[mikeh]

While I am a big supporter of making game tries that later become revealed as slam tries, I don't see any suit in the south hand that warrants such treatment. To me, an ostensible game try converted to a slam try shows a control in the suit bid, so I don't have a try available. Thus 3♣, intending to move towards slam if partner gets excited, should (for me) show at least the ♣K: i routinely bid the more convenient control rather than the cheapest 1st round.

In addition, look again at the South hand: it has soft, soft values outside the trump suit. I just don't see how the south hand can make a move.

The north hand is a little different: it has a LTC of only 6: which translates into an upgrade: the typical LTC for a minimum opening hand is 7. (Interestingly, the S hand also has a LTC of 6, and this shows that the LTC is a useful guide on this hand: the combined LTC of 12 suggests that NS can make 12 tricks (subtract the combined LTC form 24 to derive the expected trick taking potential of the hand).

I can see North stretching to bid 3♥... but I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it if there had been no takeout double and the presence of the double (implying some ♥ length) combined with my poor spots would persuade me to bid only 2♥.

So I'd chalk this one up under the 'unbiddable by me' category.

[HeartA]

I would certainly bid 3D.

[mcphee]

I like the raise to 2H as I am not so good in C with bad trumps. I might miss a game some days which is thin. How can it be so terrible to have a bit extra? I would not be unhappy if partner bid 3H with this either.

Once the table bidding went pass after 2H I think slam is not unreasonable to reach.
1C x 1H 2D
2H* P 3C P 3C is game forcing
4D splinter should allow the pair to reach 6H .

[awm]

In a way, this hand might be a very subtle loss for the style of responding very light to partner's opening bids.

Justin gave the example of a balanced 19 for opener, with four card hearts. Playing relatively sound one-level responses it's perfectly reasonable to force game on this hand. You have 25+ high after all and a major suit fit. But seeing some of the hands Justin (and a lot of other people) respond to 1m on, it seems like there may be benefits to being able to get out in 3♥ opposite the balanced 19. The super-light response may be unlikely a priori, but given that opener has 19 and his RHO is bidding at the two-level in a live auction, the odds have to go up substantially.

But then either your 3♥ rebids or (slight better) your 2♥ rebids are going to be extremely wide-ranging. There's a big range of hands between a balanced 11 that most of us open and a balanced 19, including a variety of shapely hands as well as the balanced ones.

Playing a fairly sound response style, it seems reasonable to play that 2♥ shows "at best a balanced 14," force game with a balanced 18-19 and four trumps, and let 3♥ show a distributional hand that you evaluate as "better than a balanced 14 but not as good as a balanced 18" (typically 13-15 with a singleton and four trumps). In this case bidding 3♥ on the actual north hand is pretty reasonable.

[mike777]

What hand type does 1c=1h=3d show? I assume 1c=1h=4d shows a much bigger hand than this one?

[mikeh]

mcphee, on Dec 6 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

I like the raise to 2H as I am not so good in C with bad trumps. I might miss a game some days which is thin. How can it be so terrible to have a bit  extra? I would not be unhappy if partner bid 3H with this either.

Once the table bidding went pass after 2H I think slam is not unreasonable to reach.
1C  x  1H  2D
2H* P  3C  P    3C is game forcing
4D splinter should allow the pair to reach 6H .

Since when is 3♣ game forcing???? As a rule, all new suit bids at a level that does not yet commit to game are (unless the force is already established) a try for game. This principle is often described as 'game before slam'.

3♣ can become, retroactively, a slam try if responder bids again over a 3♥ signoff... and on the given hand, opener will probably jump to 4♦ over 3♣.

So slam is biddable after that start, but I really don't see why responder would be making a slam try with such soft values. As Justin has observed, opener may be fatally mislead by such a move. This is a magic fit: not a single wasted card and even so, it is hardly cold if we show a ♣ fit and we have an alert opening leader with Axxx in ♣.

[kenrexford]

I must admit that I love when it gets heated, so long as it stays a friendly heated debate like it has so far.

Another take on this. Responder lacks a great suit himself, obviously. But, he has five expected cover cards. He needs partner to have a six-loser hand. 2♥ does not seem to exclude a six-loser hand.

3♣ shows game or slam interest. The minimum for slam interest seems to be five covers. He has this.

3♦ is either a cuebid for slam purposes or a game last train bid. If 3♦ commits the partnership to game, then 3♥ is right, as it is not passable and shows good trumps (KQ or better). If 3♦ is game last train, however, then 3♥ is passable and not an option.

After 3♦, then, 3NT shows "serious interest," with trump solidity acceptable as the only feature beyond five covers justifying serious slam interest. The failure to cue spades denies the Ace or King of spades. The failure to cue 4♣ denies a second club top honor. The failure to cue 4♦ denies a reciprocal diamond control (as did the failure to initially Splinter). Thus, Opener can expect AKQ of trumps, A/K/Q of clubs, and the Queen of spades, with two+ diamonds. That is also insufficient for slam interest, so a fifth heart seems obvious as well. Amazingly, the exact hand is on the table. Thus, it seems that the tools do exist.

I also will admit that the sequence might help the opponents find a good lead, perhaps by bolstering a weak suggestion already there. If this were matchpoints, the overtrick jeopardy might dissuade a slam probe, as I have repeatedly mentioned. But, my personal feeling is that the slam will be missed more than the game set, at IMP's.

