Apportion the blame

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=saha1064dak86cj952&s=sj10762h5dqcq108763]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Playing in the Swiss teams at the Brighton Congress, we got ourselves into a contract of 6C where our opps had only managed a part score. Could you apportion the blame? This was the bidding after west passes and opps remain silent:

1♦ (i) 1♠ (ii)

2♣ 5♣ (iii)

6♣ (iv)

 

(i) Might have opened 1♣, planning to rebid 1NT (15-16) because of singleton spade.

(ii) Hoping for the best

(iii) Would 3♣ have been better or any other suggestions?

(iv) Is this justified needing very little from South?

Team discussion later put the blame with North but with some sympathy.

 

Also, how would you play the clubs, hoping to crash the Ace and King? [/hv]

[P_Marlowe]

1) ok, several systems bid diamonds first, when holding 4-4 in the minors

2) not my style, but ok

3) 3C would be an overstatement of power,

5C is ok

4) ???

You need 2 out of 3 cards (AKQ in clubs)

from South to make the slam playable,

the risk that South holds wasted cards in spade

is fairly high, 5C was a "shut up bid", pass is clear

cut

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=saha1064dak86cj952&s=sj10762h5dqcq108763]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Playing in the Swiss teams at the Brighton Congress, we got ourselves into a contract of 6C where our opps had only managed a part score. Could you apportion the blame?  This was the bidding after west passes and opps remain silent:

1♦  (i)  1♠  (ii)

2♣        5♣  (iii)

6♣  (iv)

 

(i)  Might have opened 1♣, planning to rebid 1NT (15-16) because of singleton spade.

(ii)  Hoping for the best

(iii) Would 3♣ have been better or any other suggestions?

(iv) Is this justified needing very little from South?

Team discussion later put the blame with North but with some sympathy. 

 

Also, how would you play the clubs, hoping to crash the Ace and King?   [/hv]

 

I. I don't mind 1♦.

 

II. I don't mind 2♣, but 1NT showing 15-16 would have been ok too.

 

III. No, 3♣ would not have been better, because it's non-forcing. I fancy my (partner's) chances in 5♣.

 

IV. No sympathy here. 6♣ is a punt. Partner did not make a slam try. He could have gone through 4th suit, then support clubs later if he was slammy. It is no shock for partner that you have a 16 count.

 

With six clubs in dummy no sensible player would play the king from Kx if you lead towards dummy (why didn't he ruff a red card in dummy in order to take the club finesse, he would ask himself). And no one would cover from Kx either if you advance the queen from dummy.

 

Roland

[mcphee]

100% to the hand that bid 6,they were lost in space.

 

I happen to prefer 1D when 4-4 minors most times, especially here where I have a far better suit. I know this is a matter of style.

 

As I would probally have opened 1NT I can't say I would find any fault with the NT rebid to show the hand range.

 

While 5C may not be perfect, what else is reasonable? It's a game that should have a chance which is what we want.

 

I would lead low toward the Q and if I somehow managed to make it, purchase lotto tickets asap.

[whereagles]

S could very well have

 

Jxxxx

x

x

KQxxxx

 

but N has no way to know, so he should perhaps have passed.

[luis]

We all hate the 6♣ bid no excuses.

[flytoox]

Hehe, You did no worse than those Italian champion. They bid and make this kind slam.

 

Regarding the trump suit play. I would lead small club from hand. I think this is the only way to seduce mistake. At least you got a story.

[paulg]

You were not alone in having trouble. Our teammates fell into 5♣ after an auction they would not discuss (!), but the winners of the Brighton Bowl had the following auction at our table:

 

1♦ ... 1♠

1NT ... 2♣ (checkback)

2NT ... 3NT

 

An easy way for them to lose 13 IMPs (luckily this was only match 3 of 14).

 

Paul

[inquiry]

I would open this hand 1NT. Sigh, and likely play it in 2♠ at matchpoints, depending upon partner's whim. So don't follow my advice on it. "-(

 

Having said that, 6♣ was, well, an overbid. I understand it, because opener had so much undisclosed extra value in both distribution, and playing stregth/controls . HE could easily have the ♥A turned into the ♥Q for instance, or the ♠Ace into a small spade. In both cases, 5♣ has no play either. Of course, then, you only turned minus one into minus two, no big deal at imps. But turning +600 into -100 is huge. But 5♣ bidder could easily have ♣K instead of ♣Q where slam is not that bad a gamble.

