[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 4♠
Pass

---

How do you assign the blame for this missed slam?

Do you have a good standard sequence (or agreement) for bidding this hand?

Thanks

[Walddk]

The Garozzo relay should do the trick.

1♥ - 1♠
2♠ - 2NT
3♣ - 3♦
3♥ - 3♠
4♦ - 4NT
5♥ - 6♠
p

2N = Relay, tell me more. At least invitational.
3♣ = 4-card support, unspecified singleton. A maximum per definition.
3♦ = Where is your singleton?
3♥ = Clubs.
3♠ = Slam interest.
4♦ = Cue bid (honour).
4N = RKCB
5♥ = 2 key cards, no spade queen.

You will likely also get to the slam if opener rebids 3♠. Personally, I think the hand is good enough for that.

Roland

[han]

1♥, 1♠ and 4♠ seem clear to me. The only bid that can be argued about is 2♠. I think this hand is just about strong enough for 3♠ (16 support points).

After 3♠ it should be possible to reach slam. I think that south would cue 4♦, which makes north's hand a lot better. A possible auction might be:

1H-1S
3S-4D
4H-4S
5D-6S

For me, 4D denies a club control, so north must have a club control to continue cuebidding. I think that 5D suggests club shortness.

[whereagles]

How about "natural"?

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 3♦
4♦

4♦ = 3 good cards, hearts not worth rebidding. Marks club singleton.

Needs pard to be in the same wavelength, though.

[inquiry]

I blame north. 2♠ was an huge underbid.

My sequence would start 1♥-1NT (showing 5+ ♠) so I will not bother showing it, but north would show a great hand in response to this... Perhaps with a leap to 4♣ (splinter) or with a forcing ♠ raise (2NT) or an invitiational spade raise (3♠).

[mcphee]

As Roland points out the relay would have worked well. But in any case Responder can not bid 4S. I see no reason to rush to just bid game. Although I am not sure that bidding 3D after 2S is going to help. I also think the N hand is worth 3S becuase the hand contains good trump and control cards,and H should he helpful. If I were to assign blame I would place N more at fault for failing to bid 3S which solves responders problems. But S can not just bid game without trying to show some interest and imagination.

[luke warm]

maybe north is too strong for 2S, but i think south is too strong for 4S... i think 4C would make south think 'slam'

[hrothgar]

I'd blame East / West who were unpleasant enough not to bid with a 9 card club fit and the AKQJT in that suit. The key to finding this 27 point slam is recognizing that all of the 27 points (down to the Jack of Diamonds) are pulling full weight. This might atually be easier if the opponents show club strength.

I think that there are a number of bids that didn't work out that well.

North is a bit heavy for the 2♠ raise
South could have investigated slam rather than bashing to 4♠

However, I wouldn't get too worked up about either bid.

Playing standard methods you don't have many options to North's 2♠ raise...
(I think that 3♠ is a dreadful overbid)

From South's perspective, North could have been sitting on

♠ KJx
♥ AKxxx
♦ xx
♣ Qxx

For what its worth, I think that these questions are spoiled somewhat when folks see both hands before recommending "obvious" bids...

[kenrexford]

Assuming the 2S simple raise, South can and probably should stab at this with a 3♦ call. The way I play, 2NT first is the only auction where 3NT is playable.

After 3♦, North clearly can accept a game try. With club control and this monster, 3NT (Serious, "in case") seems obvious. Slam is now hard to miss.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2006, 01:56 PM, said:

From South's perspective, North could have been sitting on

♠ KJx
♥ AKxxx
♦ xx
♣ Qxx

The Garozzo 2NT relay will take care of that hand too:

1♥ - 1♠
2♠ - 2NT
3♦*

* 3-card support, minimum.

South has heard enough and will sign off in 4♠.

Roland

[helene_t]

If you play a 15-17 1NT, I wouldn't blame anyone.

Playing a 12-14 1NT, 2♠ implies extras in terms of either points or distribution, so if responder has a way to locate the club singleton, slam should be reached.

