Against the Odds

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9642h64dt75ca&n=skq85hak3da93cj43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3s(not%20absolute%20min)p3n(serious%20s-try)p4cp4dp4sp4np5s(2%2BQ)p6sppp]266|200[/hv]

National League Div1. Lead ♥7

 

You reach a very poor slam here and opinions on who did too much are welcome. How are you going to play it on a heart lead on which East will play the queen? West will show out on the first round of spades, discarding the five of clubs, reverse count if anything, but probably just random.

[KingCovert]

Hmmm, hard to say how I'd play it just yet.... But... 3♠ is a gross overbid. That's a massive double-dip on the trump length.

 

To make small slam you basically need partner to have the right 17 HCP. I'd like to think that parnter would try to play slam over 4♠ with such a hand.

[crapdown4]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9642h64dt75ca&n=skq85hak3da93cj43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3s(not%20absolute%20min)p3n(serious%20s-try)p4cp4dp4sp4np5s(2%2BQ)p6sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

National League Div1. Lead ♥7

 

You reach a very poor slam here and opinions on who did too much are welcome. How are you going to play it on a heart lead on which East will play the queen? West will show out on the first round of spades, discarding the five of clubs, reverse count if anything, but probably just random.

 

Well, where to begin...opener's 1S is OK, but if 2NT was Jacoby, he should have signed off with 4S...as it was, North's 3NT rebid was grossbuckets. It was South's responsibility to put on the brakes, though. The cuebid of 4C overstated his values (accurate as far as it went, but his 3S rebid AND 4C bid together, implied he had a much better hand). Opposite those two bids, North would have been justified in bidding 8 spades, maybe 9.

 

Best auction: 1S--2NT--4S then MAYBE 5D (please please please?) 5S (no no no).

 

There are basically two things to try, neither of them very likely to work. You can hope that one player guards both hearts and clubs, or for some very unlikely double squeeze or pseudo-squeeze where each opponent guards diamonds and one of the other suits. Alternatively, you can strip the hearts and clubs and hope to find someone with the Kx of diamonds. That can be thwarted if that player is smart enough to dump his K under your Ace. That's why if you went that way, you should cash the diamond Ace before you start your strip.

 

If you go for the squeeze(s), ducking a diamond early helps.

 

It's probably something like 5% either way.

[lamford]

There are basically two things to try, neither of them very likely to work. You can hope that one player guards both hearts and clubs, or for some very unlikely double squeeze or pseudo-squeeze where each opponent guards diamonds and one of the other suits. Alternatively, you can strip the hearts and clubs and hope to find someone with the Kx of diamonds. That can be thwarted if that player is smart enough to dump his K under your Ace. That's why if you went that way, you should cash the diamond Ace before you start your strip.

 

If you go for the squeeze(s), ducking a diamond early helps.

 

It's probably something like 5% either way.

I think there is a line that is a lot better than 5%, given that you have avoided a diamond lead. I agree that I should bid 4S, but having bid 3S, I do have a duty to bid 4C. And move the QS to any other suit and slam is very good, even though the North hand is still 7 losers. Anyway the play's the thing as they say. A diamond lead was the only defence - maybe that makes it too easy. And you don't need HH doubleton either

[crapdown4]

I think there is a line that is a lot better than 5%, given that you have avoided a diamond lead. I agree that I should bid 4S, but having bid 3S, I do have a duty to bid 4C. And move the QS to any other suit and slam is very good, even though the North hand is still 7 losers. Anyway the play's the thing as they say. A diamond lead was the only defence - maybe that makes it too easy. And you don't need HH doubleton either

 

There's no line that makes it more than a very poor slam, and whatever you're suggesting is similar to what I suggested--strip the hearts and clubs and play for something funky in the diamond suit. Maybe a low one to the 9 or something. I can't see what would really work other than catching someone with Kx or Qx and they don't go up on the first diamond.