 

I guess my bidding could be (looking at this with rose colored glasses and responder with his bidding shoes on)...

 

1NT - 2♥

2♠ - 2NT

3♦ - 5♣

Pass

 

Where (again based on ETM victory over 1NT)"

2♥ was jacoby,

2♠ denied 4♠

2NT was transfer to 3♣

3♦ was super maximum with club fit (not willing to risk 3♣ pass with clubs. opener would bid 3♠ with strongest hand and three card ♠ fit. Most often opener rebids 3♣ as asked.

5♣ = no slam interest.

 

Of course responders other two choices are to transfer to spades and pass, or to transfer to clubs and pass. If he had tried to transfer to clubs, he may play at four level, as opener will superaccept (I use 3♣ by opener as super accept).. and opener might super, super accept (bid above 3♣). I have never seen such a hand, but this might be one.

[mikeh]

For me, 1♦ is 100%: but I know that many players like 1♣ with this shape (the reasons, altho I 'know them' are unconvincing to me, but that is another story).

 

1♠ equally clear

 

2♣: even if 1N shows this hcp, 2♣ is likely to be better, unless partner has a weak hand with both majors. I can live with either, and 2♣ is certainly not worthy of blame.

 

5♣: understandable. I would be concerned, in my methods, that 2♣ might be fudged a bit: an awkward hand type such as 1=4=5=3 not quite good enough to reverse... but that is less likely in a weak notrump system than in a 15-17 NT method. And even if so, 5♣ may still be the right spot. So I would not criticize 5♣.

 

However, I would like to know what 4♣ would have meant. For me, it would be non-forcing, highly invitational: in fact, this hand (often slightly stronger with slightly less shape, but the shape here compensates for the hcp weakness).

 

I would use 4th suit for all slamming hands, and 4♥ as keycard over 2♣, but I know that minorwood (kickback) preferences vary.

 

If 4♣ was available, then I would criticize the 5♣ bid, because I think that (in those specific circumstances) it would promise a better ♣ suit: say KQ10xxx.

 

6♣ is wrong if 4♣ was unavailable. Partner's 5♣ showed huge shape and no hcp. Yes, 6♣ might have made: partner might have held the same hand with the ♣K instead of the ♣Q, and the ♣'s may have been favourable.

 

Yes, you have 'extras', but not the sort of extras that make bidding on anything other than a shot.

 

So North gets 100% of the blame if 4♣ was unavailable.

 

If 4♣ was available as a non-forcing bid, then S gets all of the blame: opposite 6 good trump, the North hand has to bid slam: he 'knows' that there are no top losers, and that the opps cannot play more than two rounds of trump even if the Ace is missing. Thus he knows he has 5 trump in dummy, 4 tops in the side suits, and 2 ruffs in his hand: 11 winners with all kinds of chances for the 12th.

[pclayton]

1♦ is fine, but its a style issue. So are 1♠ and 2♣.

 

I'm OK with 5♣. It basically says: "Pard you didn't make a jump shift to 3♣, so I don't think we can make slam. I have a very distributional hand without a lot of power".

 

So North decides to overrule his partner and bid the slam anyway. What extras does he have - maybe a King? I have a scintilla of sympathy if this was MP's, but at IMPs, there is simply no excuse. I play 4♣ in the same sequence as a power bid, inviting a cue or key card from opener.

 

As far as the play goes, the 6-5 black hand is on the table, and its obvious that you don't have a red suit loser. So don't cash the A♠ and start ruffing spades.

 

I'd win the (presumed, say) heart lead in hand, ruff a heart, overtake the QD with the King, cash the A (pitching a heart), ruff a diamond (or the last heart), and play a club. I'd really like to be in my hand for the club play, so I might not ruff the last diamond. I suppose if LHO has some kind of 6-3-2-2, he might jump from Ax of clubs. Its all pretty hopeless though.

[Wackojack]

I was North in this auction which most replies seemed to have guessed, so I will put on my sack cloth and ashes.

 

Generalising: On the options available after 1D 1H 2C when the hand has at least 4-card club support, my understanding of what is normal in UK is:

 

Pass: Unusual, but nothing more to say and not too afraid that opps will come in.

