[luke warm]

well buddy, that's 2 of us with zero

[HeartA]

luke warm, on Jan 25 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

well buddy, that's 2 of us with zero

whatever score they give to me doesn't matter. I marked 4NT as 10 and 0 for other choices.

[Winstonm]

I don't quite follow the slam ambitions....2S is traditionally limit raise or better and partner has said with 3H that we shouldn't be in game opposite a limit raise - so now I punish him with 4N?

I suspect he holds a normal xxx, AKxxx, Qxx, Kx or the like and he have about zero play for 6H and not much better chance of making 5.

In restrospect, without having started with a diamond bid it will be hard for pard to know what cards are seriously working and what are not - about the best I can do is bid 3S and see if partner can bid 4D - and even then it's not clear if that is concentration of honors or just a single control.

I'm more inclined to simply raise to 4H than Blackwood the hand.

Winston

[han]

I bid 4H, I think that slam is very unlikely and I am very suspicious/surprised of hrothgar's claim that 3NT plays better than 4H (not to suggest that hrothgar is lying or that I don't think he is capable of running a correct simulation, quite the contrary. My judgement just tells me that 4H from partner's side is a better contract on average than 3NT from my side. I know, my judgement has been wrong before).

If I did try for 3NT then I would bid 3♠, if partner bids it then I'd be quite happy to play there.

On the side issue.. I also like 2S to show 3-card support and 2NT 4-card support (or rather, 2NT a higher ODR than 2S) and both limit+. This seems a more useful distinction than GF-limit. I also play 1♥-2NT = limit+, it frees up one bid for other purposes.

[42]

Echognome, on Jan 26 2006, 12:07 AM, said:

I bid 3♠ as another slam try.  As a BPO hedge, if we are going to play in 3NT, it will be better from partner's side.  (If partner has Qx(x) of spades, it is better to keep the overcaller on lead.)  Partner will probably hate me after this hand for making 2 cue-bids.

I bid 3♠, too, with Matt's reasoning.

[mr1303]

Presumably partner could have bid something else without necessarily going past 3H if he had something else:

E.g. he wouldn't have something like:

xx
AKxxx
x
KQxxx

where he would most likely bid 3C? So therefore partner looks to have a balanced minimum, and opposite that hand I want to play in game. With only Ax as a spade stopper, it looks as though I need to have 9 top winners in NT unless partner has some help, so I bid 4H

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Jan 25 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Without revealing how I cast my vote, I would like to point out that 2♠ as limit+ is bad. I think it's paramount to be able to distinguish between a limit raise and a GF hand. One way of playing this is to let the cue bid be limit and keep 2NT as the GF raise. In other words: ignore the overcall and respond 2NT as you would have done without interference.

Reverse it if you like, but don't let 2♠ contain it all.

I agree that using 2S as limit+ with 3 or 4 trumps is too much. Personally my partner (and system writer) prefers to distinguish between 3- and 4-card raises, so we use 2S for a 3-card raise and 3C for a 4-card raise. I think this is particularly important when our suit is hearts and theirs is spades, as knowing the size of the trump fit is vital - often more so than HCP - when deciding how high to go.

It's not quite right to say "no reason to change your methods just because they have overcalled". Once they have overcalled, the odds that we have a slam on go down, and the odds that they are going to raise spades go up. Our priorities need to change accordingly.

(We prefer to keep 2NT as natural, and double as fairly 'pure' promising both minors. We don't feel very strongly about this, and we use 2NT as artificial after a 2D overcall or higher anyway.)

[Gerben42]

I bid 4♣ and here's why: To make slam a worthwile proposition, I need controls in ♠ and ♦ from partner. If he lacks one of them we will stop in time.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2006, 08:55 PM, said:

4.What is the best game after parter rebids 3H. (Answer = 3N) I ran a few simulations. 3NT looks to be a better proposition. 4H requires that the Hearts behave. 3N requires something good in Hearts or Diamonds.

This is interesting. We were discussing how likely it is that 3NT is the best spot, and thought it unlikely given how many aces we have. But we didn't do any simulations.

However I think that it's very unlikely that 3NT by us is right when Ax is our only spade stop. So if we are interested in playing in 3NT, we should bid 3S now. Partner will bid 3NT with e.g. Qxx because he didn't bid 2NT over 2S, so he can't have that much in spades.

