Bridge frustrations

[AL78]

I thought we did quite well to bid what looks like a decent slam on these cards:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=s74hak7654dakjcq5&e=sakj82hq3dq43ck82&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1hp1sp3hp4cp4dp4np5cp6hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

South led the ♠T out of turn and partner chose to let me declare. Unfortunately I go down because South held ♥JT92. I went for the additional remote chance of South also holding four spades which would allow me to ditch the two clubs but that wasn't happening either. South had found the inspired lead of the ten from ♠QT doubleton.

 

This was a near bottom as all but one pair were in game, the only pair that did worse was in 6NT-3. I commented to my partner that it was a reasonable slam and we got an undeserved bad score (meaning/clarifying it would make the majority of the time and most people should be in it), which provoked the comment from LHO "Of course it was deserved, it went down".

 

The joys of playing in a highly variable field. :rolleyes:

[Cyberyeti]

The most frustrating I've had is a grand with AKQ10x/xxxx in one suit and AKQ10x/xxx in another with the long suits in opposite hands requiring either to come in and neither did (no possible squeezes). They were in 6 at the other table.

 

Your opp is an idiot and I would happily take my top off him every other week, next time his lead will find partner with a holding like ♠xxx where you were going to finesse.

[LBengtsson]

Good slam. Poor break. **** happens :(

[pescetom]

I guess that if "a good slam is one that makes" then the opposite must hold true. At least for once your partner did nothing wrong :)

[pescetom]

Opener's NF jump rebid in his major is an awkward thing to spring on partner, but hard to fault it here. I'm not sure I fully understand your auction (what are 4♣ and 4♦ saying?) but I imagine you both do, so well done. I suspect this is a sore spot in many systems, as the rest of the field missing a fairly obvious slam suggests.

 

In our system the developments after 3♥ are not well defined, except that pass is allowed, 3♠ is natural but forcing, 3NT is to play and a direct 4NT is RKCB hearts.

With most partners I would take 4♣ as natural and bid 4NT as natural with diamonds stopped, but with my main partner I would take 4♣ as a control-bid fixing trumps in hearts and inviting me to continue control-bidding (4♦) or RKCB (4NT).

[AL78]

Opener's NF jump rebid in his major is an awkward thing to spring on partner, but hard to fault it here. I'm not sure I fully understand your auction (what are 4♣ and 4♦ saying?) but I imagine you both do, so well done. I suspect this is a sore spot in many systems, as the rest of the field missing a fairly obvious slam suggests.

 

In our system the developments after 3♥ are not well defined, except that pass is allowed, 3♠ is natural but forcing, 3NT is to play and a direct 4NT is RKCB hearts.

With most partners I would take 4♣ as natural and bid 4NT as natural with diamonds stopped, but with my main partner I would take 4♣ as a control-bid fixing trumps in hearts and inviting me to continue control-bidding (4♦) or RKCB (4NT).

 

4♣ and 4♦ are first round controls. I cued 4♣ with the king because I wanted to investigate slam but don't like using Blackwood on a hand with two top losers, so cued 4♣, and if partner can show the diamond ace, I can bid Blackwood and go to slam missing one key card without the risk of losing an AK off the top.

 

LHO questioned the 4♣ and 4♦ bid and it took a few seconds for her to accept the explanation. She was holding the club ace so didn't understand why I had cue bid 4♣ when I clearly didn't have first round control.

[apollo1201]

Regardless of how you get there, getting to 6H with a combined 32 HCP, a fit, and all suits controlled off an ace should be considered normal.

 

That so many pairs were in game illustrâtes sth clearly visible in your other posts. The field level at the club you play is weak. You won’t be able to progress there, discussing or confronting views, seeking advice, etc.from other players.

 

Your opp’s comment is beyond commentability. It is almost rude.

[smerriman]

4♣ and 4♦ are first round controls. I cued 4♣ with the king because I wanted to investigate slam but don't like using Blackwood on a hand with two top losers, so cued 4♣, and if partner can show the diamond ace, I can bid Blackwood and go to slam missing one key card without the risk of losing an AK off the top.