[han]

I think that in the long run, bidding 4♠ over 2♠ with the south hand is best. North shouldn't have such a good hand, so south shouldn't have slam interest.

I do agree that the Garozzo relay (or whatever variation you play) is the best way to investigate slam.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2006, 06:56 AM, said:

Playing standard methods you don't have many options to North's 2♠ raise...
(I think that 3♠ is a dreadful overbid)

From South's perspective, North could have been sitting on

♠ KJx
♥ AKxxx
♦ xx
♣ Qxx

For what its worth, I think that these questions are spoiled somewhat when folks see both hands before recommending "obvious" bids...

Richard, you are exactly correct on one point, and oddly totally wrong on another.

From North's perspective, south COULD have the dreadful hand you showed for 2♠, (or even slightly worse perhaps, see below). But then this IS the problem with the simple 2♠ range if, as you say, 3♠ with this "monster" south (compared to the hand you showed) is not allowed.

Leaving on the sideline the Kaplan Inversion (where 1H-1NT shows 5+ spades), even after 1H-1S, opener needs ways to seperate "good raises" from the crap hand you showed, even in standard. Coming to your rescue is bids like Gazzilli or some form of forcing raise.

However, even without those (which I have both), this south hand is wonderful in support of spades. It has a ZAR count of 34 (with fit points).. .that is, 13 hcp, 4 control points, 13 distributional points, and 4 fit points = 34 zar points. Now, no matter what you think of ZAR points, this is much better hand than the 13 hcp it appears to be. ZAR points suggest it is TWO FULL levels better than a minimum openeing bid with a four card spade suit (which only needs 25 ZAR points). So 3♠ is hardly a "dreadful overbid." In fact, the way I play, the jump to 3♠ on a silent auction like this shows 29 to 32 ZARS, so in fact, 3♠ is a tiny underbid. This is probably why, for instance, some suggest a jump to 4♠. Perhaps 29 ZARS is too light for the jump to 3♠ for you and it needs to be stretched a little bit, but if you but the lower limit to 30, or 31, even 32, this hand is worth significantly more than any of those. In fact, 3♠ is a GREAT bid for this hand if nothing else in your methods is suitable (gazzilli, splinter, etc).

As for this hand, playing 1H-1S-2S, south has to have a great imagination to envision slam. Heck, give partner, S-KJxxx H-KJTxx D-Kx C-JTX for instance, and they take 3♣ and a ♥ and you can not even make 4♠.

[mike777]

Very tough hand, 3S by North does seem a bit much when 1s could be on almost nothing.
Axxx...x....xxxx....xxxx

This feels pretty double dummy looking at both hands but....

1H=1S
2S=3D
3H=4D
4NT=ETC...

3D=Assume long suit game try but can be advanced cue bid. LTC seems to be (24-7-6)=for only 11 tricks but close enough for slam try?

3H= cuebid with D and H help.

4D=slam try, good D, looking for club help

4NT=I got stiff club and as usual for me jump into rkc as opposed to keep cuebidding.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jul 10 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

From North's perspective, south COULD have the dreadful hand you showed for 2♠, (or even slightly worse perhaps, see below). But then this IS the problem with the simple 2♠ range if, as you say, 3♠ with this "monster" south (compared to the hand you showed) is not allowed.

And what's the maximum strength for that 3♠ rebid? What do you do with a real reverse and 4=5=2=2 shape? (Or, for that matter, a 4=5=1=3 with a stiff Ace or King?)

You and Roland have already noted that a well oiled partnership is able to employ a lot of science after a simple low-level auction like 1m - 1M - 2M (or, for that matter, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥). You don't have the same range of options following a 3♠ rebid.

Given the choice of a wide ranging 2♠ rebid compared to a wide ranging 3♠ rebid, it seems pretty clear to make sure that 3♠ is tightly defined.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2006, 08:58 AM, said:

And what's the maximum strength for that 3♠ rebid? What do you do with a real reverse and 4=5=2=2 shape? (Or, for that matter, a 4=5=1=3 with a stiff Ace or King?)