A final note. I don't think that arguing a position suggests that I think I am God. God does not have to explain his thinking -- it is taken as authoritative because it is God speaking. That being said, when a simple auction with reasonable rules will exactly describe your hand, such that partner can make an intelligent partnership decision, suggesting this auction seems like a good response to the posted question. The second part of the question -- is this auction more likely to find a slam or more likely to place the game in jeopardy -- is best left to people like Inquiry who can run simulations. My judgment call that I think the gains of a slam probe outweigh the cost risks is without any data support and is just that -- a judgment call of another guy who plays bridge.

[kenrexford]

Note also that Opener will not go astray with Kx of diamonds if he understands the parameters of why 3NT shows what I described as it logically showing.

[bid_em_up]

Change the layout to this:

Scoring: IMP

---

and tell me if you still want to be in this slam.

And the 3♣ game try is certainly likely to tip LHO to leading the A♣ and another, expecting partner to ruff.

And after you go down, do you:

a) Cry?

b ) Chalk it up to bad luck?

c) Think, damn that club lead. If only I hadnt bid 3C.

d) Think, well if partner had just held the club Ace instead of the king. (Playing for a similar but different perfect hand).

e) Wonder if maybe you should have just stopped in game?

f) Get passed in your serious 3N bid? Man, wouldn't that be funny. (I am not certain that this would be serious 3N here, you may only be on an 8 card fit as far as partner is concerned).

Hmmmm.

Personally, the only sequence that can think of that MIGHT get you to 6H is if opener slightly overvalues his hand and cuebids 3♦ over 2♦ on his playing strength. However, I would expect that normally this bid would also include the
A♣ in his hand.

[awm]

To see the issue with wide-ranging 2♥ bids, take a responder hand like:

xxx
AKxxx
xxx
xx

Most of us would pass after 1♣-1♥-2♥ with these cards right? After all opener could have something like:

AKx
Qxxx
xx
Kxxx

Not a particularly bad opening hand, but even 3♥ is below 50% to make.

Of course, if opener also rebids 2♥ with the example hand:

AKJT
xxxx
-
Kxxxx

we can see that game is quite high percentage, needing only one of ♣A onside, ♠Q onside, or ♥ breaking 2-2 (okay if ♥ are 4-0 you need both finesses on).

Of course if the example hand is 3♥ and so is:

AKxx
Qxxx
Ax
KQJx

then give responder a hand like:

xxx
AKxx
xxx
xxx

You can see that to make game opposite the distributional jump raise, you need the club finesse and hearts 3-2 and quite possibly also the spade finesse. Opposite the 19-point hand you need substantially less (basically hearts 3-2 will do it, with some additional chances to discard the spade loser if clubs behave).

[kenrexford]

A small lead to the Ace of clubs and back seems remote, as it requires in the example an 8-count for the takeout double. I suppose you could ask...

Also, by definitional agreements, my partners have agreed that the only auction to stop at 3NT after a major fit is agreed, non-forcing, at the two-level is after a 2NT general game try. So, passing 3NT is not an option (unless partner violates for good cause).

[cherdano]

awm, on Dec 6 2006, 07:43 PM, said:

To see the issue with wide-ranging 2♥ bids, take a responder hand like:

xxx
AKxxx
xxx
xx

Well, when you have a void and bad trumps, one example hand proves even less than usual. It is always easy to construct hands where partner has good trumps (and a 5th one here) and no diamond wastage, where game is excellent and will be missed by 2H (and where opponents only bid 2♦ with a pure 10-card fit), and hands with mediocre trumps, diamond wastage, where you will go down in 3H or 4H or 6H after a 3H jump.

[the hog]

bid_em_up, on Dec 7 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

Change the layout to this:

Scoring: IMP

---

and tell me if you still want to be in this slam.

And the 3♣ game try is certainly likely to tip LHO to leading the A♣ and another, expecting partner to ruff.

And after you go down, do you:

a) Cry?

b ) Chalk it up to bad luck?

c) Think, damn that club lead. If only I hadnt bid 3C.

d) Think, well if partner had just held the club Ace instead of the king. (Playing for a similar but different perfect hand).

e) Wonder if maybe you should have just stopped in game?

f) Get passed in your serious 3N bid? Man, wouldn't that be funny. (I am not certain that this would be serious 3N here, you may only be on an 8 card fit as far as partner is concerned).

Hmmmm.

Personally, the only sequence that can think of that MIGHT get you to 6H is if opener slightly overvalues his hand and cuebids 3♦ over 2♦ on his playing strength. However, I would expect that normally this bid would also include the
A♣ in his hand.

Good grief man, of course I want to be in slam. So I get a C lead and the slam goes off - tough luck. This is an excellent slam.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Only one side uses logic? Citing a world champion player to support a viewpoint is a bad idea?

If only one side was using logic, why discuss the matter?

We have different 'opinions', several people have joined in 'on both sides' so opinions do vary. Your opinion(and mine) may not always be the correct one.

I mentioned almost four decades of going over bridge hands, I mentioned two world champions appear to share my general style of bidding in this area.

If I am not using logic, why did I respond to your suggestion to examine 'six years' worth of bridge hands 'by saying that I have gone over bridge hands for almost 40 years?' I use logic and still come up with a different opinion than yours.

Justin is merely a very good young player 'that posts on this forum' and is fairly well known(at least on this forum anyway) If anyone suggested that either Justin or kenrexford were God, that suggestion might set back religion by several thousand years.

Best regards,
Robert