How do I bid this?

[1parastoo]

[hv=pc=n&s=s83ha853d753cak43&n=sa94hkqj64dkq98c2&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp2hp]266|200[/hv] Hi,

I'm North. My partner opened light with three quick tricks.I've got 15 and 16 or 18 pts. if you count length or dummy pts. in my hand[North].I see the singleton and with the distribution I'm thinking of slam.It might be stupid but I'm a beginner,sort of. I can't control bid as far as I know because the way my partner and I learned it you can't bid controls below 3 Spades. I can see two ways to bid to tell partner I might be interested in something other than just game; 3 Diamonds OR 4 Clubs as a splinter bid. If it's 4 Clubs an astute partner would think " we have a fit in Hearts, why does he want to play in Clubs? I know,it's a splinter bid, but if he has enough points for game why didn't he just bid game? I get it now, he's interested in slam!" So does anyone have any suggestions about bidding this hand? I don't know how to put in a question mark for my second bid.

Thanks,

Mark

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think you are a beginner if splinter comes to mind. It is the normal descriptive action, if playing with a non-beginner partner who knows about splinters and can take the appropriate inferences and cooperate only with suitable hands. 3D is much worse, more ambiguous since it might be only trying for game not slam depending on agreements, and you won't be able to unambiguously show a stiff club later.

[mikeh]

I’m going to leave splinter out, since I agree with Stephen. But make your hand say Axx KQJxx KQx xx and you might well at least consider slam…picture x Axxx xxx AKxxx.

 

I assume you play game tries?

 

Here, you could bid 2S.

 

Partner will think that you’re looking for help in spades in order to stretch to a game.

 

Whether he thinks his hand warrants accepting….xx in spades is often useful…much better, for instance, than xxx….is unclear but on balance I think he should decline

 

Btw, while you may think he has a minimum opening, your 1H bid transforms his hand. His hand is now far better than, say, it would have been had you responded 1S. But it’s still only a ‘now nice’ 11 count.

 

So he bids 3H, showing a minimum without great help in spades…had he 1=4=3=5 with the same honours, I think he should bid game but xx isn’t enough for me on this hand.

 

If I saw partner reject my game try, I’d obviously still bid game but, on this hand, I wouldn’t try for slam. If he can’t accept a game try, we’re very unlikely to be able to make slam.

 

However, make it slightly stronger and I would make another try…I’d bid something over 3H….what would depend on what my slightly stronger hand looked like.

 

The key takeaway is that a bid that is ostensibly a try for game may retroactively be revealed as a cuebid. You try for game, partner rejects, and you keep bidding. Clearly you were not really ‘trying’ for game…so partner should now realize that you were in fact cuebidding.

 

In bridge, in play and bidding, it’s essential to continually reevaluate as the auction and play progresses. Initially a new suit by North over 2H is to be taken as a game try, but when North keeps going over a rejection, opener needs to rethink.

[1parastoo]

Hi,

Maybe beginner isn't quite correct.Maybe low intermediate/mistake prone would be better.We don't do game tries;we investigated asking and telling bids but we couldn't agree on using them. The way it is there's almost too much to try and remember.The reason I thought of 4C as a splinter was " a jump in any suit you couldn't possibly want to play in" is, I think, one of the splinter definitions I've seen. Although since she bid Clubs I guess it could be confusing.

[1parastoo]

And thanks for the replies.

[1parastoo]

And the way I played the hand it makes 5 not 6. I don't think 6 was possible.

[smerriman]

The key takeaway is that a bid that is ostensibly a try for game may retroactively be revealed as a cuebid. You try for game, partner rejects, and you keep bidding. Clearly you were not really ‘trying’ for game…so partner should now realize that you were in fact cuebidding.

Side point. This works well when partner rejects, but what happens when partner accepts? When you were looking for slam this can be a bit frustrating, as it takes up a lot of space. In this example you're probably OK to continue with Blackwood, but that's not always suitable..

 

Should partner always be bidding 4♣ or 4♦ when accepting to show a control, rather than what is normally taught (just jump to game)?

[mikeh]

Side point. This works well when partner rejects, but what happens when partner accepts? When you were looking for slam this can be a bit frustrating, as it takes up a lot of space. In this example you're probably OK to continue with Blackwood, but that's not always suitable..

 

Should partner always be bidding 4♣ or 4♦ when accepting to show a control, rather than what is normally taught (just jump to game)?

I didn’t want to over-complicate my post but this is a good point.

 

In my partnerships, and I think this is fairly standard, when partner accepts he has an obligation to cuebid, if he can, above 3 of our suit (assuming a major) and below game.

 

Thus 1D 1S 2S 3h ostensibly a game try, opener must cue 4C or 4D (the latter denying a club control) if he is accepting, just in case partner is slamming.

 

Note that this does not apply if responder is a passed hand, since he can’t be slamming and there is no point telling the opponents any more than one has to.

[DavidKok]

I think modern style is to play more complicated game tries, but partner should jump to game if they accept. Game before slam, and all that. We don't want to leak information on the common game tries compared to the rare slam-tries-that-were-bid-as-a-game-try.

One solution is to play something like "next step asks which game try you would accept".

