IMP, E-W Vul, what do you bid?

[Wayne_LV]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hkjtdjt6ca94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1sp2cp2dp2hp]133|200[/hv]

[apollo1201]

Partner has some kind of 1354 with 15-17 HCPs. All our honors are working, but slam is unlikely (x AQx AKxxx KJxx is a max and so-so slam). It is IMPs so 5D.

[jogs]

While slam is unlikely, what's the rush? Opener may be 0364. - Axx AKxxxx KQJx. With a possible misfit he may choose not to jump to 3♣ or 3♦. Bid 3♣ for now. Let partner in on the final contract.

[TylerE]

Why didn't I bid 2NT over 2♣?

[Tramticket]

What is 2H? 4th suit forcing? The opening post doesn't alert.

 

If it is 4sf, I would bid 2NT. If it isn't 4sf, then our hand has suddenly grown in strength - but I don't know what continuations I can now bid, that are forcing?

[gordontd]

Why didn't I bid 2NT over 2♣?

Because you weren't strong enough.

[mike777]

I will try 3h having denied 4 cards in hearts I hope

[SteveMoe]

Since 2♦ agreed ♦ (albeit a potential false preference), 2♥ is forward going. Let's do so slowly - 3♣ is the next control bid. We will not stop short of 5♦ and can consider 6♦ if partner happens to control bid a ♠ void. We have 2 keys to offer partner if they then choose minorwood/kickback.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hkjtdjt6ca94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1sp2cp2dp2hp]133|200[/hv]

IMO partner has 0-2 ♠s, 0-3 ♥s, 5+ ♦s, 4+ ♣s, a good shapely hand. I rank

1. 3♥ = NAT or CUE. Showing ♥ stop and worry about 3N. Partner has already denied 4 ♥s.
2. 3N = MAX. With good ♥ stop.
3. 2N = NAT. With ♥ stop but partner might pass.
4. 3♣ = CUE.
5. 5♦ = NAT. With values in partner's suits but your 4333 shape may disappoint partner :(
6. 4♦ = NAT. Blame transfer.
7. 3♦ = NAT. Underbid.
8. 4♥ = SPL? Misdescriptive.
9. 3♠ = NAT. Masochistic.

[ahydra]

Can partner not be 1444?

 

ahydra

[lycier]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hkjtdjt6ca94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1sp2cp2dp2hp]133|200[/hv]

 

2♥ shows opener holds exact 17hcp , maybe with 4441,5440 and 5431 shapes, singleton or voidness in ♠, so responder needs to probe for potential slam slowly, 3♣ is a best choice in this point.

[fromageGB]

3♦. So I cannot reply to the poll.

[PhilG007]

I would regard the 2♥ as 4th suit forcing asking for a ♥ stopper

As I have 3 honors in the suit I would chance 3NT and hope that the spade bid acts

as a lead deterrent. As there is a known 17 count opposite and I only have 9,

I wouldn't even be thinking of a slam.

[PhilKing]

I've been away too long.

 

Why no votes for a 3♠ "Bluhmer" bid? This can't logically be natural, so can (and should) be used to show the nuts for our previous bidding and zero points in spades. Partner is implying spade shortage - maybe he has:

 

♠-

♥Axx

♦AQxxxx

♣KQJx

 

Job done.

[notproven]

PhilKing has it exactly right. Not hard, if he reads the Bridge Bulletin like I do: this exact hand was in last months "It's Your Call" competition. The plurality of the super expert panel bid 3♠.

Lou Bluhm championed the bid to show a balanced hand, maximum for his first two (weak) calls, with nothing wasted in spades and all cards working. It is forcing to game in a minor, and leaves it to opener to decide if a minor suit slam is possible.

[nige1]

PhilKing has it exactly right. Not hard, if he reads the Bridge Bulletin like I do: this exact hand was in last months "It's Your Call" competition. The plurality of the super expert panel bid 3♠.Lou Bluhm championed the bid to show a balanced hand, maximum for his first two (weak) calls, with nothing wasted in spades and all cards working. It is forcing to game in a minor, and leaves it to opener to decide if a minor suit slam is possible.

Thank you both! Logical and clever. On a good day, you could deduce that meaning, at the table.

[Phil]

PhilKing has it exactly right. Not hard, if he reads the Bridge Bulletin like I do: this exact hand was in last months "It's Your Call" competition. The plurality of the super expert panel bid 3♠.

Lou Bluhm championed the bid to show a balanced hand, maximum for his first two (weak) calls, with nothing wasted in spades and all cards working. It is forcing to game in a minor, and leaves it to opener to decide if a minor suit slam is possible.

 

Of the 994 respondents, only SIX chose 3♠.

 

I wonder who the other five were :P

[gwnn]

I've been away too long.

 

Why no votes for a 3♠ "Bluhmer" bid? This can't logically be natural, so can (and should) be used to show the nuts for our previous bidding and zero points in spades. Partner is implying spade shortage - maybe he has:

 

♠-

♥Axx

♦AQxxxx

♣KQJx

 

Job done.

I was going to mention Bluhmer but forgot to post! Welcome back anyway.

