Multiple decisions

[DavidKok]

This weekend I held an interesting hand, and thought I would share it. I had multiple questions during several rounds of the bidding. During the actual game I landed on my feet, but I think it is an interesting hand to show regardless.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp]133|200[/hv]

 

3♠ is natural NF. You play Gazzilli on this auction so partner is limited to approximately 15 HCP, but this bid shows extra playing strength in the form of shape (at worst 4=5=2=2). Plus, with a soft 16 HCP, partner may well decide to show shape ahead of strength. Your options are:

• 3NT 'Serious' - a slam try with extra values
  
• 4♣ shortness
  
• 4♦ shortness
  
• 4♥ suggestion to play
  
• 4♠ to play
  
• 4NT quantitative NF
  

Or maybe you would have bid differently on the first round?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3NT looks about right, depending on your cue bidding style,

you may learn if partner hast Ace of Clubs / King of Diamonds.

I really like it, when the first cue is honor based.

If he showes up with one of those 2 cards, I may push past 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

3♠ says to me I have an MLT of 5.5 or better or 18+hcp with a flat hand.

 

With 6.5 MLT this would be a clear serious 3NT for me if that's what I played.

 

I play KI5 so my initial response would have been 2♣ and opener would have shown ♠ with 2♥ (4♠ Min+)

[Cyberyeti]

Hi,

 

3NT looks about right, depending on your cue bidding style,

you may learn if partner hast Ace of Clubs / King of Diamonds.

I really like it, when the first cue is honor based.

If he showes up with one of those 2 cards, I may push past 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

You don't even need that, KQxx, AKQxxx + any 3 cards will do, and partner probably has most of this if missing those cards

 

Given that my choice would be 4m as a normal cue, I'm constrained to bid 3N by the system given.

[Winstonm]

Given the restrictions of responses, I bid 4S. In this auction responder's hand isn't that great. Even a hand opposite like KJxx, AKQxx, Jxx, x isn't much of a slam.

 

I'm not keen on the response system, myself. I would much rather have the option of separating slam tries with 3N being the strong one and then suggesting a slam with 4C or 4D as controls. It seems to me that for both players to indicate shortness in the bidding is a redundancy. I don't think opener needs to know about responder's short suits.

 

This is one of those hands that has doubts about the trump suit for slam and I think it requires more input from the partnership.

[mikeh]

I don’t like the methods.

 

Opener usually holds a minor stiff, so responder is less likely, than a priori, to also hold a stiff minor.

 

Meanwhile, you have NO way of showing mild slam interest as responder unless you have a short minor.

 

I think you’re seriously overloading 3N in order to cater to low frequency slam tries with a short minor.

 

However, given the methods, 3N seems clear

[DavidKok]

I agree the methods are poor, this is an unfortunate consequence of meta-rules on other slam auctions. Something like non-serious 3NT and serious control bids (not necessarily shortness), or the other way around on the serious and non-serious, would be much stronger. But this is not near the top of the list of changes I'd love to make to our system, and as such is unlikely to change.

 

There seems to be a majority vote for 3NT, so let's continue:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p]133|200[/hv]4♣ showed a control, first or second round. Your options are:

• 4♦ control
  
• 4♠ I've done enough
  
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades
  

[Winstonm]

You don't even need that, KQxx, AKQxxx + any 3 cards will do, and partner probably has most of this if missing those cards

 

Given that my choice would be 4m as a normal cue, I'm constrained to bid 3N by the system given.

 

Here's a problem I have with this response system:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat8542hk5dk6c842&n=sk763haj7daqj42c5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp3sp]266|200[/hv]

 

Without a 4D cue from South, how can this hand ever be bid?

[Cyberyeti]

Here's a problem I have with this response system:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat8542hk5dk6c842&n=sk763haj7daqj42c5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp3sp]266|200[/hv]

 

Without a 4D cue from South, how can this hand ever be bid?

 

Because 4♦ is partner's suit so the cue should not be shortage, very different when it's not partner's suit.

[LBengtsson]

if 3NT is slam try, and 4♣ shows control, 4♦ followed by 4♠ (if north bids 4♥) would indicate that trump suit is not great. I think you have said enough already. If after cue of 4♥ by north you are interested in slam zone, surely you would bid 4NT Rkcb? 3nt says extra values, 4♠ later says trump suit may be problem, I guess. open to interpretation, I am not familiar with your methods so just my take.

[Winstonm]

Because 4♦ is partner's suit so the cue should not be shortage, very different when it's not partner's suit.

 

What if the suit is hearts? How do you know if it's to play 4H or a cue bid?

[Cyberyeti]

What if the suit is hearts? How do you know if it's to play 4H or a cue bid?

 

It's only an issue in hearts, there is no question of choice of contract at game level with the minors, and I don't like the methods either

[mikeh]

I agree the methods are poor, this is an unfortunate consequence of meta-rules on other slam auctions. Something like non-serious 3NT and serious control bids (not necessarily shortness), or the other way around on the serious and non-serious, would be much stronger. But this is not near the top of the list of changes I'd love to make to our system, and as such is unlikely to change.