 

As far as whether you had a "duty" to bid 4C...well, I've played with a LOT of partners who make a bad bid and then feel like they have to "compensate" for it, such as responding with a subminimum and then passing a rebid that should be forcing. The truth was, you painted yourself into a corner, but a bid of 4S would have been more truthful than 4C. You had those five losing spot cards in your hand, and it was very unlikely that your partner would be able to cover four of them.

[lamford]

There's no line that makes it more than a very poor slam, and whatever you're suggesting is similar to what I suggested--strip the hearts and clubs and play for something funky in the diamond suit. Maybe a low one to the 9 or something. I can't see what would really work other than catching someone with Kx or Qx and they don't go up on the first diamond.

 

As far as whether you had a "duty" to bid 4C...well, I've played with a LOT of partners who make a bad bid and then feel like they have to "compensate" for it, such as responding with a subminimum and then passing a rebid that should be forcing. The truth was, you painted yourself into a corner, but a bid of 4S would have been more truthful than 4C. You had those five losing spot cards in your hand, and it was very unlikely that your partner would be able to cover four of them.

Three experts that I polled thought 3S was "automatic" and would have passed 4S on my partner's 7-loser hand. Although not terribly relevant as it is better for balanced hands, the K-R is 12.9.

 

In the play, I think you should just win a top heart and play six rounds of spades discarding diamonds from dummy. Either defender with the KQ of clubs and five diamonds is caught in a criss-cross trump squeeze. West had none xxx KJxxx KQxxx and did not find the only opening lead to beat you of a small diamond. If you can avoid a diamond lead the contract is about 22%, as it would also be cold even on a diamond lead if East had ♦HH. Can't get the partners these days ...

 

Given that it is a five or seven hand with Kxxx Ax AQJxx xx opposite (and that is not a serious 3NT), while Kxxx A AQJxx xxx is cold, I think you are being a result merchant in wanting to sign off in 4S. Mind you, if you are intending to play the line you advocate, I would also sign off in 4S ...

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=H875DKJ862CKQ872&s=sajt9642h64dt75ca&n=skq85hak3da93cj43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3s(not%20absolute%20min)p3n(serious%20s-try)p4cp4dp4sp4np5s(2%2BQ)p6sppp&p=H7HKHQ]300|300|

Lamford "National League Div1. Lead ♥7. You reach a very poor slam here and opinions on who did too much are welcome. How are you going to play it on a heart lead on which East will play the queen? West will show out on the first round of spades, discarding the five of clubs, reverse count if anything, but probably just random.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

I think the bidding is sensible by both North and South. After all, you have 11 top tricks and a small change like ♦J instead of ♣J would make the slam better than 80%.

[/hv][hv=pc=n&w=SDKJ8CKQ&s=s2h6dt75c&n=hada9cj4&e=SHJTDQ4CT]300|300|

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you. Beautiful problem, Paul. Your solution is cunning. In this 5-card ending, Dummy's ♥A trump-squeezes either defender, who has ♣ and ♦ control, without the count.

- If he discards a ♦, then declarer plays ♦A and another.

- If he chucks a ♣, then declarer ruffs a ♣.

[/hv]

[lamford]

I think the bidding is sensible by both North and South. After all, you have 11 top tricks and a small addition like the ♦J would make the slam better than 75%.

That was my view too, Nigel. Even giving North a doubleton diamond is enough. And without the "double-dip" of bidding 3S and the "grossbuckets" of a serious 3NT we would likely not have reached it. West was chastising East for not doubling 4D with ♦Qx, and East was chastising West for not foreseeing a trump squeeze and leading a diamond anyway.

 

I have suggested they form a team with KingCovert and Crapdown4. Possible team names are "The Gross Buckets", "The Double Dippers" and "The Results Merchants". Just teasing folks; that is the purpose of a forum!

