[luke warm]

hey, no problem... i've already taken some good natured ribbing about my bids this set, along the lines of i've never met a slam i didn't like

[cherdano]

The majority of the panel is making a slam try. I still find it unconvincing. Let's see, some want to force to slam when partner cue-bids 4♦ over 3♠. However, what if partner doesn't have the ♦Q?

If partner has ♦Kxx, we have pretty much lost (unless by some magic he has the black queen of the suit where opening leader led away from his king). If he has ♦Kx, we need a lot of luck. E.g. if he has ♠xxx ♥AKxxx ♦Kx ♣Qxx, we need diamonds 3-3 and ♣K onside (or diamonds 4-2 and ♣K doubleton onside).
It looks to me like the magic ♥AKxxx ♦KQx is the only combination the makes slam good. But as pointed out by Frances/Jeffrey, this is certainly close to a game try over 2♠, and partner will make a slam try over 3♠ with less. (Certainly having ♥AK and another K feels very good slam-wise after having shown a minimum opening.)

Btw, among the slam tries, I like Fred's 4♦ best. I don't think this can be a cue-bid, how could I be interested in slam opposite a minimum opener with no controls in two suits?

(Still I like 3♠ with the idea to pass 3N and bid 4♥ over anything else.)

Arend

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

This was my favorite hand of the set, in that it raises a number of interesting questions: Most notably:

1.What is the minimum strength necessary for a 1M and 1m opening playing BBO Advanced? This isn't specified anywhere in the system (moreover it needs to be).

2.What did partner's 3H bid mean? Clearly partner has a minimum hand. He is rejecting game opposite a limit raise. However, what would 3C or 3D by partner mean? Can we assume that partner is flat?

3.Is game a reasonable gamble after partner rebids 3H (Answer = yes. Hell, slam can make opposite some perfect minimums but we gave up on intelligent slam exploration when we decided to bid 2S rather than 2D. From my perspective, Diamond support is critical to find good slams)

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.

5.Here's the kicker... Can we play in 3NT? We have established an eight card major suit fit with at least game invitational values. (If we bid 3NT “to play”, this strongly suggests that we were holding enough point to force to game). In short, is 3NT natural or “Serious”.

I'm generally pretty comfortable using the whole “game before slam” philosophy. Given that partner has rejected a game try, I'd like to be able to bid 3NT to play rather reserving it for Serious 3NT. However, it will be interesting to see other opinions.

Has anyone addressed Richard's issues?
1) are we opening many balanced 11?
2) are we opening many balanced 12?
3) are we opening many balanced 13?
4) are we only opening 13+ with 3QT and a decent rebid?

[pclayton]

I remain unconvinced by the panelists comments on 3♠.

If someone where to contrive some hands where slam is odds-on, yet pard opts for a signoff of 3♥, I will listen. Roland cites xx, AKxxx, KQx, xxx; but this is a very specific hand with the side diamond fit. Other 7 loser hands have no play for slam and are in danger at the 5 level.

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

Fred's suggestion that 4♦ is more than a cue - more of an 'interest' bid is a concept that has been discussed in MSC a few times, but I havent seen anyone actually use it. I think it has merit.

Again, I'm not seeing a lot of downside to 2♦ initially.....

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Feb 1 2006, 06:22 PM, said:

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

In that case you must read mikeh's comment a little more carefully, Phil. Quote:

Of course, he may have downgraded the ♠K, which he can now upgrade after 3♠.

Roland

[fred]

pclayton, on Feb 1 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

I remain unconvinced by the panelists comments on 3♠.

If someone where to contrive some hands where slam is odds-on, yet pard opts for a signoff of 3♥, I will listen. Roland cites xx, AKxxx, KQx, xxx; but this is a very specific hand with the side diamond fit. Other 7 loser hands have no play for slam and are in danger at the 5 level.