 

There seems to be a majority vote for 3NT, so let's continue:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p]133|200[/hv]4♣ showed a control, first or second round. Your options are:

• 4♦ control
  
• 4♠ I've done enough
  
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades
  

In any intelligent method, one has to bid 4D. That doesn’t, or shouldn’t, show more than was promised by 3N.

 

Then, over 4H, one bids 4S, happily.

 

I think a lot of people get cuebidding wrong (imo). Once cuebidding starts below game, all cuebids still below game simply say that I’m still interested if you are’

 

Such cuebids do deny the ability to take control, as by way of keycard as the obvious example, so partner can and absolutely should draw inferences.

 

Only once one cuebids beyond game is one expressing a very strong slam interest, again qualified by not taking control.

 

In essence, once we start cuebidding, we’re having a conversation.

 

So 3N: I have real slam interest but can’t use keycard for some reason (because, here, I have no heart control and usually won’t be able to count tricks anyway)

 

4C: here’s the club Ace (we know this only because we hold the King)

 

4D: here’s a diamond control…I’m still interested

 

If opener bids 4H, showing a control, responder’s 4S says, in effect….I’ve made two slam moves but I’m minimum in context.

[Winstonm]

In any intelligent method, one has to bid 4D. That doesn’t, or shouldn’t, show more than was promised by 3N.

 

Then, over 4H, one bids 4S, happily.

 

I think a lot of people get cuebidding wrong (imo). Once cuebidding starts below game, all cuebids still below game simply say that I’m still interested if you are’

 

Such cuebids do deny the ability to take control, as by way of keycard as the obvious example, so partner can and absolutely should draw inferences.

 

Only once one cuebids beyond game is one expressing a very strong slam interest, again qualified by not taking control.

 

In essence, once we start cuebidding, we’re having a conversation.

 

So 3N: I have real slam interest but can’t use keycard for some reason (because, here, I have no heart control and usually won’t be able to count tricks anyway)

 

4C: here’s the club Ace (we know this only because we hold the King)

 

4D: here’s a diamond control…I’m still interested

 

If opener bids 4H, showing a control, responder’s 4S says, in effect….I’ve made two slam moves but I’m minimum in context.

 

This is like a textbook on cue bidding to slam - and I have the same book.

[P_Marlowe]

I agree the methods are poor, this is an unfortunate consequence of meta-rules on other slam auctions. Something like non-serious 3NT and serious control bids (not necessarily shortness), or the other way around on the serious and non-serious, would be much stronger. But this is not near the top of the list of changes I'd love to make to our system, and as such is unlikely to change.

 

There seems to be a majority vote for 3NT, so let's continue:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p]133|200[/hv]4♣ showed a control, first or second round. Your options are:

• 4♦ control
  
• 4♠ I've done enough
  
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades
  

4D.

 

Obviously, we have room, I showed SI, partner cooperated over my SI showing bid.

Anything else is out.

 

The issue is, I have no idea, if KQx in clubs faces the Ace, which would be brilliant,

we have all possible minor suit loosers covered,

or faces shortness, which would be less thrilling, due to the fact, that we know, the

combined strength may be less than 30HCP, meaning we have no real room for wasted high card

points.

Given that we cant find out this, we should at least make sure, partner has prime values for slam,

which he will indicate with a 4H cue, if he does not make the 4H cue, I am not going past 4S.

Will I miss some making slams? Sure, but I will also quite often go plus, when either 5S or 6S

goes down.

[DavidKok]

The bidding continues:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p4d(Control)p4h(Control)p]133|200[/hv]Your options are:

• 4♠ I've done enough
  
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades
  

Is everybody on board with 4♠ now?

[mw64ahw]

The bidding continues:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p4d(Control)p4h(Control)p]133|200[/hv]Your options are:

• 4♠ I've done enough
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades

Is everybody on board with 4♠ now?

With all controls I would move to 4NT given partner has a strong hand. 4♠ would deny a top 3 honour for me.

In practice I would bid 3NT to show only 1 of the top 3 honours given South introduced ♠

 

 

 

[P_Marlowe]

The bidding continues:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p4d(Control)p4h(Control)p]133|200[/hv]Your options are:

• 4♠ I've done enough
  
• 4NT RKC 1430 for spades
  

Is everybody on board with 4♠ now?

I will go past 4S.

The auction was the best it good develop, given the agreement set,

for one thing Opener will never go beyond 4S by himself, maybe he

should and I am wrong.

It remains to be seen, if partner is on the same wavelength than I

with regards to the 4H bid.

[Winstonm]

I will go past 4S.

The auction was the best it good develop, given the agreement set,

for one thing Opener will never go beyond 4S by himself, maybe he

should and I am wrong.

It remains to be seen, if partner is on the same wavelength than I

with regards to the 4H bid.

 

Did you recall the OP stated a limit of about 15? Jxxx, AKxxx, Kxx, A might be opposite?

IMO

A 4S bid now pretty much identifies the spade suit as the question mark because of the failure to take captaincy with 4N.