 

3C: Still minimum but bulding a barrage

 

4C: Normally forcing (as agreed with partner) but some take it as invitational

 

5C: Normally a desire to play in 5C suggesting weak with more than 5 clubs.

 

4th suit then 4C: Slam interest.

 

With another partner, I play 4C as non forcing, so may be this infected my judgement. Nevertheless I don't see too much wrong with partner raising my 2C to 3C. Am I going to be universally condemned again?

[Guest Jlall]

I wouldn't bid 5C but thats me. and im sure id bid 6C *shrug* If pard has good trumps, distribution, and out...we make slam.

[jdulmage]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=saha1064dak86cj952&s=sj10762h5dqcq108763]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Playing in the Swiss teams at the Brighton Congress, we got ourselves into a contract of 6C where our opps had only managed a part score. Could you apportion the blame? This was the bidding after west passes and opps remain silent:

1♦ (i) 1♠ (ii)

2♣ 5♣ (iii)

6♣ (iv)

 

(i) Might have opened 1♣, planning to rebid 1NT (15-16) because of singleton spade.

(ii) Hoping for the best

(iii) Would 3♣ have been better or any other suggestions?

(iv) Is this justified needing very little from South?

Team discussion later put the blame with North but with some sympathy.

 

Also, how would you play the clubs, hoping to crash the Ace and King? [/hv]

Flawed auction.

 

1♦-1♠

2♥-3♣

4♣-5♣

 

1 Diamond - Generally 12+, 3+ diamonds

1 Spade - 4+ spades, 6+ points

2 Hearts - Reverse, 16+, 4+ hearts

3 Clubs - 4th Suit Forcing, could be natural clubs

4 Clubs - I hate NT, but I have clubs if you have clubs

5 Clubs - I have nothing more to say except that yes, I do have clubs.

 

No reason to get excited about slam, you have told your partner what you have, it is up to the weaker hand with the long clubs to decide. With no quick tricks, he won't push on past 4 clubs.

 

If I wanted to crash Ace and King, I would play 10♣ off of the board.

[MickyB]

You were not alone in having trouble. Our teammates fell into 5♣ after an auction they would not discuss (!), but the winners of the Brighton Bowl had the following auction at our table:

 

1♦ ... 1♠

1NT ... 2♣ (checkback)

2NT ... 3NT

 

An easy way for them to lose 13 IMPs (luckily this was only match 3 of 14).

 

Paul

Phil and I started off the same way, but instead of raising to 3NT I bid 3C, over which Phil raised and I bid 5.

[Finch]

Time to give some sympathy to North. If my partner had raised 3C to 5C, I would also have given it the 6th.

 

We bid this hand

 

1D 1S

2C 3C

3NT 5C

Pass

 

and also gained a huge swing when opener at the other table chose to reverse into hearts over the 1S response, and they played 3NT-3.

 

If you play 4C as invitational, it's a good call on the hand, but like you, we don't. We play

 

3C = invitational (about 8-11 HCP) - not really a "barrage" as you put it.

4C = forcing

5C = weak, desire to play in 5C

 

the issue on the hand is whether you are right to raise 2C to 5C, or whether that should show a little more. I agree with my partner that 5C should show more to allow you to raise to 6 when it's right, and to avoid going off in 5C opposite a boring minimum opener (try 5C opposite Ax Kx KJxxx Kxxx which is certainly not a minimum).

[Wackojack]

Time to give some sympathy to North. If my partner had raised 3C to 5C, I would also have given it the 6th.

 

We bid this hand

 

1D    1S

2C    3C

3NT  5C

Pass

 

and also gained a huge swing when opener at the other table chose to reverse into hearts over the 1S response, and they played 3NT-3.

 

If you play 4C as invitational, it's a good call on the hand, but like you, we don't. We play

 

3C = invitational (about 8-11 HCP) - not really a "barrage" as you put it.

4C = forcing

5C = weak, desire to play in 5C

 

the issue on the hand is whether you are right to raise 2C to 5C, or whether that should show a little more. I agree with my partner that 5C should show more to allow you to raise to 6 when it's right, and to avoid going off in 5C opposite a boring minimum opener (try 5C opposite Ax Kx KJxxx Kxxx which is certainly not a minimum).

Thanks for that. I have already owned up to being North, so you have judged me blameless? :(