[Rebound]

---

Auction:
North/ East/ South/ West

1♣ / p / 2♣* / 2♠
X / p / 3♦ / p
3[NT] / p / 4♠ / p
5♣ / all pass

I was South. 2♣ was, of course, inverted, game-forcing. I am most curious whether you believe I should bid 1♦ instead, and if not, what you think of the remainder of the auction. I believe I pushed as hard for slam as I could, but partner just wasn't having any of that. It's too bad tho. I think her hand was something like K10xx AQxx xxx KQx.

At the time, I felt 3♦ and then 4♠ pinpointed the problem with the heart suit such that with AQ, she could confidently bid slam. However, I now see that a different auction may have made the decision easier for her which is, to me, what a good partner should do. Your insights will be appreciated.

[Winstonm]

Hard to know without your methods...is 1C-2D weak jump shift, strong, or criss-cross?

I find it hard to ever get across a suit like your diamond suit - partner never seems to get it - and as recipient of these bids, I have problems visualizing them too.

This is just my solution for these types hands and designed strictly for imp play:

Inverted minor is used for invitational or game forcing.
Crisscross is a slam try.

With this in mind, the good controls and good support of my club suit - which is what crisscross really means: I have clubs - then the opening hand should bid 3H over 2S. Then it is simple.

Since 1C-2D isn't very worthwhile as a WJS, another way to use it would be BWS stong jump shift showing a 1-suiter, a suit with support, or a big NT hand. That may have helped as well.

Winston

[Kalvan14]

If 2♦ is not a WJS, I would have chosen 2♦ for sure, and raised clubs.
My problem in this hand would not so much be hearts, it would rather be clubs.

[Rebound]

Kalvan14, on Dec 12 2005, 01:25 AM, said:

If 2♦ is not a WJS, I would have chosen 2♦ for sure, and raised clubs.
My problem in this hand would not so much be hearts, it would rather be clubs.

Point taken. I thought (somewhat too late I might add - I had already bid 4♠ lol) that partner may have excellent spades and not such good clubs, particularly after the penalty double of 2♠ at IMPS. We don't play WJS, so the 2♦ call you suggest makes a lot of sense. However, the phrase "support with support" was ringing in my ears, so it seemed prudent to make the game-forcing raise in clubs immediately since it was available. I now see the reasoning behind bidding the diamond suit first.

Winston: if, by criss-cross you mean 2♦ shows a GF with clubs while 2♣ would be limit or weak or what have you, we rejected it in favor of the simpler structure. I won't argue that it is more or less effective, but it does not fit with our style.

Bearing in mind all of the above, would any of you be concerned about being pre-empted in the majors?

[Winstonm]

I wound't be so concerned about preemption in the majors with such a poweful hand with support - as long as I can bid 2D as a strong jump shift first - if 2C were the only way to show a game going club hand I'd be nervous. But over 2D and any preemption I know where we are headed - to at least 5C - and by having described my good suit and support with 2D followed by 5C, I can then pretty much leave it to partner to make an intelligent decision.

Winston

[whereagles]

You could have tried 4♦ after 3NT, emphasizing on the good diamonds. But 4♠ is a good bid as well.

[Fluffy]

Both 1♦ and 2♣ are correct, but I think introducing the ♦ suit for its quality itws a priority at the 1 level.

[inquiry]

2♣ was fine, and partner's 3NT clearly showed something useful in ♥s. You might, however have considered a bid different from 3♦ since you were going to force to 5♣ anyway. (that is, you had no intention of leaving the contract in 3NT).

How about,

1♣-2♣-(2♠)
X-4♠

If this was "exclusion" it would find out about the the two of the three keycards. If partner is miissing the ♣ queen, you just hope he has the five clubs or the ♣ hook is on.

If exclusion isn't your cup of tea, try a more direct approach,

1♣-2♣-(2♠)
X-3♠
3NT - 4♦ <<--- to entice a 4♥ heart cue-bid,
4♥ - ?

[Rebound]

Jlall, on Dec 12 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

If your partner had bid 3H I think you would have been off to the races.

Well that's for sure. I would need to know only the quality of partner's clubs then.

Inquiry's comments are pertinent here. I appreciate the usefulness of 4♠ as EKC, however, our agreement is that it applies only above game so as logical as it sounds, I'm fairly certain it would be interpreted as a normal cue.

The nice thing about a 3♥ call is that it will allow me to cuebid more to give partner the opportunity to decide if slam is in the picture based on her club holding. Our methods currently lack an effective way for me as responder to ask about her trump holding. And that's a problem because if she holds good spades (I had pictured somewhat better than K10xx) and the heart A it might not leave much for her in the club suit. 4NT is yucky and 5♠ would be effective, but slam would be dicey if she held Axx or Kxx in ♣. The point is, it is better if I show rather than ask on this hand, I think. 3♥ keeps the bidding low enough that I can cue bid at least a couple more times to make sure she gets the hint <grin> such as 3♥-3♠-3nt-4♦ - the second diamond bid should be a big push toward slam IMO.

