7 diamonds

[pilowsky]

Here's the hand and the bidding in a club game with 17 tables.

I was sitting East, and while I waited for the round change, I anticipated a score of about 10-20%. Afterwards, I was surprised to find that we made 62.5%

So, my question is - playing SAYC or 2/1 - is there any way to find 6-7D, or is it just a freak?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk73hkj5d76ckq843&w=sajt54ha874dt952c&n=s986ht632d4caj972&e=sq2hq9dakqj83ct65&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c(3%2B)1s2c3dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Afterwards, my partner said she didn't want to bid up because she couldn't imagine I would have such a good hand after all the bidding.

At my current level, I doubt I would have done any different.

[spade7]

Passing 3D can't be right. West should respond 4♣. East could then bid 5♣ exclusion keycard.

[johnu]

Never double West. They always have extras.

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure you want to be in 7, but you definitely want to be in 6, N could have the ♠K, but if he does is VERY unlikely to have the ♥K too.

 

What was 3♦, a lot of people play it as a fit jump showing spades also, but without knowing how much it's showing it's difficult to judge how much W should bid.

[hrothgar]

I think that you should be able to find game

 

Slam? I'm not so sure.

The Jack and Ten of spades are really big cards here

 

I prefer 3♣ to 3♦

[pilowsky]

I think that you should be able to find game

 

Slam? I'm not so sure.

The Jack and Ten of spades are really big cards here

 

I prefer 3♣ to 3♦

 

So, 3♣ to show a strong hand with a spade fit?

My concern at the time was that my partner was an overcaller and might only have 9HCP.

Interestingly, on this hand, it also makes 6♠.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk73hkj5d76ckq843&w=sajt54ha874dt952c&n=s986ht632d4caj972&e=sq2hq9dakqj83ct65&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c(3%2B)1s2c2dp3c(CUE)p3S(!S honour)P4H(CUE)P6D(Sufficient unto the day)ppp]300|300| Pilowsky 'Here's the hand and the bidding in a club game with 17 tables. I was sitting East, and while I waited for the round change, I anticipated a score of about 10-20%. Afterwards, I was surprised to find that we made 62.5%So, my question is - playing SAYC or 2/1 - is there any way to find 6-7D, or is it just a freak? Afterwards, my partner said she didn't want to bid up because she couldn't imagine I would have such a good hand after all the bidding. At my current level, I doubt I would have done any different.

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

Thanks Pilowsky. Perhaps, you should agree that, after an overcall. change-of-suit by advancer is forcing. Then you might have an auction like that on the left.

John Matheson suggests you should be reluctant to cue shortages in partner's suit, so 3♠, by East, should show an honour.

Edited to change response to 2♦ rather than 3♦

[/hv]

Edited January 22, 2021 by nige1

[Cyberyeti]

John Matheson suggests you should be reluctant to cue shortages in partner's suit, so 4♠, by East, should show an honour. [/hv]

 

Yes, but normally specifically the K, makes a huge difference if partner has Axxxx in assessing the slam given that you won't have 3 spades.

 

I would bid 4♦ rather than 4♠, partner cues hearts, now you bid 4♠ if you have the agreement that this can be the Q rather than a stiff.

[hrothgar]

So, 3♣ to show a strong hand with a spade fit?

My concern at the time was that my partner was an overcaller and might only have 9HCP.

Interestingly, on this hand, it also makes 6♠.

 

3♣ to show a strong hand (which might have a Spade fit)

[nige1]

I would bid 4♦ rather than 4♠, partner cues hearts, now you bid 4♠ if you have the agreement that this can be the Q rather than a stiff.

IMO,

• 4♦ seems an underbid with 14 HCP, including solid ♦s, 2 useful queens, and nothing wasted in ♣s.
• If your system forbids a 4♠ bid, then you should bid the ♦ game, at least.
• Anyway, it's quite hard to construct a plausible auction to a small slam, let alone a grand.

