[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP

Actual bidding:
1♥ - 2♣
2♦ -2♥
3♦ - 3♠
4♦- 6♥

---

My partner sitting South (a regular poster here) chose to ignore the spade suit and instead made the 2/1 game force response. This made it easy to bid the good 6♥ contract. Of course had I held a hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, we would miss the 4-4 fit and possibly the best contract. Also the 6♥ looks to be jumping the gun when 4NT will find me with ♥AQ plus the known ♦AK and then slam can be seen to depend on ♣A right or ♠K onside.

Later I thought how should we have bid the slam? Getting there with any degree of confidence looks virtually impossible to me.
1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♥ ?

Say you go through the 4SF route with 3♣. Partner makes the 3♥ default denial of a stop in clubs and more than 4 diamonds. Now what can you do? Is 3♠ showing 5 spades or could it be showing a control and agreeing hearts? Or either? Partner could have 5 or 6 hearts, you don't know. Say you decide to make the murky 3♠ bid and partner next bids 4♦. Presumably you would take that to be a control bid. Now where do you go? Partner may be ♦K less than he is.

My ramblings are making me think that partner might be doing the right thing in setting the game force at the 2 level. The downside is that a missed 4-4 spade fit could be a better slam bet than the known 5-3 fit, but that risk is small.

Any opinions? Any suggestions for bidding the slam?

[mike777]

Wackojack, on Oct 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

Actual bidding:
1♥ - 2♣
2♦ -2♥
3♦ - 3♠
4♦- 6♥

---

My partner sitting South (a regular poster here) chose to ignore the spade suit and instead made the 2/1 game force response. This made it easy to bid the good 6♥ contract. Of course had I held a hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, we would miss the 4-4 fit and possibly the best contract. Also the 6♥ looks to be jumping the gun when 4NT will find me with ♥AQ plus the known ♦AK and then slam can be seen to depend on ♣A right or ♠K onside.

Later I thought how should we have bid the slam? Getting there with any degree of confidence looks virtually impossible to me.
1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♥ ?

Say you go through the 4SF route with 3♣. Partner makes the 3♥ default denial of a stop in clubs and more than 4 diamonds. Now what can you do? Is 3♠ showing 5 spades or could it be showing a control and agreeing hearts? Or either? Partner could have 5 or 6 hearts, you don't know. Say you decide to make the murky 3♠ bid and partner next bids 4♦. Presumably you would take that to be a control bid. Now where do you go? Partner may be ♦K less than he is.

My ramblings are making me think that partner might be doing the right thing in setting the game force at the 2 level. The downside is that a missed 4-4 spade fit could be a better slam bet than the known 5-3 fit, but that risk is small.

Any opinions? Any suggestions for bidding the slam?

I must be missing something but how is this a good slam? This is less than 50% yes? You need the spade finesse and no ruff in a side suit yes?

[mikeh]

1stly, I would never get upset about missing this slam. No matter how the auction proceeds, there is an excellent chance that the opening lead will be a ♠, and now the slam is less than 50%.

Even without a ♠ lead, we have a potential ♦ loser to deal with, and I once heard of an 8 card trump suit running into a 5-0 break, so this is not what I would call a great slam.

That to one side: this layout is a typical problem scenario for 2/1 as a method. Both partners have slight extra values (S more than N, of course) and the need to use 4SF after a 1 over 1 response can leave one partner or the other having to either underbid or overbid at the game level.

Using a 2/1 response on a non-suit can avoid this problem, but at the risk of creating another. Not only will NS miss a 4=4 ♠ fit, but N may misevaluate if holding long ♣s. The presence of the KQx (as opposed to, say, Kxx) will usually alleviate that concern, but it is not entirely irrelevant.

In one partnership I use 3N to show this kind of responding hand: 15-17 with 3 card support and a 4333.. altho the system notes say a 4 card minor.

I don't think I'd reach slam:

1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♦ 3♥


would be my start: we prefer to use the 3♦ as the default here, to allow for a slightly more space-effective auction while preserving the integrity of the 3♥ rebid... not perfect, but all treatments here require some compromise.

Now opener has an interesting valuation issue: the J10 ♠ are interesting, the red suit holdings are good, but the ♣ holding is poor. Responder's sequence suggests mild slam interest, so maybe we have to bid 3N and over 4♣ 4♦ and then over 4♥ pass. So I think that is how my auction would go... with both players making tries but neither quite having enough to go beyond game.

Of course, as usual, knowing both hands makes this kind of construction of dubious value.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

depending on your FSF agreements, and it seems
you play similar than mine, partners bid over 3H
is either 3NT or 4H.