If your partner had the club ace instead of the diamond ace, would she have also cuebid 4♦ to show the diamond king? (Otherwise you miss an equally good slam.)

 

If so, perhaps describing it as first round controls isn't entirely accurate.

[AL78]

If your partner had the club ace instead of the diamond ace, would she have also cuebid 4♦ to show the diamond king? (Otherwise you miss an equally good slam.)

 

If so, perhaps describing it as first round controls isn't entirely accurate.

 

I don't think she would, she would probably either bid 4♥ or 5♣.

 

That is our agreement so that is how I described partner's 4♦ bid, and vice versa. What this means is along the lines of what came up in a past thread, that it is better to cue controls rather that start with first round controls followed by second round controls. I have shifted to that method of cue bidding with a different partner.

[pescetom]

I don't think she would, she would probably either bid 4♥ or 5♣.

 

That is our agreement so that is how I described partner's 4♦ bid, and vice versa. What this means is along the lines of what came up in a past thread, that it is better to cue controls rather that start with first round controls followed by second round controls. I have shifted to that method of cue bidding with a different partner.

I think it is far better to show indifferentiated first/second level controls. But that raises not only an issue about accurate disclosure (in your system) but also about what 3♤ would have shown (at least in my system, where it would be more consistent although less practical if it showed control fixing hearts rather than suit).

[AL78]

That so many pairs were in game illustrâtes sth clearly visible in your other posts. The field level at the club you play is weak.

 

I'm beginning to appreciate that. We bid a making slam earlier in the session which should have been flat but we got 14/16 MPs:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj763hj42d72ck865&w=saq84hkqdk983ca42&n=st52ht863dt654cq7&e=sk9ha975daqjcjt93&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1np6nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I won the spade lead and counted 11 tricks off the top. I decided to play for split club honors which worked so I made 12 tricks. Three pairs stayed in game and three out of five pairs in slam went down. That was an undeserved near top.

 

I am loathe to use the weakness/randomness of the field in general as an excuse for mediocre/poor results, as someone could come back and say if the field is weak and you get a mediocre result, what does that say about your ability?

[Cyberyeti]

I'm beginning to appreciate that. We bid a making slam earlier in the session which should have been flat but we got 14/16 MPs:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj763hj42d72ck865&w=saq84hkqdk983ca42&n=st52ht863dt654cq7&e=sk9ha975daqjcjt93&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1np6nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I won the spade lead and counted 11 tricks off the top. I decided to play for split club honors which worked so I made 12 tricks. Three pairs stayed in game and three out of five pairs in slam went down. That was an undeserved near top.

 

I am loathe to use the weakness/randomness of the field in general as an excuse for mediocre/poor results, as someone could come back and say if the field is weak and you get a mediocre result, what does that say about your ability?

 

Yes it should be flat, but 6N is a very lazy bid KJ10x, Axxx, AQJ, xx is a 15 count where 7♠ needs no more than trumps 3-2 or trumps 4-1 and hearts no worse than 5-2, Ax/Kxx in the minors is also good, if you find out partner is 4-4 in the majors there are lots of hands where the grand is good as well as things like Kx, Axx, Axx, KQ10xx and Kx, Axx, AQxxx, Kxx.

[StevenG]

Yes it should be flat, but 6N is a very lazy bid

The small slam scored 14/16. Looking for a grand at MPs in a moderate field is a losing prospect.

[pescetom]

The small slam scored 14/16. Looking for a grand at MPs in a moderate field is a losing prospect.

FWIW I agree here: I would check for a possible spades grand at IMPs, but 6NT is a fine bid at MP. If it makes +1 then you can distance some more of the field with decent play.

 

I cannot fathom why others were not in slam here. Maybe it's less obvious with weak NT?

[Cyberyeti]

FWIW I agree here: I would check for a possible spades grand at IMPs, but 6NT is a fine bid at MP. If it makes +1 then you can distance some more of the field with decent play.

 

I cannot fathom why others were not in slam here. Maybe it's less obvious with weak NT?