[GrahamJson]

My first inclination was to bid 3C. But partner might get it into his head that I was trying to show heart shortage, or at least weakness. I want to show positive diamond support and good values, hence my final choice of 4D. 3S seems too much like a master bid to me and very likely to be misinterpreted, no matter what the logic might be.

[Wayne_LV]

I've been away too long.

 

Why no votes for a 3♠ "Bluhmer" bid? This can't logically be natural, so can (and should) be used to show the nuts for our previous bidding and zero points in spades. Partner is implying spade shortage - maybe he has:

 

♠-

♥Axx

♦AQxxxx

♣KQJx

 

Job done.

 

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel.

 

The North hand

[hv=pc=n&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2]133|100[/hv]

 

I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣

 

 

My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9742hkjtdjt6ca94&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2c(22%2B%20or%209%2B%20tricks)p2d(always%20waiting)p4d(10%20tricks)p4n(RKCB%200314)p5n(even%20%23%20keys%2C%20unspecified%20void)p6dppp]266|200[/hv]

[wank]

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel.

 

The North hand

[hv=pc=n&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2]133|100[/hv]

 

I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣

 

 

My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements:

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hkjtdjt6ca94&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2c(22%2B%20or%209%2B%20tricks)p(22%2B%20or%209%2B%20tricks)2d(waiting)p4d(10%20tricks)p4n(0314)p6d(odd%20%23%20KC%2C%20higher%20void)ppp]266|200[/hv]

 

opening 2C and rebidding 4D is gross

[Wayne_LV]

opening 2C and rebidding 4D is gross

 

You posted while I was doing a correction to the bidding, but the opening bid and the final contract are the same.

 

It may seem gross to you, but jump rebidding over 2♣/2♦ to show a strong single suited hand and and the number of tricks in that hand has served us well for a long time.

 

Opening such a hand with 1♦ could well mean missing a diamond game if partner has only 1 trick and would not respond to 1♦ opening. If partner has NO probable tricks, she may pass. On this particular hand with one sure trick and another possible trick, exploring for slam is in order.

[JonnyQuest]

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel.

 

The North hand

[hv=pc=n&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2]133|100[/hv]

 

I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣

 

 

My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9742hkjtdjt6ca94&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2c(22%2B%20or%209%2B%20tricks)p2d(always%20waiting)p4d(10%20tricks)p4n(RKCB%200314)p5n(even%20%23%20keys%2C%20unspecified%20void)p6dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I had forgotten about the "Bluhmer," which would seem a nice use of that call here.

 

The 4♦ jump is bizarre. Even more so with this hand. A 2♣ open already takes up plenty of space (and I am not sold on opening this 2♣.) Slam exploration must be painful a wild ass guess using these methods! It's a 1♦ open for all but those who only use LTC as a measuring stick (not ideal).

 

Also, the alert for 4♦ seems wildly optimistic. "10 tricks"?? Where? Count them for me. Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.

 

Do you wonder why the experts opened 1♦?

[GrahamJson]

You posted while I was doing a correction to the bidding, but the opening bid and the final contract are the same.

 

It may seem gross to you, but jump rebidding over 2♣/2♦ to show a strong single suited hand and and the number of tricks in that hand has served us well for a long time.

 

Opening such a hand with 1♦ could well mean missing a diamond game if partner has only 1 trick and would not respond to 1♦ opening. If partner has NO probable tricks, she may pass. On this particular hand with one sure trick and another possible trick, exploring for slam is in order.

 

But this is not a strong single suited hand. It is a good hand playable in three suits. By opening 2C and rebidding 4C you are in effect committing to 6D regardless of partner's hand.

[Wayne_LV]

I had forgotten about the "Bluhmer," which would seem a nice use of that call here.

 

The 4♦ jump is bizarre. Even more so with this hand. A 2♣ open already takes up plenty of space (and I am not sold on opening this 2♣.) Slam exploration must be painful a wild ass guess using these methods! It's a 1♦ open for all but those who only use LTC as a measuring stick (not ideal).

 

Also, the alert for 4♦ seems wildly optimistic. "10 tricks"?? Where? Count them for me. Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.

 

Do you wonder why the experts opened 1♦?

 

I love BBO "experts" who never play on BBO and prefer form over function. Neither you nor Wank have played ONE board on BBO in the last 30 days.

As to the point of 2♣ opener taking up bidding space: What further bidding space do you require after a rebid that describes the strength and texture of the hand as well as if the hand were face up on the table?

LTC is not perfect but neither are the myriad of varieties of point count methods. It is a method of determining the PROBABLE trick taking capability of a one-suited hand. Nothing about bridge is exact.

The main advantage to opening strong one-suited hands with this method is to avoid the hands where you are within a trick of game in hand, open with a 1 bid and have partner pass a hand holding only one Ace or even a supported King.

After the jump rebid to show tricks in hand, partner may pass with a hand that contains NO probable trick and we often get a good score not what we bid, but for what we did not bid.

I dare say at any given time, you might not find a single player on BBO that has ever heard of Bluhmer Bids, let alone one that knows how to use it.

Bottom line: I prefer methods that win boards over methods that dazzle the followers of bridge columns.