[FelicityR]

Not everyone plays the same rebids to a Jacoby 2NT enquiry, but to me 3♠ is the wrong bid as having the 10th or 11th trump in the suit is not the same as having cards outside the trump suit. We play 3♣/3♦ as showing a singleton possibly a void in the bid minor. Our sequence would go 1♠ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦(cue) - 3♠ - 3NT (temporising) - 4♠ (nothing more except perhaps extra length in the trump suit.)

[lamford]

Not everyone plays the same rebids to a Jacoby 2NT enquiry, but to me 3♠ is the wrong bid as having the 10th or 11th trump in the suit is not the same as having cards outside the trump suit. We play 3♣/3♦ as showing a singleton possibly a void in the bid minor. Our sequence would go 1♠ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦(cue) - 3♠ - 3NT (temporising) - 4♠ (nothing more except perhaps extra length in the trump suit.)

Zia probably has the best methods here, and won the best bid hand in the Lederer maybe ten or so years ago with David Gold, a hand I sent in, bidding to a 100% grand. It won IBPA best bid hand of the year. He played that 3C is either any minimum or any maximum (partner asks with 3D), while 3D, 3H and 3S are all shortages (the last in clubs), neither minimum nor maximum, 3NT is any non-shortage, non minimum, non maximum. I guess you define minimum and maximums by agreement. Reasonable would be that minimum is 7 losers, non minimum is 6 losers, and maximum is 5 losers or fewer, for example.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=HT98752DKJCK9872&s=sajt9642h64dt75ca&n=skq85hak3da93cj43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3s(not%20absolute%20min)p3n(serious%20s-try)p4cp4dp4sp4np5s(2%2BQ)p6sppp&p=H7HKHQ]300|300|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is a 3-2 squeeze variation, where West has sole ♥ control and only East controls the 3rd round of ♦. Declarer cashes ♥K, ♣A and 6 trumps. The penultimate trump subjects West to a preliminary triple-squeeze. East will usually abandon ♣s. Then, a trick later, Dummy's ♥A subjects East to a minor-squeeze. All without the count :)[/hv]

[crapdown4]

Three experts that I polled thought 3S was "automatic" and would have passed 4S on my partner's 7-loser hand. Although not terribly relevant as it is better for balanced hands, the K-R is 12.9.

 

In the play, I think you should just win a top heart and play six rounds of spades discarding diamonds from dummy. Either defender with the KQ of clubs and five diamonds is caught in a criss-cross trump squeeze. West had none xxx KJxxx KQxxx and did not find the only opening lead to beat you of a small diamond. If you can avoid a diamond lead the contract is about 22%, as it would also be cold even on a diamond lead if East had ♦HH. Can't get the partners these days ...

 

Given that it is a five or seven hand with Kxxx Ax AQJxx xx opposite (and that is not a serious 3NT), while Kxxx A AQJxx xxx is cold, I think you are being a result merchant in wanting to sign off in 4S. Mind you, if you are intending to play the line you advocate, I would also sign off in 4S ...

 

Yes, yes, yes, we all know you posted this hand to show some justification for your bidding. I'm not focusing on the result--I'm focusing on the rotten contract, whether or not it may have made. Even accepting your estimation, a contract that ONLY has a 22% chance of making IF the opponents don't lead a plain suit is pretty bad.

 

I, or you, could justify ANY bad bid by showing how it led to a makeable contract. If you play Jacoby, then a 4S response is systematic. Don't forget that opening 1S with that hand was already an upgrade--a justified one, but then treating it as a more-than-minimum opener by rebidding 3S is applying that same upgrade a second time.

 

Also consider that the hand only had a chance because partner had very little wastage in clubs...a perfect heart holding opposite your small doubleton...and that chance was something like 15%, even so.

 

But whatever happened, hooray for you.

[KingCovert]

Three experts that I polled thought 3S was "automatic" and would have passed 4S on my partner's 7-loser hand. Although not terribly relevant as it is better for balanced hands, the K-R is 12.9.

