Rate West's bidding

[Kaitlyn S]

[hv=pc=n&w=s42hajtdj63cak765&e=skqj5hkq98d2cqjt3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1hp2hp4d(splinter)p6cp6hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

This is bad. I was West. 4D was a splinter, and I thought 6C would say I was accepting but had only three hearts.

 

Should I have bid differently? (If I had bid Blackwood, and then 6C, it would have a different meaning.)

[The_Badger]

Personally I wouldn't raise to 2♥ with 3 good trumps and 5-3-3-2 shape. My opinion only. There are exceptions to this rule, but I usually only raise to the 2 level with 3 card trump support with poorer trumps and 5-4-3-1 shape where the bid of the second suit is problematical. With 2 suits open, I'd rather rebid 2♣, Kaitlyn, though I am sure there are some players who prefer to rebid 1NT with the West hand.

[wank]

i like 2h with such concentration.

 

east's 4d is terrible. he needs 3 aces plus the king of clubs.

 

as for what west should do over that, 6c is for sure too much. i think you can manage 5c though.

[TylerE]

2♥ was bad (What the heck is wrong with 1N?). 6♣ is worse. 5 obvious obvious losers.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=s42hajtdj63cak765&e=skqj5hkq98d2cqjt3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1hp2hp4d(splinter)p6cp6hppp]266|200|This is bad. I was West. 4D was a splinter, and I thought 6C would say I was accepting but had only three hearts. Should I have bid differently? (If I had bid Blackwood, and then 6C, it would have a different meaning.)[/hv]

Over partner's 1♥, I rank

1. 2♥ = NAT. If your system allows 3-card limit raises. Then, when responder has bid a 4-card suit, he can allow for a 3-card raise by making a natural bid. (Here he could try 3♣).
2. 2♣ = NAT. OK if your system forbids 3-card raises.
3. 1N = BAL. Risks wrong-siding no-trump.

Over partner's 4♦, Kaitlyn's 6♣, suggesting ♣s as trumps, is aggressive. IMO, however, it is reasonable, with a slam-suitable hand, in a difficult predicament. Unlucky that partner lacks aces and imagination. 6♣ could have been near laydown and unremarkable opposite, say

♠ A x x ♥ K Q x x ♦ x ♣ Q x x x x

[Tramticket]

Its a tricky hand. Imagine that you are playing a weak NT. 3NT looks inevitable (1NT, 2C: 2D, 3NT)!

[hrothgar]

Greetings from Beijing where I am involved in an ongoing battle with the keyboards of The Opposite House in room tablets

 

From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with either the 2H raise or the 4D splinter. These are matters of agreement.

 

The big issue is the bid immediately after the splinter raise.

 

1. Yes, the Diamond splinter opposite xxx is a beautiful thing to hear, however, there is a not to insignificant chance that you are playing a Moysian with the tap in the wrong hand.

2. You forced your partnership to the six level off two aces.

 

Neither of these is a good thing

 

once the auction hits 4d you can either take the low road and bid 4h or bbe aggressive and ask for aces.

 

i lean towards the former. i dont object to the latter

[The_Badger]

In the land of xyz and checkback this hand doesn't become a problem with a disciplined partner. Though I have just read a number of articles (mainly Bridgewinners) about opener raising to 2M with xxx on 5332 shape with a small doubleton, so have to credit wank with +1`yet again.

 

As for East's 4♦ splinter, it doesn't feel quite right with an aceless hand with a minimum opener opposite. There's always a temporising bid of 2NT by East after 2♥ (if partner is known to raise to the 2 level on a 3 card fit) to discover the best contract, though this could wrongside a NT contract too.)

[GrahamJson]

Michael Lawrence's book "Tips on bidding" has a whole chapter on why you should raise with three trumps on hands such as west's. However, if you follow his ideas it is important not to get carried away as responder when you have a four card suit. In this case perhaps east should bid 2S on the second round after which you should end up in 5C.

[Phil]

I like 2♥ - I think Levin/Weinstein require Tx or Jx in the doubleton with this kind of pattern to rebid 1N.

 

4♦ is very bad. Slam is at best on a club hook and partner should be moving on with less than that.

 

I think 6♣ is a thoughtful call over 4♦. A useful AK + AJ is enough to accept a slam try and it looks right to offer an alternate choice. Imagine AKx Kxxxx x QJxx - we can defer looking for the ♥Q.

[rmnka447]

I wouldn't raise to 2 ♥ on the West hand, but if you do it as a matter of style OK. My rebid would be a sedate 1NT with a relatively flat minimum opener. If that is unstomachable because of the lack of values in the outside suits, then bid 2 ♣.

 

The biggest problem is the 6 ♣ bid. As I've often said, if you're considering slam you have to ask yourself what needs to be known to ensure slam is a good bet. When you do that here, the issue of pointed suit controls comes clearly into view. Of those, the possibility of 2 ♠ losers is acute. The issue is even more serious if there is an agreement not to splinter with a stiff A. So, here I think a simple 4 ♥ is the best continuation.

[Zelandakh]

Its a tricky hand. Imagine that you are playing a weak NT. 3NT looks inevitable (1NT, 2C: 2D, 3NT)!

A lot of pairs and, I would guess, the vast majority of experts play some shortage-showing auctions in their 1NT structure. Once East shows a GF hand with short diamonds it is not so difficult to avoid 3NT.