I would be surprised to see that bidding 3NT now reaches the correct contract more often than bidding 3S and passing 3NT, so I would mark 3S strictly above 3NT.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Jan 26 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

I bid 4♣ and here's why: To make slam a worthwile proposition, I need controls in ♠ and ♦ from partner. If he lacks one of them we will stop in time.

That doesn't look right to me. By cue bidding 4♣ you deny a spade control, so how do you want partner to figure out that you have one nevertheless? If he has ♦K and no spade control, he will sign off in 4♥, because 4♦ would confirm a spade control now that you denied one when you bypassed 3♠.

Roland

[Gerben42]

If partner doesn't have a ♠ control, do I want to be in slam? I need to make 12 tricks without losing the lead in that case.

Since 2♠ was not GF and partner has shown a minimum (and will probably not have a ♠ singleton since they were not raised) it seems unlikely that he can then make 12 tricks without losing the lead.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Jan 26 2006, 12:53 PM, said:

If partner doesn't have a ♠ control, do I want to be in slam? I need to make 12 tricks without losing the lead in that case.

Since 2♠ was not GF and partner has shown a minimum (and will probably not have a ♠ singleton since they were not raised) it seems unlikely that he can then make 12 tricks without losing the lead.

No, he doesn't have a singleton spade, more likely three small. That's fine, because (in my dreams at least) this is his minimum:

♠ xxx
♥ AKxxx
♦ KQx
♣ xx

He hates his spades opposite my limit+, so he signs off in 3♥ opposite a limit raise. If he gets 4♣ from you, he will obviously drop dead in a flash. If 3♠ is the bid he sees, he will surely co-operate.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Quote

He hates his spades opposite my limit+, so he signs off in 3♥ opposite a limit raise. If he gets 4♣ from you, he will obviously drop dead in a flash. If 3♠ is the bid he sees, he will surely co-operate.

How do you distinguish your dream minimum from not-so good minima that will bid the same way, for example with ♣Q or even ♠Q instead of ♦Q?

Either you will reach slam on too many hands, or you choose to give up on slam on your dream minimum without ♠ control.

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 26 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

This is interesting. We were discussing how likely it is that 3NT is the best spot, and thought it unlikely given how many aces we have. But we didn't do any simulations.

However I think that it's very unlikely that 3NT by us is right when Ax is our only spade stop. So if we are interested in playing in 3NT, we should bid 3S now. Partner will bid 3NT with e.g. Qxx because he didn't bid 2NT over 2S, so he can't have that much in spades.

I would be surprised to see that bidding 3NT now reaches the correct contract more often than bidding 3S and passing 3NT, so I would mark 3S strictly above 3NT.

I admit to being surprised as well because my thoughts were very much similar to yours:

Aces argue for a suit contract...
Ax in Spades argues for a Spades contract...

but there were also a lot of hands where partner tables weak hearts and good diamond

[pclayton]

4♥.

Its hard to construct a hand for partner that can't bid game where slam is odd-on. Specifically, pard needs a diamond fit or a stiff spade (I'm believing my oppponents too). Maybe this is a good reason to try 2♦ in the 1st place.

2♦ shouldn't deny a heart fit. If my diamonds were better, the hand looks like a fit jump.

[Al_U_Card]

A nice hand that had nice aces but poor intermediates and no real source of tricks. The opps have exchanged info so I too will opt for a quiet 4H.

[mikeh]

I think any move towards slam that doesn't involve 3♠ is in error. Your hand is not strong enough to venture beyond game if you bid 4♣ and he bids your hoped-for 4♦. You would have to bid 4♥ and he cannot go further without a ♠ control, even if he has xx AKxxx KQx xxx.

It is close as to whether to move towards slam: I chose to do so via 3♠, but if he cues 4♣ I sign off. I only move further if he cues 4♦. I doubt that he can hold a hand adequate for slam purposes if he has the ♥AK and the ♣K and yet rejected my invite. He could not likely hold KQ♦ and even Kx is not enough, since I don't like slams that depend on 3-3 breaks (at best).

[inquiry]

It has been fun reading the different treatments and concerns on such a simple auction, and likes and dislikes of our members. The panel feel into two groups, with one odd man out. Let's start with Gabor (ng), the single panelist who voted for 4♥. He explained his bid this way. "I think 2♠ is invitational or better with heart support. Partner has a minimum hand, his 3♥ was sign off. This hand is good but not good enough to go on. Slam is an illusion here: bad five card suit, 7 loser hand with an almost sure spade loser, so I brake."