 

In the play, I think you should just win a top heart and play six rounds of spades discarding diamonds from dummy. Either defender with the KQ of clubs and five diamonds is caught in a criss-cross trump squeeze. West had none xxx KJxxx KQxxx and did not find the only opening lead to beat you of a small diamond. If you can avoid a diamond lead the contract is about 22%, as it would also be cold even on a diamond lead if East had ♦HH. Can't get the partners these days ...

 

Given that it is a five or seven hand with Kxxx Ax AQJxx xx opposite (and that is not a serious 3NT), while Kxxx A AQJxx xxx is cold, I think you are being a result merchant in wanting to sign off in 4S. Mind you, if you are intending to play the line you advocate, I would also sign off in 4S ...

 

I'd suggest your evaluation of "expert" players is probably rather generous then. Either these players are long past their prime, or severely overrated.

 

There is simply no legitimate justification for bidding 3♠ with this hand, given the agreements on the meanings. As I stated in my initial post, and Crapdown has reinforced in their most recent post, you used the trump length to upgrade this to a 1♠ opener, it's been spent. You can't spend it again. There are no extra values in this hand, add a King and sure 3♠ is legitimate.

 

You keep talking about "If card X was this card instead", if you think your partner needs to worry about WHICH 17 HCP hand they have when they make a slam try in this sequence, you're being unreasonable. EVERY 17 HCP hand should make slam tries in this sequence, you're supposed to have your 3♠ bid.

 

So, let's stop deflecting with, "Partner could have had this allocation of values and it's cold" and let's have some semblance of objectivity. I'm sure slam is cold if you have the king your bids promised, but that your hand is missing. If you feel like your Jacoby 2NT agreements are not conducive to opening 1♠ with hands like these, and leave you stuck for a bid, change your agreements.

[lamford]

As I stated in my initial post, and Crapdown has reinforced in their most recent post

Clearly you should have a game with Crapdown. Neither of you will reach 6S so you won't need to play it correctly. Maybe I should put it on bridgewinners, although bidding problems are not as popular as confessions these days.

 

I heard your opinion, which I respect. I heard Nigel's as well. Maybe others will comment.

[crapdown4]

Clearly you should have a game with Crapdown. Neither of you will reach 6S so you won't need to play it correctly. Maybe I should put it on bridgewinners, although bidding problems are not as popular as confessions these days.

 

I heard your opinion, which I respect. I heard Nigel's as well. Maybe others will comment.

 

No need to get snarky. Personally, I wouldn't WANT to get to 6S on this hand. A what, 15% slam, when the dust settles? Whoopie doo!

 

We, of course, would still "need" to play it correctly, so your remark is incorrect. At matchpoints, making 5 versus 6 could be critical.

 

The fact remains that the opener's hand was bid too aggressively, and while I certainly agree it is a perfectly legitimate opener, it is a MINIMUM opener and should be treated as such in the subsequent auction. Yes, I see that it has considerable playing power and is worth even more after a fit is discovered. That means that 4S should be a good contract. After all, pard put down a whale with FOUR card trump support and it's still dubious to make six. And yes, I know if pard had the Joker of Bananas, slam would have been cold--but he didn't.

[lamford]

No need to get snarky. Personally, I wouldn't WANT to get to 6S on this hand. A what, 15% slam, when the dust settles? Whoopie doo!

 

We, of course, would still "need" to play it correctly, so your remark is incorrect. At matchpoints, making 5 versus 6 could be critical.

 

The fact remains that the opener's hand was bid too aggressively, and while I certainly agree it is a perfectly legitimate opener, it is a MINIMUM opener and should be treated as such in the subsequent auction. Yes, I see that it has considerable playing power and is worth even more after a fit is discovered. That means that 4S should be a good contract. After all, pard put down a whale with FOUR card trump support and it's still dubious to make six. And yes, I know if pard had the Joker of Bananas, slam would have been cold--but he didn't.

I wasn't being snarky. And I did put it on Bridgewinners. The only votes were for 3S and 4S obviously, as 3 level bids were natural and 4 level bids are a splinter.

