nicely why you should raise

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fourdad]

Pass and detest 5♣.

 

BINGO!!

The issue heer is the 5♣ bid, not the Pass!

[daffydoc]

6C is wishful thinking - 5C does not suggest slam in any way - since u have no room to cue bid gien your style - bid 4C and give pard a chance to cue. Over 4C 4d (still no ace to cue) 5C now 6C is reasonable given that you went slow and are asking for pards input - 5C is a big STOP sign. daffydoc

[rhm]

6C is wishful thinking - 5C does not suggest slam in any way - since u have no room to cue bid gien your style - bid 4C and give pard a chance to cue. Over 4C 4d (still no ace to cue) 5C now 6C is reasonable given that you went slow and are asking for pards input - 5C is a big STOP sign. daffydoc

How can this be true?

Partner forced to game over a wide ranging opening bid with regard to strength and distribution.

He got a raise, which has no upper limit since we are in a game forcing situation already.

How can partner force to game and when he gets a raise know 5♣ is the limit?

 

There is no such thing as a stop sign after this bidding and there is no rule in bridge that slams may only be bid after cue-bidding.

The 5♣ bid simply says he is at the lower limit for his game force and not very suitable for slam.

Surprise, surprise when we hold all side aces and the queen of trumps.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

 

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

[P_Marlowe]

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

 

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

As far as I am concerned, this is still a 3D bid, we still loose

3 cashing tricks in 5C, with 3NT making.

 

But in general I agree, although I voted 6C, if we trust partner,

we have to pass, ... but I am still waiting to see a hand that

screams, I had to bid 5C.

[dave_beer]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa94hat742da2cq73&n=sq6h5dk83cak86542]133|200[/hv]

 

Our cue bidding style is Neanderthal, meaning aces first. So I had no cue bid available over 3♣.

 

Some comments on the auction and your comment about cue-bids:

 

First, I would have rebid 2NT with opener's hand not 3♣. I have no problem raising with only 3-card support but will do so when the other options are flawed. With this shape I would raise with a small doubleton in one of the unbid suits and a hand where I couldn't rebid 2♥.

 

Second, after 3♣ on the actual auction new suits at the 3-level are not necessarily cue-bids but should be assumed to be features/stoppers for 3NT. What is responder supposed to do with xx-xx-KQxx-AKJxx or KJx-xx-xx-AKJxxx?

 

Based on that, I think the auction should start: 1♥-2♣-2NT-3♣. At this point opener can and perhaps should make a key-card ask intending to bid 6♣ if we are missing one or to tell responder that we have all of them and the ♣Q and let him bid the grand if that is enough information.

[MrAce]

Here is a 5C bid: Qxx void QJx AKxxxxx

 

Slam may make or be down. There is no way slam is 'good' when partner bids 5C. It is bad thinking to pay no attention to his choosing to not bid 4C. The fact that on this hand partner bid badly is no reason for us to assume, at the table, that he bid badly.

 

If this is the text book 5♣ bid, I think it should be taken out of the system and should not exist. Void in pd's suit + 3rd round controls all over the side suits + running 7 card suit screams like 3 NT to me. If I am going to reject and waste all the space between 3♣ and 3 NT to figure what is our best game, which we may not even have one, I would never bid it. I actually never saw such a bid in 2/1 in practice.

 

I mean, when I saw it I also hated the 5♣ bid. Now the more we try to find a suitable hand for this bid the more we fail makes me have more and more sympathy for Art's bid. Maybe there is no such a hand that is suitable for this bid which will make everyone agree that it is optimal.

[Zelandakh]

I think you are being generous Mike. We have all seen threads on BBF where many posters chose to make a 2/1 GF response on invitational hands because the alternatives were worse. In particular, we are not told whether a 3♣ response would be Bergen, an IJS or something else. To me, the logical hands to bid 5♣ here are those that Responder is ashamed of as a game force and light in hcp. The 5♣ rebid thus becomes a warning. Your hand with ♣KQJ instead of ♣AKx perhaps or maybe just less outside strength. The point is that Responder ought to have a very good reason for taking up 2 whole levels opposite an unlimited partner. Just having a minimum GF hand is not a good reason in my book so we need to look for an alternative explanation.