Agreeing to play in hearts, but with perhaps, greater goals in mind than ng was luis and Alain. This group all choose to cue-bid 4♣s. Luis explained his choice this way: "4♣, looking for the diamond king or a singleton. With a diamond loser after a spade lead our slam chances might be inferior but if the diamond suit has no losers then the values that pd should have for his opening bid will probably be enough for a slam. 4c intending to pass 4h or bid 4NT if pd bids 4d.

Joker_Gib also bid 4♣, saying "Even if 3♥ is likely a minimum (2♠ was ♥ fit and limit or better I suppose), I have a lot more than promised (16 and 3 aces) and i'll show my first cue. I'm not used to play "serious 3NT" but I suppose it does not apply here as 3NT would be a choice of games."

The other six panelist all bid 3♠'s. Reisig bid it without comment (he only sent his bids in this time, so i will just list his bids in other post without comment). Agreeing with ng that slam is out of the question after 3♥ was Beto. But rather than bidding 4♥, he uses 3♠ as a gentle game exploratory bid, saying: 3♠. Partner's 3♥ shows a MIN hand and i also believe it denies a 4-card minor suit, so slam is out of question. As partner's hand tends to be balanced, maybe it is easier to make 9 tricks in NT then 10 in hearts if we play 3N from the right side

The Frances and Jeffery's answer sort of falls close to this same group. They said "3S. We strongly prefer 2S to 2D, particularly in our own methods where that shows exactly 3-card support. But even in BBO-advanced we don't like 2D on Axxxx as it will not help partner to evaluate later in the auction anyway.

3S has two ways to gain: if partner bids 3NT we might pass (we haven't decided yet) - how about the magic Kxx AKxxx Qx xxx opposite, when a club lead will be fairly terminal against 4H? Alternatively, partner might get enthused and bid 4-minor over it. It is worth thinking about what partner's 3H bid showed. For example, how would we have interpreted 2NT over 2S? We think that should show a minimum soft hand - no more values than 3H, but suitable for NT. We also think that a hand such as xxx AKxxx KQx xx is worth 3D game try over 2S as it's so pure. That makes us feel a bit wary of making slam tries.

All the other 3♠ bidders feel directly into the slam might still be possible pool. Each's explainations is good, with maybe the best being Fred's who said " 3♠ - We could still belong in slam so I am obligated to bid something other than 4♥. The concept of bidding my diamonds now has some appeal and I might choose that call with a regular and trusted partner. However, a random expert might not read 4♦ as "natural" (and he might be right). His likely lack of a spade control and the fact that 4♦ could easily be interpreted as denying a spade control, make this an unattractive choice in my view. (just note, no one tried 4♠, but the same thought that a 4♣ bid might cause partner to think we are off two spade tricks has to be considered-inquiry).

Roland said: 3♠. I suppose 3H is a sign off opposite a limit hand, but that can't stop me from investigating slam. I need very little opposite. 3NT would have been "serious" but would also deny a spade control, so I must start with a cue bid.

MikeH says, The system notes suggest, but do not clearly state, that if I bid 3♠ here, partner can bid 3N with a slam-suitable minimum: he has already shown a minimum by his rejection of my cue-bid. Of course, he may have downgraded the ♠K, which he can now upgrade after 3♠. I choose 3♠, regardless of what 3N would mean by him: but I would like to know.

If he bids a natural 3N, I sign off in 4♥. If he cues 4♣, I will signoff as well, even tho I have the ♦A: I do not think he can have the right cards for slam if he has the ♣K: I'd need the ♦KQ and the ♥AK, and he cannot hold that. Only if he bids 4♦ will I be interested. I would then use keycard, with some trepidation. I hope he knows that he should not be stretching to bid 4♦ with a soft hand.

With 6 votes, 3♠ is a clear winner. One wonders if the 4♣ bidders expect their partners to cue-bid 4♦ if they lack a spade control. So the scoring for this question is.

3♠ = 100
4♣ = 50
4♥ = 20
4♦ = 10

[luke warm]

yeee haaaa my first zero

ben, can you tell us the table result as you post the scores? (if you know them) thanks

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Jan 28 2006, 10:23 PM, said:

yeee haaaa my first zero

ben, can you tell us the table result as you post the scores? (if you know them) thanks

Sorry Jimmy, i don't think the table results are actually all that relevant, and didn't keep track of them anyway (i could go back through my vugraph hands on my computer and find them i guess). The key point here is to probe the expert thinking on the hand... I remember this one.. one table signed off game the other made a slam try and ended in slam.