 

Current Poll Results:

3♠: 21 votes (91%)

4♣: 2 votes (9%)

 

There was only one comment: "Splintering in clubs asks partner to over-rate red suit values while discounting club honors that may, in fact, combine well, most obviously the ♣K or KQ (with a red suit control.) 3♠ leaves partner room to explore slam with a good hand."

 

I wondered if the 2 votes for 4S were you and KingCovert, but as I don't know your bridgewinners username, I couldn't tell. But, if not, clearly you have another potential team of four: "The Lone Wolves" perhaps.

 

I did a simulation opposite a 17-count, surely the minimum for a serious slam-try, with partner having four spades and 2 key cards. That made slam 79% of the time. I think on the actual hand, 3NT was fine, but then 4C-4D-4S should have ended the auction. I had my hearing aid plugged in when partner made his serious slam try and cued. Moving the queen of spades or jack of clubs anywhere else, and he was worth RKCB and slam would have been good. As it was he had done his bit.

[shyams]

I wasn't being snarky. And I did put it on Bridgewinners. The only votes were for 3S and 4S obviously, as 3 level bids were natural and 4 level bids are a splinter.

 

Current Poll Results:

3♠: 21 votes (91%)

4♣: 2 votes (9%)

 

There was only one comment: "Splintering in clubs asks partner to over-rate red suit values while discounting club honors that may, in fact, combine well, most obviously the ♣K or KQ (with a red suit control.) 3♠ leaves partner room to explore slam with a good hand."

This is really useful, thank you. If I were South, I would probably have splintered 4♣ or rebid 4♠. It would not have occurred to me that the hand has become good enough where the overwhelming favourite of experts is a 3♠ bid.

 

Anyhow, this was (mainly) posted as a play problem and my only thought was to win the first trick, cross to hand in trumps (draw a second round when they split 2-0) and lead a low diamond: If West plays an honour, I duck else I play dummy's 9 to put East on lead.

[mikeh]

Late to the party. I did not vote on BW, but were I to do so, and constrained by the OP J2N structure (I play two different methods with my serious partners, but neither is the OP method), I think it is clearly a 3S rebid. We can call the spade suit as having 0 losing tricks, even opposite xxxx (I know, we may still have a loser, but he will usually hold the King), and now our Ltc is 5. Even call it 6, and it is a non-minimum...a normal minimum has a ltc of about 7.

 

It helps, in my view, to have a way of showing a non-horrible minimum as opposed to a ‘I’m embarrassed about my opening’ minimum. This hand would fall into the former category.

 

It would also help were responder able to ask for shortness, or were opener to have shown the stiff. That would alert responder to concerns about the red suits, especially once opener confesses to a minimum and the club Ace. Add in an eventual 2 keycards with the spade Queen response (standard with undisclosed extra length) and responder might well sign off at 5S. But at the table, that may be difficult to do.

 

While I like to think that my partners and I, playing either method, would sign off (in both methods, we show a non-horrible minimum with a stiff club and, eventually one extra spade), any experienced player will have been in, and sometimes made, worse slams than this.

 

I’m not sure I’d have made it: I’d definitely need to be in heat one. I’m not sure that the winning line is significantly better than hoping for HH in diamonds. You need, Leaving aside very low frequency shapes, either a 5-2 diamond break with the long diamonds holding KQ in clubs, which is about 4%, I think, or the same hand holding KQJ in diamonds and KQ in clubs. Since west would lead the diamond K from KQJ and surely east would double 4D with KQJ, so we can basically kiss that holding goodbye.

 

Meanwhile, HH in diamonds is about 4.3%, maybe a touch less given that KQ tight might be led if west held it.