 

I think a lot of the result on the board can be chalked up to different expectations. My guess is that this was not a regular partnership. Given that, I much prefer a 1NT rebid to 2♥. It is not that I have an issue with 2♥ itself, arguably it is the best rebid, just that many PUPs will rigidly assume 4 card support whatever follows. The bidding suggests that this East may well be a member of this group.

 

As others have pointed out though, 6♣ was probably an even worse idea. Both 4NT and 5♣ look much better. In the end though, bidding without agreements is tough. It is often not a case of finding the best auction but rather of the most practical one. It should be fairly obvious to the OP that their sequence of 2♥ followed by 6♣ violated this principle.

 

Of course I might be wrong here. It could be that E-W were a regular partnership, in which case there were surely methods over 2♥ that would have kept control over the pace of the auction. If this is indeed a regular partnership it would be good for both players to sit down and discuss what they expect for a raise and a splinter and what other methods they want to employ to differentiate between 3 and 4 card raises. If not, there is probably not so much to be learned other than recognising that many players have vastly different expectations for even common sequences.

[cherdano]

Wow, I am amazed how many posters are getting this completely wrong, even though earlier replies had already said everything there is to say.

 

First, I assume that this pair is playing strong NT (NA poster, nothing unusual specified.)

Then 4♦ is absolutely horrible. It is not just "optimistic" - the best it can do is to reach slam on a club finesse. It is impossible in a strong NT system for opener to have three aces and a king - if she were balanced, she'd have opener 1N, if she were unbalanced, she would have raised to 3♥.

 

And I think 6♣ is absolutely fine. The idea that we could be off two aces is ridiculous - that would mean partner splintered off four keycard AND the king of clubs. He would never do that (see previous paragraph). I disagree with Zel - 6♣ is the "practical bid", it is most likely the best contract if partner passes, and it is the easiest way to get there. "Practical bidding" doesn't mean "check whether partner made an idiotic bid" even in a first-time partnership.

 

For those who criticise 6♣, can you give a single example of a reasonable splinter where 6♣ and 6♥ are both bad contract?

[Kaitlyn S]

For those who criticise 6♣, can you give a single example of a reasonable splinter where 6♣ and 6♥ are both bad contract?

I thought exactly as you did, and was doing a reality check. When a player of hrothgar's stature said that 4D was a reasonable bid, I wanted to give up the game, figuring that I must be suffering from early dementia.

[LBengtsson]

2h right, 4d wrong. 6c ok, east to much

[mikestar13]

... From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with either the 2H raise or the 4D splinter. These are matters of agreement....

 

Agree entirely with either bid considered in isolation, but they work poorly together. If 2♥ promises four trumps, 4♦ is fine on shape (on strength maybe not). But if 2♥ may well be three trumps, 4♦ bidder absolutely must have five trumps. A moysian taking the tap in the long hand may well sink a slam even if substantial extra strength is held--if they tap you if the missing trumps are 4-2 they just guaranteed themselves an extra trump winner, even a 3-3 split will be troublesome, and 5-1 will cause the roof to cave in. Along with whatever else it shows in context, a splinter must guarantee an eight card fit.

[yunling]

4♦ is bad even if 2♥ promises 4. No way can slam be over 50% opposite 12-14 so east should just settle for game.

If 2♥ systematically can be 3, then 4♦ should promise 5.

[hrothgar]

I thought exactly as you did, and was doing a reality check. When a player of hrothgar's stature said that 4D was a reasonable bid, I wanted to give up the game, figuring that I must be suffering from early dementia.

 

1. I don't claim any particular stature

2. I said that I didn't have an issue with either 2h or 4d. This doesn't mean that they work well together.

 

I still dislike 6c. Normally when I make a bid that asks about trump quality I am worried about a holding like xxxx. (Think about the hands that once bid 5 M over 4M as a trump quality ask). I think that 6c would cause me to pull with the wrong hands

[rmnka447]

BTW, one important thing that has been overlooked so far is the length of East's ♥ suit. Even if East has the appropriate controls, say,

 

♠ AKQx

♥ KQxx

♦ x

♣ QJ10x

 

6 ♥ is not a good contract. A ♦ lead at Trick 1 followed by a ♦ continuation taps declarer's ♥. Then, ♥ have to break 3-3 for the slam to make. So it becomes about a 36% chance of successfully being made.

 

It's another thing that West should consider in deciding on how to bid the hand.

[hrothgar]

BTW, one thing that is important that has been overlooked so far was the length of East's ♥ suit. Even if East has the appropriate controls, say,

 

♠ AKQx

♥ KQxx

♦ x

♣ QJ10x

 

6 ♥ is not a good contract. A ♦ lead at Trick 1 followed by a ♦ continuation taps declarer's ♥. Then, ♥ have to break 3-3 for the slam to make. So it becomes about a 36% chance of successfully being made.

 

It's another thing that West should consider in deciding on how to bid the hand.

 

I believe that at least two people have commented about Moysians taking the tap in the wrong hand. I know that I did

[rmnka447]

I believe that at least two people have commented about Moysians taking the tap in the wrong hand. I know that I did

Yep, you're right, but the example I provided does concretely bring home the impact of those references. I thought about the Moysian problem after my first post. But I had other activities scheduled and couldn't immediately return to post about it. I scanned the new posts quickly when I was able to get back and missed the references.

 

It's also important to point out that though 6 ♥ isn't a good contract even with the controls ala my example hand, 6 ♣ would be icy opposite it. OTOH, if opener's hand were

 

♠ 42

♥ AJ10x

♦ Jxx

♣ AKxx

 

either slam is fine opposite that hand. So in bidding slams, it can be very important to distinguish between subtle differences in these hands.