 

It's very obvious in weak NT, depending on style the auction starts 1♣/1♥-1♦/1♠-1N showing 15-16 or possibly more in some styles so you're getting to at least 6 looking at 18.

 

For us 1♣(4+)-1♦-1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(art ask)-2♥(15-16 4♥)-6N knowing partner doesn't have a 5th club or 4 spades or 4 diamonds.

 

And to StevenG there's no harm in LOOKING for a grand (leaking info prob not that important with 18 opp 15+) you don't have to bid it unless you're sure, and it's entirely possible 7♠ and 6N are equally good.

[pescetom]

It's very obvious in weak NT, depending on style the auction starts 1♣/1♥-1♦/1♠-1N showing 15-16 or possibly more in some styles so you're getting to at least 6 looking at 18.

Thanks, that's what I would have expected. So basically just a hapless field then.

I'm pretty sure the majority of my club would bid slam, although often after a pointless Ace request.

In Turin where the level is higher this board would be near flat, with only one or two pairs in the wrong contract and nobody getting play wrong.

[AL78]

I cannot fathom why others were not in slam here. Maybe it's less obvious with weak NT?

 

I found out from one player I know who was one who missed the slam. It went 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 3NT.

[Douglas43]

I found out from one player I know who was one who missed the slam. It went 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 3NT.

 

That's the trouble with that sequence, usually more informative to bid suit-suit-NT where you can

[DavidKok]

That's the trouble with that sequence, usually more informative to bid suit-suit-NT where you can

The 1♥ is old fashioned but maybe systemic. Jumping to 3NT over 1♣-1♦; 1♥-? holding ♠AQ84, ♥KQ, ♦K983, ♣A42 - especially when playing weak NT, so that opener has a strong notrump (apparently), 5(+) clubs (so 6♣ is starting to look mighty fine) or exactly 4=4=1=4 (and I like the sound of 6♠ by West) is lousy. Just bid 1♠, regardless of whether you play this as natural or fourth suit forcing (coincidentally both meanings apply).

[AL78]

That's the trouble with that sequence, usually more informative to bid suit-suit-NT where you can

 

Bidding NT has the advantage of narrowly defining the hand and allowing responder to take charge. The disadvantage is if responder has a minimum response with diamonds and hearts, they will pass and miss a potentially superior 2♥ contract.

[Stephen Tu]

Bidding NT has the advantage of narrowly defining the hand and allowing responder to take charge. The disadvantage is if responder has a minimum response with diamonds and hearts, they will pass and miss a potentially superior 2♥ contract.

 

Which is why so many people play a style which bypasses diamonds to bid hearts these days with weaker hands, because we care about missing heart fits a lot more than missing diamond fits.

 

Responder with 18 is really bad to just jump to 3nt regardless, as 1H is wide ranging, could be some unbalanced hand just short of a jump shift. They should go through whatever artificial forcing mechanism they have, and bid slam if partner now shows extras in NT, or invite slam in NT (bid a forcing 2nt then 4nt).

 

The biggest problem is playing this way when responder has like 9/10 pts not 18. The auction starts something like 1c-1d-1h-1nt, responder being not quite strong enough to invite opposite a min distributional hand. But opener with 15/16 can't know if responder is closer to 10 pts where you want to be in game or 6 pts where 1nt is quite high enough. Thus why weak NT people tend to play a style where the strong NT rebids 1nt.

[Douglas43]

Bidding NT has the advantage of narrowly defining the hand and allowing responder to take charge. The disadvantage is if responder has a minimum response with diamonds and hearts, they will pass and miss a potentially superior 2♥ contract.

 

I'd prefer 1♥ opener, playing 4cM

[blackshoe]

Regardless of how you get there, getting to 6H with a combined 32 HCP, a fit, and all suits controlled off an ace should be considered normal.

 

That so many pairs were in game illustrâtes sth clearly visible in your other posts. The field level at the club you play is weak. You won’t be able to progress there, discussing or confronting views, seeking advice, etc.from other players.

 

Your opp’s comment is beyond commentability. It is almost rude.

Not sure I'd put "almost" in that sentence. I do agree with the rest of your post.