 

How one gets to OP’s claimof the crisscross being 22% escapes me. 5-2 is 30%.but when one deals the diamonds 5-2, the short diamonds rate to hold the longer clubs. So the odds of the 5 diamonds holding KQ clubs is less than 25%, so at best the odds are something less than 25% of the 30%, modified to exclude holdings on which diamonds are more likely to be led.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=HT98752DKJCK9872&s=sajt9642h64dt75ca&n=skq85hak3da93cj43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3s(not%20absolute%20min)p3n(serious%20s-try)p4cp4dp4sp4np5s(2%2BQ)p6sppp&p=H7HKHQ]300|300|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

MIkeH's excellent line (drawing a couple of rounds of trumps, cashing ♦A, eliminating the round suits, and exiting in ♦) wins when a defender fails to unblock from ♦Kx doubleton or was dealt ♦HH doubelton (as here).[/hv]

[KingCovert]

Late to the party. I did not vote on BW, but were I to do so, and constrained by the OP J2N structure (I play two different methods with my serious partners, but neither is the OP method), I think it is clearly a 3S rebid. We can call the spade suit as having 0 losing tricks, even opposite xxxx (I know, we may still have a loser, but he will usually hold the King), and now our Ltc is 5. Even call it 6, and it is a non-minimum...a normal minimum has a ltc of about 7.

 

It helps, in my view, to have a way of showing a non-horrible minimum as opposed to a ‘I’m embarrassed about my opening’ minimum. This hand would fall into the former category.

 

It would also help were responder able to ask for shortness, or were opener to have shown the stiff. That would alert responder to concerns about the red suits, especially once opener confesses to a minimum and the club Ace. Add in an eventual 2 keycards with the spade Queen response (standard with undisclosed extra length) and responder might well sign off at 5S. But at the table, that may be difficult to do.

 

While I like to think that my partners and I, playing either method, would sign off (in both methods, we show a non-horrible minimum with a stiff club and, eventually one extra spade), any experienced player will have been in, and sometimes made, worse slams than this.

 

I’m not sure I’d have made it: I’d definitely need to be in heat one��. I’m not sure that the winning line is significantly better than hoping for HH in diamonds. You need, Leaving aside very low frequency shapes, either a 5-2 diamond break with the long diamonds holding KQ in clubs, which is about 4%, I think, or the same hand holding KQJ in diamonds and KQ in clubs. Since west would lead the diamond K from KQJ and surely east would double 4D with KQJ, so we can basically kiss that holding goodbye.

 

Meanwhile, HH in diamonds is about 4.3%, maybe a touch less given that KQ tight might be led if west held it.

 

How one gets to OP’s claimof the crisscross being 22% escapes me. 5-2 is 30%.but when one deals the diamonds 5-2, the short diamonds rate to hold the longer clubs. So the odds of the 5 diamonds holding KQ clubs is less than 25%, so at best the odds are something less than 25% of the 30%, modified to exclude holdings on which diamonds are more likely to be led.

 

I agree that it helps to have a way to show minimums that aren't horrible minimums. I think where we disagree is that, in a structure like this, I think 3♠ over-represents this hand. This hand is not improved by partner bidding Jacoby 2NT, as paradoxical as that may seem. If I'm remembering correctly that it shows shortness, I'd sooner consider 3♣ and an additional cue-bid of clubs before I seriously bid 3♠ on this hand.

 

You're basically stating that this hand has about 5% odds to make, and if Responder had a King less, they should still try for slams opposite a 3♠ bid in my mind. You won't play 6♠, but you will play 5♠, and again you're going to have 5% odds to make. 3♠ confines you to playing one level too high on every auction with a hand like this.

 

I never want to be a result merchant, but, if almost every time you bid a hand like this in such a way you get to a contract that has no play, then it's really not resulting at that point, your reasoning behind the methodology/approach must simply be flawed. And, if you have to start playing your partner for literally five or six specific cards in order for your contract to have play, clearly the reasoning sucks. This hand apparently, according to commentary in this thread, needs Responder to hold exactly the K♠, AK♥, A♦ and the J♦ or better...

