camrose disaster 1

[rmnka447]

My thought is: where are all my hearts going? Ruffs using partner’s probable void? Maybe. But, after a trump lead, or a 3/0 trump split?

 

Does the bidding clarify what partner’s second suit is, if indeed he has one - e.g. 6/0/4/3?

 

Partner has opened and only reacted thereafter to my splinter.

 

Seems to me the hand has lots of possible hiccoughs - ♠️K?

 

I’m not convinced. Dead curious to know partner’s hand!

 

D.

 

I think it would be hard to put together a hand where opener would explore for slam and continue exploring for slam after a signoff missing AKQ of trumps. Even holding KJ10xx(x..), which is the best holding opener can have, there's no way for opener to know if there's a trump loser or not. Well, maybe, if opener is holding 7 or 8 trumps and a lot of cards outside knowing there can't be more than 1 trump loser because responder must have 4+ trumps. Once responder "signs off" with 4 ♠, opener has to consider whether continued slam exploration and sign off in 5 ♠ is too risky. Voluntarily bidding past game and going down in 5 ♠ is pitching a game swing at IMPs unless most everyone else is also doing it. Without certainty about the trump suit, opener shouldn't bid on without some sense that there's a fairly good probability of no more than 1 loser outside of trump.

 

As for the existence of a void in opener's hand, positing such a holding is really breaking a cardinal rule of good bidding "Never put cards into partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they are there." However if there is a void, it would seem much more likely to be in ♥, because a ♣ void would mean the opponents hold 11 ♣ and haven't made a peep.

 

It's been interesting to see some of the minimal hands that allow slam to be made. IMO, opener needs quite a bit more to push for slam beyond the 4 ♠ signoff as responder's splinter is limited to something like 11-15 value and is not likely to have that many cards to cover opener's losers. With responder's shortness in one side suit defined, responder is likely to have length in the other side suits, so opener's holdings in those suits becomes critical.

 

Also, I agree with virtually all mikeh has pointed out.

[Dinarius]

Never put cards into partner’s hand...?

 

Of course not. But, given East’s double, if opener doesn’t have a heart void (& yes, of course he doesn’t have a Club void!) the slam hasn’t a prayer, in my view. And if opener holds singleton Heart Ace, that doesn’t bode well either. A wasted four points.

 

Just about the only plus I can see is that AQ Spades are over the double, so missing Spade K might it be so bad. East may be doubling partly in the hope that his possible Kx Spades is a trick over opener.

 

With still no obvious second suit in opener’s hand - particularly so given the TO double and its implications - this slam needs a following wind to make, in my view. The double also implies that you only have 2/3 of the high cards, not fatal, but it means that a second suit in opener’s hand is even more necessary.

 

Having said that, it’s probably cold! ;)

 

D.

[rhm]

splinter is 9-13, 4H was a cuebid (not last train).

What would you bid now with a heart control?

The answer is obvious. You would bid 5♥.

It follows that when you don't do this your points must be in the black suits.

Just bid 5♠ and an intelligent partner can bid the slam. He knows you have nothing to cuebid in the red suits.

Optimism on your part is unjustified since partner can not even discard heart losers on expected club length in dummy.

 

Partner also made a further move toward slam after you didn't show any interest in slam.

So 4♦ was a game try?

 

I would certainly be bidding slam here. Something like ♠KJxxx ♥none ♦xxx ♣AQxxx is enough, and I don't think partner has less than that. He could easily have ♠Kxxxx ♥none ♦Axx ♣AQxxx when grand is good. I would bid 6C, showing what could be a valuable card, as 6S is just a bit lazy.

And what would you do with these hands if partner bids 5♠?

Where are partners points for a slam invite? Does the failure to control bid a red suit over 5♣ not mark your hand with the ace of spades and the king of clubs?

Only a weak player would consider passing 5♠ with either of these hands.

 

I find it a bit strange that so many posters are reading inferences into partner's failure to use keycard: it suggests that these players don't understand the limitations of keycard or the benefits of cue-bidding.

Keycard is not the old Blackwood. Standard is you start cue-bidding first or second round controls and then end up checking whether sufficient keycards are on board.

When partner apparently knows that all side suits are under control and you hold ace and queen of trumps and partner does not use key-card this is significant and one inference is that partner should know about a ten card fit.

Either partner has a void in hearts, in which case your failure to control bid heart will encourage him, or more likely partner has Kxxxxx in spades and your queen of spades is not needed for slam.

What you are left with are 8 HCP.

If partner can not bid slam over 5♠ forget it.

A possible hand for partner ♠KJTxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Ax, where a heart honor instead of one of your spade honors in your hand would make slam good.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[rhm]

deleted

[wank]

we couldn't have a better hand. i'd bid 6c, just in case 7's on.

[mikeh]

What would you bid now with a heart control?

The answer is obvious. You would bid 5♥.

It follows that when you don't do this your points must be in the black suits.

Just bid 5♠ and an intelligent partner can bid the slam. He knows you have nothing to cuebid in the red suits.

Optimism on your part is unjustified since partner can not even discard heart losers on expected club length in dummy.

 

 

So 4♦ was a game try?

 

 

And what would you do with these hands if partner bids 5♠?

Where are partners points for a slam invite? Does your failure to control bid a red suit not mark your hand with the ace of spades and the king of clubs?

Only a weak player would consider passing 5♠ with either of these hands.

 

 

Keycard is not the old Blackwood. Standard is you start cue-bidding first or second round controls and then end up checking whether sufficient keycards are on board.

When partner apparently knows that all side suits are under control and you hold ace and queen of trumps and partner does not use key-card this is significant and one inference is that partner should know about a ten card fit.

Either partner has a void in hearts, in which case your failure to control bid heart will encourage him, or more likely partner has Kxxxxx in spades and your queen of spades is not needed for slam.

What you are left with are 8 HCP.

If partner can not bid slam over 5♠ forget it.

A possible hand for partner ♠KJTxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Ax, where a heart honor instead of one of your spade honors in your hand would make slam good.

 

Rainer Herrmann

Hi Rainer

 

I always read your comments with appreciation. However, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. We can all conjure up hands that we think are consistent with the auction, and of course I did as well in my earlier posts. However, and I certainly know this to be true of me, I think we tend to picture hands that reflect our view of what we want to do. If we don't want to move towards slam, we picture hands where signing off works. If we want to move towards slam, we picture hands where at least small slam works.

 

That's why I prefer, in these situations and indeed any situation in which partner is asking us what we think of our hand, to see this as a conversation. In terms of what we 'could have', I see your point about the spade Q being of limited value, but we have extra ruffing values. He thinks he is ruffing diamonds in dummy. It is unusual for us to have a side doubleton after we splinter....if only because at least some of the time that we do, we'd be making a fit-jump...obviously not on a Jxxxx suit.

 

So that Kx, coupled with the extra trump, is a wonderful holding, and viewing this hand as 'still don't like it' seems to me to be very, very pessimistic.

 

Yes, my call of 6♣ may get us to an unmakeable slam, but your construction of KJ10xxx Kx Axx Ax is a pretty carefully crafted layout. Besides, I have failed in slams before, and will fail in slams in the future...but I won't be hearing from partner 'what did I have to do to get you to like your hand?' when he has bid this way on KJxxxx x Axx Axx, where he can't risk slam in case I hold something like AQxx KQxx x Jxxx, and they lead the humourless club K.

 

See how I was so able to find a hand on which you will miss slam and I won't?

[nullve]

"Never put cards into partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they are there."

Really?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj2haq7dkjt5ckj5&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3s?]133|200[/hv]