Perhaps the best reason for a 3♠ cue (that no one has mentioned yet) is that pard might be dramatically downgrading his ♠K on the auction with a hand with values for a 4♥ call initially: Kxx, AKxxxx, Kx, xx.

Fred's suggestion that 4♦ is more than a cue - more of an 'interest' bid is a concept that has been discussed in MSC a few times, but I havent seen anyone actually use it. I think it has merit.

Again, I'm not seeing a lot of downside to 2♦ initially.....

When constructing hands for partner, it seems natural to start with the ♥AK, and I agree that when you start this way you need something pretty specific opposite to make slam a good bet.

But if you take away one of this cards there are plenty of awful hands for partner where 6♥ is at least a reasonable contract. For example:

Kxx K10xxx Kx Kxx

or:

Kx A10xxx QJx Kxx

I do agree with you that it is not especially likely that partner has a hand that produces a good slam. I also think that it is going to be hard for partner to know when he has such a hand. However, there is not much downside to 3♠ in my opinion. You can signoff in 4♥ next and leave the rest up to partner. I think that, if his judgment is good, you will reach making slams more often than you will go minus at the 5 or 6-level.

But I do think this is a close call and that a signoff in 4♥ is far from unreasonable.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[reisig]

I didn't comment - but ..if I had the right minimum for slam ..I'd ask "why do you take me out of the bidding with 4♥?" Clearly - a cue bid of 3♠ doesn't commit us beyond 4♥ and allows opener (having shown a min hand) to make a useful cue bid or simply sign off again.

[pclayton]

In a casual expert partnership using BBO-ADV agreements, I would expect that 3N is NOT serious in this auction. Opener has made an effort to sign off opposite a limit raise. Accordingly, any cue bid by responder should be a slam try in the context of the actual auction.

This is where I break from 3♠ bidders. A 3♠ cue is not 'free'; it signals an interest in slam opposite a hand that cannot make a move toward game. I would argue that this hand, while the controls are nice, does not justify this action because of the lack of a trick source and the 7 losers.

If I were opener looking at the ♥AK, another King and a bit more, to me, this is the type of maximum for the auction to date that warrants a move past game.

3♠ tries to pass captaincy onto Opener. Certainly Opener can volley the ball back to us with a 4♦ Last Train call. But Opener should also be expected to take charge with certain types of hands that itch to bid 4♥ initially but can't.

Wouldn't you want pard to take charge with the following hands?:

1. Kx, AKxxxx, Qxx, xx?
2. Kxx, AKxxx, Kxx, xx?
3. xx, AKxxxx, Kxx, Kx?

Slam hopeless on all these with the right lead. If I was in Heat 1, I'd charge to game with 1 and 3 after a limit raise anyway, so perhaps these aren't even relevant hands for a 3♥ signoff.

By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and the rocks we are turning over in the process.

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Feb 1 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

......

Wouldn't you want pard to take charge with the following hands?:

1. Kx, AKxxxx, Qxx, xx?
2. Kxx, AKxxx, Kxx, xx?
3. xx, AKxxxx, Kxx, Kx?

Slam hopeless on all these with the right lead. If I was in Heat 1, I'd charge to game with 1 and 3 after a limit raise anyway, so perhaps these aren't even relevant hands for a 3♥ signoff.

By the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion and the rocks we are turning over in the process.

Except Brd 1, I want to be in slam with boards 2 and 3. If every slam you reach has to stand the worst lead (or best for opps), then you will miss a lot slams.

As for board #1, it not only requires a good lead, but also DK on side (or lead from DK, or DKx and declarer guess right). I agree that would not be a good slam.

I enjoy the discuss as well.

[luis]

This was a very interesting problem to me.
I thought that the key question for a slam was the diamond suit, so with 4♣ I intended to discover the diamond K or a signleton in pd's hand. Even when 4♣ denies a spade control pd will then cuebid 4♦ only with the spade control and diamond control which is exactly what we need for slam.
I completely accept the score but I have the idea that 4♣ might work better than 3♠ what do the others think about it?