[smerriman]

Agreed; to alter P_Marlowe's conclusion, having shown serious slam interest the auction was the best it could possibly go, so 4S can't be a signoff; it's asking opener to continue with something and that something must be trumps.

 

mw64ahw also seems to have twice missed the fact opener has *denied* a strong hand.

[mw64ahw]

Agreed; to alter P_Marlowe's conclusion, having shown serious slam interest the auction was the best it could possibly go, so 4S can't be a signoff; it's asking opener to continue with something and that something must be trumps.

 

mw64ahw also seems to have twice missed the fact opener has *denied* a strong hand.

Apparently so

I guess I'm struggling with the raise to 3♠ which may well go down if South has 6 total points.

[mikeh]

Apparently so

I guess I'm struggling with the raise to 3♠ which may well go down if South has 6 total points.

Bridge is a game of probabilities. If responder has a weak hand, then even 2S may fail opposite a nice 15 count, but raising to 2S on 12-15, where the 12 could be a soft 4522 and the 15 a nice 4513/31 puts too much strain on the system. Now responder either invites and goes down opposite the bad hand or passes and misses a decent game opposite the stronger raise.

 

Heck, opening 1N on 15-17 sometimes leads to going down in 1N, and imagine what it does when one plays 10-12!

 

One cannot design a good method without building in the possibility of getting too high…learn to accept that or you’re not going to enjoy the game much, nor will you ever be a competent bidder

[mw64ahw]

Bridge is a game of probabilities. If responder has a weak hand, then even 2S may fail opposite a nice 15 count, but raising to 2S on 12-15, where the 12 could be a soft 4522 and the 15 a nice 4513/31 puts too much strain on the system. Now responder either invites and goes down opposite the bad hand or passes and misses a decent game opposite the stronger raise.

 

Heck, opening 1N on 15-17 sometimes leads to going down in 1N, and imagine what it does when one plays 10-12!

 

One cannot design a good method without building in the possibility of getting too high…learn to accept that or you're not going to enjoy the game much, nor will you ever be a competent bidder

Thanks for clarifying - It sort of got stuck in my mind that North was a minimum opener when in fact they are in my terms 'distributionally strong'. I also play KI5 so 3♠ means something different to me.

I think my posts still stand although obviously not 18+hcp in the first one

A North hand such as below would cause me to bid 3♠. It has the has my required 5.5 MLT once revalued so probability wise it would fit.

KQxx

AJxxx

x

Axx

South still bids 3NT and North still bids 4NT, but the fact that Gazzilli is played doesn't factor for me until it comes to deciding on small versus grand slam.

 

 

[DavidKok]

A North hand such as below would cause me to bid 3♠. It has the has my required 5.5 MLT once revalued so probability wise it would fit.

KQxx

AJxxx

x

Axx

This hand would be a picture perfect 3♠ bid in my system, yes. And mikeh is right that we sometimes go down. Such is life.

 

At the table I bid 4NT, but I think this was a mistake (as others have already pointed out). The upside is that we know a lot more about partner's hand than partner knows about ours, so there is some value in retaining captaincy. However, we are simply too weak, and 4♠ is a better bid. Let's resume the auction with 4♠.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&n=sk987hakt82dt3ca6&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p4d(Control)p4h(Control)p4sp4NT(RKC 1430)p5H(2 Keycards, no queen)p6sppp]266|200[/hv]Partner decided to bid the slam with all those prime values despite missing the queen of trumps, reasoning that we should have compensating values elsewhere (maybe the queen of hearts). LHO leads the 4 of clubs, second or fourth best lead.

On the actual deal my decision to bid 4NT prompted a different development of the auction and a different lead, if people are more interested in how the deal went than how it should have gone I'm happy to give the inaccurate continuation instead. At any rate, plan the plan and/or criticise the rest of the auction.

[mw64ahw]

This hand would be a picture perfect 3♠ bid in my system, yes. And mikeh is right that we sometimes go down. Such is life.

 

At the table I bid 4NT, but I think this was a mistake (as others have already pointed out). The upside is that we know a lot more about partner's hand than partner knows about ours, so there is some value in retaining captaincy. However, we are simply too weak, and 4♠ is a better bid. Let's resume the auction with 4♠.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa432hj9daq72ckq2&n=sk987hakt82dt3ca6&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp3sp3n(Serious)p4c(Control)p4d(Control)p4h(Control)p4sp4NT(RKC 1430)p5H(2 Keycards, no queen)p6sppp]266|200[/hv]Partner decided to bid the slam with all those prime values despite missing the queen of trumps, reasoning that we should have compensating values elsewhere (maybe the queen of hearts). LHO leads the 4 of clubs, second or fourth best lead.

On the actual deal my decision to bid 4NT prompted a different development of the auction and a different lead, if people are more interested in how the deal went than how it should have gone I'm happy to give the inaccurate continuation instead. At any rate, plan the plan and/or criticise the rest of the auction.

For me 3♠ is fractionally the wrong bid for North's hand.

If South has the strength to invite game then you are OK, but you may as well bid 2♠ and wait for the invite. This improves the probabilities in the long run.

However, having bid 3♠ and had the 3NT serious slam try shown I would end up in 6♠