 

Fundamentally, 7 trump is not worth what it seems on this auction. I'd actually rather Responder have Kx♠ and AJxxx of diamonds. That hand would help me take more tricks in spades on average than the hand partner has. It's got 2 less spades and one less high card point, and it's substantially better support for the hand I'm holding as South. I just don't need 11 trump, and partner is never going to know to devalue KQxx♠. The hand has 6 losers, but, they're the kind of losers that need partner to deliver 5 winners. South is bringing absolutely no help in creating those winners in the red suits, which is the problem.

 

This hand looks prettier than it actually is, which is fundamentally why it makes 5-10% of the time. So, I'm happy to be against the majority of experts that get this wrong 90-95% of the time. Seems they're out of touch.

[lamford]

How one gets to OP’s claim of the crisscross being 22% escapes me.

I agree that figure is wrong, but I did say "the contract" not that specific line. It was just what Bridge Analyser spat out for ALL lines after a non-diamond lead. On reflection that includes all HH doubleton of diamonds and all singleton honours and a surprising number of other esoteric squeezes and things like KQ doubleton of clubs. and simple squeezes with KQ of clubs with KQJ of diamonds. But I think the crisscross is better than playing for HH doubleton in diamonds alone.

[mikeh]

I agree that it helps to have a way to show minimums that aren't horrible minimums. I think where we disagree is that, in a structure like this, I think 3♠ over-represents this hand. This hand is not improved by partner bidding Jacoby 2NT, as paradoxical as that may seem. If I'm remembering correctly that it shows shortness, I'd sooner consider 3♣ and an additional cue-bid of clubs before I seriously bid 3♠ on this hand.

 

You're basically stating that this hand has about 5% odds to make, and if Responder had a King less, they should still try for slams opposite a 3♠ bid in my mind. You won't play 6♠, but you will play 5♠, and again you're going to have 5% odds to make. 3♠ confines you to playing one level too high on every auction with a hand like this.

 

I never want to be a result merchant, but, if almost every time you bid a hand like this in such a way you get to a contract that has no play, then it's really not resulting at that point, your reasoning behind the methodology/approach must simply be flawed. And, if you have to start playing your partner for literally five or six specific cards in order for your contract to have play, clearly the reasoning sucks. This hand apparently, according to commentary in this thread, needs Responder to hold exactly the K♠, AK♥, A♦ and the J♦ or better...

 

Fundamentally, 7 trump is not worth what it seems on this auction. I'd actually rather Responder have Kx♠ and AJxxx of diamonds. That hand would help me take more tricks in spades on average than the hand partner has. It's got 2 less spades and one less high card point, and it's substantially better support for the hand I'm holding as South. I just don't need 11 trump, and partner is never going to know to devalue KQxx♠. The hand has 6 losers, but, they're the kind of losers that need partner to deliver 5 winners. South is bringing absolutely no help in creating those winners in the red suits, which is the problem.

 

This hand looks prettier than it actually is, which is fundamentally why it makes 5-10% of the time. So, I'm happy to be against the majority of experts that get this wrong 90-95% of the time. Seems they're out of touch.

I don’t think that many, if any, serious partnerships use the old J2N structure, where a new suit by opener, at the 3-level, shows shortness. For example, one common approach is that 3C shows a useful minimum, and responder, if still interested, bids 3D to ask for shortness: 1st step, none, 2nd step clubs, and so on.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that 5S would be in danger? And the slam bidders are not placing magic cards. Had south the heart queen, it’s cold. Had north 4=4=2=3 shape, or many other shapes, it’s cold. Basically it fails when the red suits mesh poorly. I used to play a relay method, in which responder could, by the 5-level, know shape, controls, and queens, and now slam is missed (and maybe south has J10x in diamonds, and its cold on a non-diamond lead and 75% otherwise. Add the diamond jack to the south hand, and you’re the one missing a superb contract.

 

It’s easy to be an expert bidder, seeing all of the cards. The rest of us struggle, and occasionally overreach. C’est la vie

.

[cherdano]

I can't believe we are having a serious discussion about 3S. In the agreements described in the OP, it's one of the most obvious bis ever.