EDIT
Of course, I suddenly realize that the above closely parrallels Inquiry's auction. I guess it amounts to almost the same thing. But to me the above is a clearer auction. The 3♠ call in that one, however, comes at the expense of the earlier 3♦ bid which I think is important. Just my 2 cents.

[HeartA]

Rebound, on Dec 11 2005, 11:59 PM, said:

---

Auction:
North/ East/ South/ West

1♣ / p / 2♣* / 2♠
X / p / 3♦ / p
3[NT] / p / 4♠ / p
5♣ / all pass

I was South. 2♣ was, of course, inverted, game-forcing. I am most curious whether you believe I should bid 1♦ instead, and if not, what you think of the remainder of the auction. I believe I pushed as hard for slam as I could, but partner just wasn't having any of that. It's too bad tho. I think her hand was something like K10xx AQxx xxx KQx.

At the time, I felt 3♦ and then 4♠ pinpointed the problem with the heart suit such that with AQ, she could confidently bid slam. However, I now see that a different auction may have made the decision easier for her which is, to me, what a good partner should do. Your insights will be appreciated.

I would not pass 5C.

[pclayton]

While an Exclusion 4♠ looks good on the surface, you can't handle a 5♦ (2 w/o Q) response.

I don't mind this sequence, although I've had a lot of luck with a direct 3♠ splinter with this kind of hand. But I play a 12-14 NT, so pard's 1♣ promises clubs or a strong NT or better.

Yoi might have tried 4♦ over 3N. If pard cues the ♥A, you can THEN cue 4♠.

[mikeh]

I come late to this thread. I would prefer 1♦ to 2♣, altho the advantage of 2♣ is that it immediately gets across the gf nature of the hand and the good support.

The problems with 2♣ seem to me to be twofold: it compells you to be captain in this auction: no way can you later involve partner in an informed manner. You may be able to communicate your short (void) ♠ but you will never be able to show your true source of playing strength. The second problem is that your ♣ are so weak that you may have set the wrong trump suit. It is not so much that you may have losers in ♣ that you would not have in notrump or ♦ (you can usually get to nt is you need to) but that you may end up in a position where your own weakness in trump will dissuade you from bidding on. You will feel reluctant to make extra moves in a suit in which you have already forced to game on J10xxx opposite a holding that might initially have been xxx.

I think that on balance, starting 1♦ will allow you more meaningful input from partner on many auctions.

However, having said that, the truth is that the interference by the opps (which is hardly a surprise) would probably have disrupted the auction anyway

So while I prefer 1♦, I don't think that it would have made a world of difference.

As for not reaching slam, I do think that your partner should have made a cooperative move at some point. Her ♣, while short, were strong, and you have to be looking at holes in that suit, yet you were making moves. Furthermore, you were still trying after she showed wasted hcp in ♠ and, in that context, her relatively weak ♠ (and compensating values elsewhere) should have persuaded her that her hand was actually very useful to you.

[Rebound]

HeartA, on Dec 13 2005, 03:33 AM, said:

Rebound, on Dec 11 2005, 11:59 PM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠   ♥ Kxx ♦ AKQJ10 ♣ J10xxx

Auction:
North/  East/  South/  West

1♣ / p / 2♣* / 2♠
X / p / 3♦ / p
3[NT] / p / 4♠ / p
5♣ / all pass

I was South. 2♣ was, of course, inverted, game-forcing. I am most curious whether you believe I should bid 1♦ instead, and if not, what you think of the remainder of the auction. I believe I pushed as hard for slam as I could, but partner just wasn't having any of that. It's too bad tho. I think her hand was something like K10xx AQxx xxx KQx.

At the time, I felt 3♦ and then 4♠ pinpointed the problem with the heart suit such that with AQ, she could confidently bid slam. However, I now see that a different auction may have made the decision easier for her which is, to me, what a good partner should do. Your insights will be appreciated.

I would not pass 5C.

With all due respect, why not?
Partner has made a 2-level penalty double and you've pulled after a game forcing response to her opening. To me this should imply slam interest. The alternative is that you hold short on the hcp for a gf but with compensating distribution but in that case I think the call would be to pass 3NT or go direct to 5♣. You've then made not 1, but 2 further attempts to push to slam with 3♦ and 4♠. If partner is still trying to sign off after that, I don't see how you can bid again over 5♣. Bidding again would be the equivalent of arbitrarily going to slam, in which case you've wasted 2 or 3 rounds of bidding imo. You might as well go right over 2♠X.

I would have liked for partner to be able to take control after 4♠. In fact, holding KQx in ♣ I think she would have been well placed to make the 5♠ call over 4♠. All that having been said, I think I agree that the problem was the 2♣ call. 1♦ offers more chance to communicate the strengths of the hand.

Next question: with the given hands, what do you do after this auction -
1♣ / p / 1♦ / 2♠
X / p / ?