Since he went through FSF, and since 3H did
not promise a 6 card suit (at least in style),
4H shows real support and hence add. values,
or if the rebid was 3NT instead, it shows the
club stopper and a strong NT.
More less what responder has got.

Over 3NT or 4H opener can pass or bid 4NT either
as quantitative or as RKCB.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[sceptic]

I have a question,

why should I bid 1spade (I never thought about 2spades as a bid) when we have a fit, surely showing the fit is the most important thing. if we dont have a 4/4 spade fit, I may have to bid hearts and we may be to high for pard to know I have 3 not 2 as a preference (or am I in danger of thinking to much here)

also the 2/1 non suit creates a GF and leaves room open to get to the right spot (which I am not sure I did)

also after pard had shown AK diamonds I thought slam was at worse 50% on a finese, was this wrong assumption also?

I would be interested in the statistics for 1 heart opener and pard having 3 card heart support and both pards having 4 spades each, how often you actually miss the 4/4 spade fit with a 5/3 heart fit

[mike777]

6H? Heck I would not even get to 4H.

1h=3nt=p

[kenrexford]

First, I'm not so pessimistic about the viability of the heart slam. Sure, a spade lead forces a slightly less than 50-50 slam. However, a non-spade lead allows a make if diamond cooperate and the club Ace is well-placed. If diamonds do not cooperate, and the club Ace is well-placed, you can either ditch the diamond and hope for a spade finesse working or ditch a spade and try for a spade King ruff-out, depending upon your feel. Jx of clubs in Opener's hand is also possible, as is the diamond Jack.

All that said, perhaps 6NT is superior, to protect against the damaging spade lead. This is not likely to be a slam based upon ruffing values.

A second point is worth note. If 2/1 GF is in effect, the cuebidding makes sense up to a point. I'm not sure what partner's failure to cue 2NT meant. If it promised good trumps, then it seems that 3♠ was wrong. It seems that you partner should have cuebid 3♥, showing the third heart top honor and implying a spade control (Opener declined to cuebid 2♠, so you must have a spade control), implying a club control (same reasoning), and implying that at least one of these is first-round (same reasoning).

A third note, as to general style. I also agree with Kevin Bathurst, a fine player that I had the pleasure of knowing when he was a bridge puppy and even teaming with, that 2♣ is the call here. The "problem" with 2♣ is in getting to spades when that is right. This only materializes when Opener has four spades and does not bid 2♠ after 2♣. That only occurs in a few possible circumstances -- the direct raise of clubs and a temporizing 2♥ call if 2♠ shows extras. If tools do not exist to work out the spade fit after these alternatives, then you might include 5NT as choice between hearts and spades, but I have not seen this problem materialize.

[kenrexford]

Just a further note on the "working it out" alternative when Opener temporizes with 2♥ to not show extra strength. Responder can now bid 2♠. Opener will raise spades if the 4-4 fit is found. If not, he will bid 2NT, make a delayed raise of clubs, or introduce diamonds (the new minor). If, after any of these, 3♥ is agreed to definitely agree hearts, then no space is lost. The down-side is loss of a cuebid in partner's suit after a club delayed raise, when a diamond cuebid is not possible.

The question, then, is whether assurance of extra values for a 1♥-2min-2♠ auction is more critical than the ability to show honor-doubleton in hearts after a delayed raise of clubs, when Responder also lacks a diamond card.

Personally, I support the Bathurst-Lall solution, but it seems to be a close call.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 16 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

I don't think I'd reach slam:

1♥ 1♠
2♦ 3♣
3♦ 3♥


would be my start: we prefer to use the 3♦ as the default here, to allow for a slightly more space-effective auction while preserving the integrity of the 3♥ rebid... not perfect, but all treatments here require some compromise.

Now opener has an interesting valuation issue: the J10 ♠ are interesting, the red suit holdings are good, but the ♣ holding is poor. Responder's sequence suggests mild slam interest, so maybe we have to bid 3N and over 4♣ 4♦ and then over 4♥ pass. So I think that is how my auction would go... with both players making tries but neither quite having enough to go beyond game.

Of course, as usual, knowing both hands makes this kind of construction of dubious value.

Up to this point, I don't think opener know about the fit yet? I suppose responder would bid the same with a 5233 with Hx in hearts and no (or no good) club stopper. AK9xx Kx Qxx Qxx or similar. So I don't see how opener can bid 3N, I would just bid 4H here as a (pretty final) suggestion to play there.

Arend

[Codo]

There is no need to bid 3 Heart with a 5233. You can bid 3 Spade, can´t you?