[DavidKok]

The relevant auction is (1♣)-1♠-(2♣)-3♦; (P)-4♣*-(P)-?. I would assume that 4♣* is a game force (opposite 3♦ which already promised extra values), so 4♦ is forcing and stronger than 5♦ here. By contrast, 3♥ says "I have some values and/or length, if you have a club stopper please show me" and 3♠ says "Sorry partner, no dice", both of which allow you to stop in 4♦ (as well as a direct NF 4♦ raise).

[nige1]

The relevant auction is (1♣)-1♠-(2♣)-3♦; (P)-4♣*-(P)-?. I would assume that 4♣* is a game force (opposite 3♦ which already promised extra values), so 4♦ is forcing and stronger than 5♦ here. By contrast, 3♥ says "I have some values and/or length, if you have a club stopper please show me" and 3♠ says "Sorry partner, no dice", both of which allow you to stop in 4♦ (as well as a direct NF 4♦ raise).

I was mistaken :( I now agree with David Kok and Cyberyeti that that 4♦ is forcing in the context of the auction. I misread the earlier auction :( not realizing that East jumped to 3♦. Instead, I would bid a simple 2♦, because, I play a jump to 3♦ as showing primary ♠ support.

[Cyberyeti]

IMO,

• 4♦ seems an underbid with 14 HCP, including solid ♦s, 2 useful queens, and nothing wasted in ♣s.
• If your system forbids a 4♠ bid, then you should bid the ♦ game, at least.
• Anyway, it's quite hard to construct a plausible auction to a small slam, let alone a grand.

 

I assumed 3♦ was GF given the hand so 4 is better than 5. (and I play 3♦ showing spade support so would bid 2♦)

 

The only advantage I would have is that that hand is basically rock bottom minimum for a 1♠ overcall for us (and we respond more or less as we would to an opening 1♠), so partner will get more excited immediately.

[Zelandakh]

There is much in an auction like this that depends on agreements so it is not to surprising that it caused some issues. First up is the meaning of a jump shift in response to an overcall. Traditionally such a call shows a weak hand with a long suit but these days most good pairs play these as some kind of raise, with fit jumps being the most popular method. I strongly recommend reading Partnership Bidding at Bridge (available online for free) for a description of the various different ways that top players find of showing support for partner in a competitive auction.

 

So not 3♦ but what would 2♦ mean? Well there are two common schools of thought. The first plays a change of suit as a constructive but non-forcing and a hand that wants to force then needs to cue (here 3♣). The second plays a change of suit as forcing and then the cue can specifically show a good raise. All of the Australians I know (from the Acol Club) use the latter method.

 

So let us assume 2♦ and now shift back over to West. This call is also interesting. West could bid a simple, constructive 2♥; an invitational 3♦; a game-forcing 3♣; or a 4♣ splinter ♦ raise. Which of these you prefer is largely a matter of style. I tend to prefer a cooperative style when playing natural methods in a constructive auction so I quite like the weird looking 2♥ (planning to show diamond support next). When partner now shows secondary spade support, our hand suddenly looks powerful despite only having 9hcp, particularly if we can now find out that partner lacks club values. So perhaps something like:

 

(1♣) - 1♠ - (2♣) - 2♦; 2♥ - 2♠; 3♣ - 3♦; 5♣ - 5NT; 6♣ - 6♦

 

Honestly though, at your level just reaching 5♦ is pretty good bidding, so you should focus on working out with your partner when a competitive auction is constructive and when you are merely competing. It is important that partner trust you, not the opps, when all sides are bidding; if you can quickly define the range while showing shape it will not only improve your bidding but also make life much easier for you.

[Lovera]

Also I am for the immediate cue of 3 ♣ (= UCB) after which the partner will probably repeat the ♠ but, in this case, declaring 4 ♦ (= further extension of UCB) will be clear to the partner that you have a self-supporting suit and should cue 4 ♥ to agree. Also in the hypothesis that the opponents do not bid, with RKB you will discover the void in ♣ which should at least lead you (almost) to 6 ♦.