[KingCovert]

I don’t think that many, if any, serious partnerships use the old J2N structure, where a new suit by opener, at the 3-level, shows shortness. For example, one common approach is that 3C shows a useful minimum, and responder, if still interested, bids 3D to ask for shortness: 1st step, none, 2nd step clubs, and so on.

 

I think we're passing each other somewhat on this point. I agree that few serious partnerships do, or should, use the old Jacoby 2NT structure. But, seemingly, the partnership in this thread did. I'm not endorsing it, and agree with all your commentary around how other agreements would result in more rational auctions.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that 5S would be in danger? And the slam bidders are not placing magic cards. Had south the heart queen, it’s cold. Had north 4=4=2=3 shape, or many other shapes, it’s cold. Basically it fails when the red suits mesh poorly. I used to play a relay method, in which responder could, by the 5-level, know shape, controls, and queens, and now slam is missed (and maybe south has J10x in diamonds, and its cold on a non-diamond lead and 75% otherwise. Add the diamond jack to the south hand, and you’re the one missing a superb contract.

 

I definitely believe that 5♠ can be in danger when Responder has hands that would choose to stop in 5♠. There seems to be some weird group think here that Responder is somehow holding something close to a minimum for this sequence, and that's just nonsense. South's 3♠ bid shows an intermediate or better (15+) hand in the old Jacoby 2NT structure, obviously upgrades are allowed. Responder would be negligent not to show slam interest with a hand that had something like an average 14 HCP. And, I think such a hand would struggle to stop below 5♠. And, the hand that does stop in 5♠ is going to be a worse hand than this one, and the contract will face similar odds of success due to that decrease in quality.

 

As it turns out, this hand is a 4333 17 HCP hand, which in my mind is an immediate downgrade due to the shape. Furthermore, the Q♠ is wasted, not that Responder knows that. So, this hand probably turns out to be worth something like 13.5 HCP. But, again, Responder cannot know that until Opener bids 5♠ showing the extra spade length. And here comes the problem, now it's an absolute guess for Responder. Is Responder really to believe that Opener upgraded their hand this much based solely on trump length? Why can't Opener have just one extra card like the J♦ (or more!) that this hand needs to have good play? 3♠ has completely over sold this hand at this point.

 

In fact, I think it's negligent for Responder to allow the partnership to stop below 6♠ once 3♠ has been bid. The only problem with bidding 6♠ immediately in response with a hand like this are the grands that you could be missing.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but, it feels like peoples' thoughts are being polluted by the fact that with different agreements you'd have non-minimal responses available. I think this reality is polluting peoples' ideas of a minimum within the old style structure, which is the EXACT problem with the old style structure. The reason that structure sucks is precisely because of hands like this. Even in this post, you are still calling to other structures that support how this hand can stop below 6♠, but make no attempt to comment on the actual structure that was available. In this structure, Responder is sometimes going to put down hands that are a full king worse than this hand, with marginally better shape. Those hands are going to have no play if you're bidding 3♠ on hands like this.

 

It’s easy to be an expert bidder, seeing all of the cards. The rest of us struggle, and occasionally overreach. C’est la vie.

 

I'm absolutely not the type of analyst who looks at all the cards when commentating, I've always supported your criticism of those that do so on these forums. It's my perception that there is a bit of a fantasy narrative going on here that Responder is ever stopping below 6♠ after Opener bids 3♠ with this hand and this set of agreements.

 

Rather, I'd say that either peoples' thoughts are being polluted as I mentioned above, or those justifying 3♠ here given the actual agreements are the ones justifying the bidding while looking at all the cards. The suggestion that this 9 HCP hand is an automatic upgrade to a hand with intermediate playing strength in this sequence really comes across as a rather disingenuous one. I think the vast majority of players would grit their teeth and bid either 3♣ (despite it's problems in devaluing Responder's club honours) or 4♠. Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

[shyams]

Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-heelofcrzh/