And about the chances for slam: spade finesse and hearts not 5-0 behind opener. What do you need more? This makes about 49.5 % of all times, which isn´t too bad. But of course 6 NT is much better and will make quite often. It just needs a spade lead... well just little more :-)

[whereagles]

Skipping the spades was a gamble that traded the spade suit for simplicity.

Was it a good gamble? Probably, because I cannot give opener a hand where 6/7♠ plays better than 6/7♥

Now, as for what might have happened had opener had a few clubs and bid 3♣...

[sceptic]

Quote

Now, as for what might have happened had opener had a few clubs and bid 3♣

then I bid 3hearts ( which agrees 3 heart support) which after my 2/1 game forcing bid, shows a stronger hand than bidding 4 hearts and we can then perhaps have a little bit of cuebidding i.e. 4!D which may tempt me to bid 4 spades or try a 4nt bid

3nt would not be to play with two fits, it would show serious slam interest (dam I hope that is right ) and a cue bid would show just some interest in slam

[Wackojack]

sceptic, on Oct 17 2006, 07:35 AM, said:

Quote

Now, as for what might have happened had opener had a few clubs and bid 3♣

then I bid 3hearts ( which agrees 3 heart support) which after my 2/1 game forcing bid, shows a stronger hand than bidding 4 hearts and we can then perhaps have a little bit of cuebidding i.e. 4!D which may tempt me to bid 4 spades or try a 4nt bid

3nt would not be to play with two fits, it would show serious slam interest (dam I hope that is right ) and a cue bid would show just some interest in slam

For the record I take that a raise of 2♣ to 3♣ shows some extra values. This is to help responder to determine whether to bypass 3nt in search of a slam. So after:
1♥ 2♣
3♣ 3♥

3♠ = control A or K
3NT = command to cue bid but denies spade control
4♣ = no spade or diamond control, (unlikely after 3♣)
4♦ = diamond control, no spade control

Presumably responder can never make this 3-card 2/1 bid with 4 spades unless he has 3-card support for hearts, so responder's rebid of 3♥ guarantees 3. There is still a risk (albeit small) in getting into a inferior 5-3 6♥ contract to a better 4-4 6♣ contract when responder does hold 4 clubs and 3 hearts.

Also I agree that 6♥ is not such a good slam and that if partner decides to take the plunge in slam should consider protecting his ♠AQ by bidding 6NT

[bid_em_up]

Wackojack, on Oct 17 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

For the record I take that a raise of 2♣ to 3♣ shows some extra values.  This is to help responder to determine whether to bypass 3nt  in search of a slam.

Huh?

So, you are saying that if you hold AQxxx Kx xx Kxxx and partner bids 2♣ that you do not raise to 3♣ showing fit unless you have better values??

[cherdano]

Codo, on Oct 17 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

There is no need to bid 3 Heart with a 5233. You can bid 3 Spade, can´t you?

As opener has denied 3 spades, I would bid 3H with Hx and non-solid spades, and 3S otherwise.

[ArcLight]

>So, you saying that if you hold AQxxx Kx xx Kxxx and partner bids 2♣ that you do not raise to 3♣ showing fit unless you have better values??


From the Mike Lawrence CD on 2/1 he says that raising responders minor shows more than a minimum. You can rebid your suit instead.

[mikeh]

There is, understandably, a lot of reference to various authors and books/publications as if they were ultimate authorities. In reality, if you watch the best pairs in the world, you will see a broad range of approaches to bidding issues: the only real common denominator is that the top pairs have integrated their methods into a whole rather than adopting by rote certain approaches to specific sequences.

Thus there is nothing 'wrong' with raising 2♣ to 3♣ with AQxxx Kx xx Kxxx: many (including me) would treat that opening hand as having gained in value opposite a 2/1 GF 2♣: I have 4 controls and an LTC of only 6: a minimum would be 3 controls and an LTC of 7: say AQJxx QJx xx Kxx: more hcp but a worse hand. That hand, for me, would be a 2♠ rebid.

Most of the top players don't write books, so we see a relatively narrow range of expert opinion in the texts, altho togive Mike Lawrence credit, he often discusses variants in his books and he is one of the finest writers.

[neilkaz]

I have no problem with establishing the low level game force and then showing 3 card ♥ support, but bypassing 4NT risks finding opener holding every missing high card except two aces.

[sceptic]

Quote

I have no problem with establishing the low level game force and then showing 3 card ♥ support, but bypassing 4NT risks finding opener holding every missing high card except two aces.

My pard had denied a spade control and a club control and he had shown the AK diamonds so he must have the A heats so there was never a danger that we were missing two aces, I do not see your point here with the original bidding and I took a view that he had teh Q hearts also as he is a pretty reliable partner and would not cue both diamonds on a minimum opener