[bluenikki]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk73hkj5d76ckq843&w=sajt54ha874dt952c&n=s986ht632d4caj972&e=sq2hq9dakqj83ct65&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c(3%2B)1s2c2dp3c(CUE)p3S(!S honour)P4H(CUE)P6D(Sufficient unto the day)ppp]300|300| Pilowsky 'Here's the hand and the bidding in a club game with 17 tables. I was sitting East, and while I waited for the round change, I anticipated a score of about 10-20%. Afterwards, I was surprised to find that we made 62.5%So, my question is - playing SAYC or 2/1 - is there any way to find 6-7D, or is it just a freak? Afterwards, my partner said she didn't want to bid up because she couldn't imagine I would have such a good hand after all the bidding. At my current level, I doubt I would have done any different.

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

Thanks Pilowsky. Perhaps, you should agree that, after an overcall. change-of-suit by advancer is forcing. Then you might have an auction like that on the left.

John Matheson suggests you should be reluctant to cue shortages in partner's suit, so 3♠, by East, should show an honour.

Edited to change response to 2♦ rather than 3♦

[/hv]

How about, instead of making it forcing, you agree that it is passed only with a bare minimum misfit?

 

Like 1♣ - 1♠ ; 1NT - 3♠ .

[mw64ahw]

A standard auction start for me would be 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦ with East's 2♦ promising 10/11+ hcp and close to an opening hand.

(3♦ would be a fit jump in ♠ perhaps looking for game opposite a minimum with 2 eight card fits or a preliminary bid on the way to a slam)

West's support and playing strength is enough for the 3♣ cue which signals GF/SI. With less than GF support I simply raise ♦ to the 3/4 level or show ♥/rebid ♠/bid NT or even Pass with a sub-standard overcall as I may do white versus red

 

nige1's 3♠ is an interesting bid promising Hx in case West has 6♠ or a preference for playing in a Moysian fit. This is a good bid, but partner would need to be on the same wavelength rather than expecting Kx so a subsequent cue of ♠ confirms a K..

I also wonder how a spiral scan approach would work (if at all) from here ignoring keycards. Perhaps someone can comment?

 

Assuming I stick to 1st/2nd round controls 4♦ denies further controls. 4♥ then shows 2/4 keycards (playing Kickbo).

East's 4♠ bid shows Q♠ (note K♠ has previously been denied) and West can bid 5♣ showing a void denying K♥.

At this point East can bid 5NT showing the Q♥ and all keycards, which West converts to 6♦ fearing K♠ offside and missing K♥

[Lovera]

It seems that only hrothgar and I opt for the good bidding of 3 ♣ (= UCB) which seems (however) to initially support partner in ♠. Only after E it changes to 4 ♦ showing a solid suit of 6 / + cards and has this point the partner with the cue of 4 ♥ shows the Ace accepting ♦ as trump. The following RKB with the answer of 5NT (= 2 keycards with Q / ten card fit + void) clearly shows the 5-4-4-0 in W. So why not choose this bidding line instead of venturing into other ones rounds and then always finish in 6 ♦?

[Lovera]

Why is there still no comment on my bidding line (explained in # 15 and further clarified in # 18) ?

 

 

[johnu]

Why is there still no comment on my bidding line (explained in # 15 and further clarified in # 18) ?