You and Roland have already noted that a well oiled partnership is able to employ a lot of science after a simple low-level auction like 1m - 1M - 2M (or, for that matter, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥). You don't have the same range of options following a 3♠ rebid.

Given the choice of a wide ranging 2♠ rebid compared to a wide ranging 3♠ rebid, it seems pretty clear to make sure that 3♠ is tightly defined.

Well, I told you my maximum range for a 3♠ bid is 29 to 32 ZARS, that is a king (which is four ZAR points). Is that narrow enough for you? And if it matters, I require a good 29 ZAR for the bid so it is actually closer to 30-32, which is less than a king (good 29 is hand with 10's and nine's, or AJ or AQ combinations). So the actual range is "just less than a king". Is your 3♠ rebid as wide pr wider than a King? I suspect your 3♠ rebid is a lot less "tight" than mine.

[hrothgar]

I find it much easier to work with example hands rather than using an external metric like Zar points.

Any chance that you could provide some representative examples of maximum and minimum 3♠ advances for both 4=5=2=2 and 4=5=31 shapes...

Also, assume that this is a typical 3♠ advance... (Therefore if you have a King more you can't bid 3♠).
What do you do with all the strong hands?

I suspect that you have yet another gimmick - like an artificial 2NT advance - that you use to handle the strong hands. (There's nothing wrong with this. I'm sure that its a quite nice system.) However, I think that its dangerous to assume that all the inferences from your little eccentricities necessarily hold true.

[pclayton]

Similar to Garozzo relay:

1♥ - 1♠
2♠ - 2N
4♣...

2N is a forcing probe and 4♣ shows 4 trump and a s/v club. Slam should be reached after this start.

3♠ would be an overbid with the N hand. Most of us would respond 1♠ on: Axxx, xx, xxx, xxxx and 3♠ is too high.

[mikeh]

Hands in which both partners are maximum for their calls are the toughest. Such hands readily lend themselves to ex post facto reasoning: North could/should have bid 3♠ and South could/should have made a slam try.

Clearly, science would help... using 2N as a relay (whether Garozzo or Phil's form, which sounds close (on this hand anyway) to what I play)... if South can discover that North has a maximum 4 card raise with a stiff ♣, he cannot help but bid slam.

I suspect that such science was unavailable, in which case the problem is far, far tougher to solve.

I think that 3♠ by South would be optimistic, and I have no problem with the heavy 2♠ bid. Given the North hand as a problem at round 2, I'd score 2♠ 100 and 3♠ 80.

As for South, I do think that 4♠ was the worst single call of the auction, but I don't want to overstate my criticism. While I think that S is worth a try (3♦), I can see why South might not want to clue the opps into the correct lead against game.

Besides which, it is far from clear how the auction would/should develop after 3♦.

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 3♦
3♥ 4♠
?

3♥ intended as a cue-bid, ostensibly rejecting the 3♦ game try but showing a good hand with ♥ values, intending to raise a 3♠ signoff to game.

4♠ unfortunately does not confirm that 3♦ was a cue bid... it merely shows a hand that wants to be in game opposite a max with decent ♥. So now North has an extremely tenuous 5♣ available... which would work but seems unjustifiable.

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 3♦
4♣

this may work, but for me 4♣ shows some high cards... say 4=5=1=3 with AJx, so if it works, it does so for the wrong reasons

Thus, while the 4♠ call gets my vote as the worst call of the auction, I do not think that there is an easy path to slam regardless of what South bids over 2♠.

The blame goes to the system: for not having 2N available as a relay.

This is not surprising: if these hands were not difficult to bid in standard methods, relays would not have become popular in practiced partnerships.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jul 10 2006, 03:41 PM, said:

The blame goes to the system: for not having 2N available as a relay.

Hum.. I wouldn't be so harsh on the system, though I do agree that things get considerably easier after

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 2NT
4♣

2NT = relay
4♣ = splinter, a max within the 11-14 min hand, confirms 4-card spade support