 

On the example auction I think North should pause to consider whether partner can have raised with 3-card support and long clubs. The disaster hand would be something like ♠QJx, ♥Axx, ♦x, ♣KQxxxx - a hand that will accept most game tries if that is allowed on 3-card support, but does not fit well for 12 tricks.

[apollo1201]

I think modern style is to play more complicated game tries, but partner should jump to game if they accept. Game before slam, and all that. We don't want to leak information on the common game tries compared to the rare slam-tries-that-were-bid-as-a-game-try.

The solution is to have game tried and keep one bid for slam only (eg 2NT or 2S over 2H) to learn about opener’s distribution (sg, real minor suit, concentrated values, very flat, etc.) and see if hands mesh well.

But that is not for b/i and a more natural telling approach like prior posts is easier.

[pescetom]

The solution is to have game tried and keep one bid for slam only (eg 2NT or 2S over 2H) to learn about opener’s distribution (sg, real minor suit, concentrated values, very flat, etc.) and see if hands mesh well.

But that is not for b/i and a more natural telling approach like prior posts is easier.

 

I think it's reasonable to keep any direct control-bid (rather than only a splinter) for slam only and to also use a control-bid as positive reply to a game try (as others have said above) over which continuation of control-bidding shows slam interest.

But I realise that this approach conflicts with mainstream US bidding and in any case is beyond Novice/Beginner, where a game try followed by game or RKCB is probably more than sufficient.

[thepossum]

Looking at those two hands I would have considered spam possible until finding out partner was light so take it from there. Game with an option of slam

 

 

I'm reading comments above to get to no more than 5

 

Splinter looks good and hopefully opener bids no further than 4

 

NB forum excels again

 

PS I'm a genuine novice

 

If I was opening I may even pass and see what happens

 

I am watching to see how I should bid🙂

[1parastoo]

I don't think you are a beginner if splinter comes to mind. It is the normal descriptive action, if playing with a non-beginner partner who knows about splinters and can take the appropriate inferences and cooperate only with suitable hands. 3D is much worse, more ambiguous since it might be only trying for game not slam depending on agreements, and you won't be able to unambiguously show a stiff club later.

 

 

I’m going to leave splinter out, since I agree with Stephen. But make your hand say Axx KQJxx KQx xx and you might well at least consider slam…picture x Axxx xxx AKxxx.

 

I assume you play game tries?

 

Here, you could bid 2S.

 

Partner will think that you’re looking for help in spades in order to stretch to a game.

 

Whether he thinks his hand warrants accepting….xx in spades is often useful…much better, for instance, than xxx….is unclear but on balance I think he should decline

 

Btw, while you may think he has a minimum opening, your 1H bid transforms his hand. His hand is now far better than, say, it would have been had you responded 1S. But it’s still only a ‘now nice’ 11 count.

 

So he bids 3H, showing a minimum without great help in spades…had he 1=4=3=5 with the same honours, I think he should bid game but xx isn’t enough for me on this hand.

 

If I saw partner reject my game try, I’d obviously still bid game but, on this hand, I wouldn’t try for slam. If he can’t accept a game try, we’re very unlikely to be able to make slam.

 

However, make it slightly stronger and I would make another try…I’d bid something over 3H….what would depend on what my slightly stronger hand looked like.

 

The key takeaway is that a bid that is ostensibly a try for game may retroactively be revealed as a cuebid. You try for game, partner rejects, and you keep bidding. Clearly you were not really ‘trying’ for game…so partner should now realize that you were in fact cuebidding.

 

In bridge, in play and bidding, it’s essential to continually reevaluate as the auction and play progresses. Initially a new suit by North over 2H is to be taken as a game try, but when North keeps going over a rejection, opener needs to rethink.

Hi,

If I understand correctly 4♣ as a splinter bid was a good way to bid but maybe not the best way to bid?

Thanks,

Mark

[DavidKok]

I don't think it's a good way to bid the hand at all. North's hand is too strong for a splinter. Also partner has opened in clubs, so it is not at all common to play splinters in that suit in the first place.

[thepossum]

Can I ask OP what LHO (West) bids if opener passes.

 

Testing the thing out in BB bidding table I get to 4H sitting South (via Game Try from North whatever that means in this case) and opening. If South passes and North opens Gib uses Drury. Then I get into a mess if I don't sign off in game. Trying to work it the Drury options. As far as I can see the Bot (as south or north) doesn't like slam

 

Does the Spade game try mean I have a couple of losers?

[1parastoo]

Can I ask OP what LHO (West) bids if opener passes.

 

Testing the thing out in BB bidding table I get to 4H sitting South (via Game Try from North whatever that means in this case) and opening. If South passes and North opens Gib uses Drury. Then I get into a mess if I don't sign off in game. Trying to work it the Drury options. As far as I can see the Bot (as south or north) doesn't like slam

 

Does the Spade game try mean I have a couple of losers?

Hi,

This wasn't a BBO generated hand. When I was learning to play bridge, for practice, I would, and still do, deal out 4 hands from a pack of cards and bid and play all 4 hands myself. I didn't record the other two hands. When I play like this I just bid the first biddable hand I come to. I don't think that either of the other two hands were notable as being biddable.

Mark