Since you nicely asked B-)

 

1. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

 

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

3. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

[Lovera]

Since you nicely asked B-)

 

1. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

 

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

3. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

 

Thank you and I can answer that: what drives the bid is the solid suit of ♦ and a hand that is worth 19 / + points and it is expected that in this way we can show strength and distribution while keeping the bid low. As for the hypothesis that the partner jumps to 4 I have not even considered it since S has opened and W has simple overcalled and I have a very strong hand. Regarding the support Qx can be equivalent to xxx but a card cannot prevent me from using and completing the UCB convention (which I adopted talking about it in "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD in June 2016 ") with the "Ultherior Extension of UCB "which happens a few times. The bidding and the relative development allows us to stop at 5 ♦ after the RKB when we discover that it has only one keycard but proceeds automatically giving the unexpected 5NT that projects the game up to grand slam. But as you can see I say almost 6 ♦. On the other hand, what can S have if not the missing honors with a hand made of Kings in the major suits (to ♣ it does not matter because we have the void) that directs the planning play?

[johnu]

Thank you and I can answer that: what drives the bid is the solid suit of ♦ and a hand that is worth 19 / + points and it is expected that in this way we can show strength and distribution while keeping the bid low. As for the hypothesis that the partner jumps to 4 I have not even considered it since S has opened and W has simple overcalled and I have a very strong hand. Regarding the support Qx can be equivalent to xxx but a card cannot prevent me from using and completing the UCB convention (which I adopted talking about it in "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD in June 2016 ") with the "Ultherior Extension of UCB "which happens a few times. The bidding and the relative development allows us to stop at 5 ♦ after the RKB when we discover that it has only one keycard but proceeds automatically giving the unexpected 5NT that projects the game up to grand slam. But as you can see I say almost 6 ♦. On the other hand, what can S have if not the missing honors with a hand made of Kings in the major suits (to ♣ it does not matter because we have the void) that directs the planning play?

Sorry, my fault for not making my response clear. Here's another attempt.

 

1. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

3. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

4. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

 

5. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

[Lovera]

Sorry, my fault for not making my response clear. Here's another attempt.

 

1. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

2. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

 

3. You are guilty of double dummy bidding. It's easy enough to see double dummy that with near perfect cards and a key club void, 7♦ is on a finesse on 23 HCP. Give West a more modest shape like 5332 or 5422 and do some simulations.

4. A cursory search of Unassuming Cue Bid shows that 3+ card support for opener's overcall suit is specified. A close inspection of this hand shows Qx as support which is not 3+ card support. Partner may think spades is a good suit to play in when it is not. What are you going to do when partner jumps to 4♠ and you haven't showed diamonds yet?

 

5. Bidding 3♣ instead of 2♦ means you can't introduce diamonds until the 4 level. I doubt that any high level pairs play that a new bid of 4♦ shows a solid suit and denies 3+ card spade support. Most would play 4♦ as a cue bid showing a big hand with spade support since you didn't start with 2♦.

 

No, I'm not guilty of double dummy bidding. But it is the hand that is too strong and is treated in this way by the further extension of UCB which therefore must be able to be used.

 

 

[Douglas43]

This is one to consider tactics as well as perfect outcome. Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score. Don't think he mentioned what 6♦ scores but it is presumably well over 90%. At that point, the grand is for the birds. The spade finesse is better than an 80% chance, but that isn't good enough. Even seeing both the East-West hands (which means being able to know that AJ10 is opposite Qx) I'd want to stop in 6.

[Lovera]

This is one to consider tactics as well as perfect outcome. Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score. Don't think he mentioned what 6♦ scores but it is presumably well over 90%. At that point, the grand is for the birds. The spade finesse is better than an 80% chance, but that isn't good enough. Even seeing both the East-West hands (which means being able to know that AJ10 is opposite Qx) I'd want to stop in 6.

 

Bravo was what I thought. It is misleading to have obtained that score when there is 7 ♦ from the double dummy solve analysis. Several couples in the club under-declare and stop much earlier but on the whole those who go forward are on the same line and this gives the division of the points (the maximum is reached with 5 ♦ X which is partially justified) but at least no one hypothesizes the possibility of the little slam and does something about it.

(There were the url of the club in #1:is it possible to have that indication again, thanks) ?