[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     3♦    Dbl
 Pass  4♦    Pass  4♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

playing with a pick up p sayc std carding no real agreements, p seemed pleasant and a reasonable player

how would you bid this, I bid 4 diamonds btw

[Walddk]

It's very difficult to get to the top spots: 6NT and 6♣. The heart slam needs trumps to break, but it's still ok to bid it.

I wouldn't have bid 4♦ with your hand. That would imply equal length in the majors in my book. A jump to 4♥ is what the hand is worth, and after that it's not easy to stop South.

Even over 4♦ South could have done a little more; perhaps 5♦ to show both majors and a very strong hand. If that's enough for North to leap to the heart slam I don't know though.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

I echo Roland that it is a very tough assignment to get to 6NT.

3D opening was aggressive vul against not but worked well.
Double of 3D was impeccable.

There are various ways of playing the 4D cue bid. They all include the very strong hand (which this isn't); but other than that there are two popular treatments:

i) It promises the majors
ii) It promises two places to play

I play the second, which is I think about equally popular worldwide and with that style 4D is impeccable: you will pass 4S and bid 5C over 4S showing hearts and clubs.

In a regular partnership it's a good idea to know which version you play: if 4D shows the majors a doubler with 5 spades and 4 hearts will bid spades; if it shows any two suits the doubler must bid hearts.

Yes, South probably should have done something more than just bid 4H - any mild move will get to slam as North knows he has a good hand. And playing treatment (ii) above will get to the right slam: 4D - 5D - 6C (implying 5 clubs & a 4-card major & accepting the slam try).

But in the overall context of hands we see posted on BBO I don't think playing your cold slam in game in the wrong denomination ( ) was a terrible mistake; both hands were maximum for their actions.

[whereagles]

(3♦) dbl (pass) 4♦
(pass) 6♥

seems like ok bidding to me. Hard to invite to 7 without messing up the auction, so I'll just settle for 6.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

(3♦) dbl (pass) 4♦
(pass) 6♥

seems like ok bidding to me. Hard to invite to 7 without messing up the auction, so I'll just settle for 6.

You have raised another issue: how much partner needs to cue in this auction. This has been covered repeatedly in these fora, but the general view is that partner will strain to cuebid on any hand marginally worth game in order to play in the right suit.

For example, I think most people would think their hand easily worth 4D on

Jxxx
KQxx
xx
Axx

OK, that's a slightly unfortunate mirror, how about

QJxxx
KQxx
Qx
Jx

I think the North hand has something extra (certainly I would have bid 4D, showing any two suits, on

xxx
Kxxx
x
AJ10xx

though that is a minimum)

[mikeh]

I agree with Roland and with Frances.... and not at all with whereagles.

One point to watch for: there will be hands for north that are on the cusp of forcing to game or settling for bidding 3Major, holding both majors... and the concern that the doubler will not always hold at least 4=4 in the majors: thus a guess of 3 of a major runs the risk of finding the wrong suit. On hands with this or similar issues, which have appeared periodically in publications such as the Bridge World over the years, there is a strong trend, in the expert community, to choose the overbid of the cue-bid in order to get to the best denomination: many experts prefer to play a level too high in the right suit than at the right level in the wrong suit: because being in the right suit often affords additional play options, and even when both are wrong, being in the right suit is usually less expensive.

This is a long-winded way of explaining that S, altho having an excellent hand, should not assume that North has the equivalent of a full opening hand for the cue-bid.... this is one reason that forcing to slam is ill-advised.

Edit: I see that Frances got here while I was typing my post... I agree as much with her second post as with her first

[whereagles]

Mikeh, note that I said "I can't invite to 7 without messing up the auction". If there's a bid to invite to 6 without messing up, that bid can also be used to invite to 7. Hence, if such bid doesn't exist, you're left off guessing whether to bid 4 or 6, and I assume, from what you said, that you'll just bid 4♥ despite the 20 hcp.

Frances: making up hands is easy. I can play the same game make up a few min cues which offer good play for 6. The question is what is AVERAGE hand for the cue, and I believe that average is good enough for slam.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Frances: making up hands is easy. I can play the same game make up a few min cues which offer good play for 6. The question is what is AVERAGE hand for the cue, and I believe that average is good enough for slam.

I appreciate that. I was trying to say that I believe the average is not good enough for slam, and that this is probably because we disagree what a minimum looks like.

[Walddk]

If I have the right singleton with 5-5 for example, I don't need much for 4♦.

Kxxxx
Kxxxx
x
xx

Game has play (and is sometimes even cold) opposite many minimum take-out doubles.

Roland

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

Mikeh, note that I said "I can't invite to 7 without messing up the auction". If there's a bid to invite to 6 without messing up, that bid can also be used to invite to 7. Hence, if such bid doesn't exist, you're left off guessing whether to bid 4 or 6, and I assume, from what you said, that you'll just bid 4♥ despite the 20 hcp.

Frances: making up hands is easy. I can play the same game make up a few min cues which offer good play for 6. The question is what is AVERAGE hand for the cue, and I believe that average is good enough for slam.

Worrying about 7, as South in response to the 4♦ cue, is silly. South has a hand that is worth inviting small slam: if North has the hand that makes grand good opposite these cards, North will take care of business. Note that QJx KQ32 x AJ10xx does not make for a good grand in ♥, since the odds of a 4-1 or worse trump break are increased by the preempt.... obviously 7N is laydown, but I defy anyone to find that contract by a plausible at the table auction..... Italian World champions need not respond, but I won't believe anyone else

As for S showing extras, in my view, he must. Allowing for the possibility that N has stretched to cue, as per my earlier post (and Frances' second post), S is still too strong to subside in game. I think Frances was of the view that 5♦ was about right... and I agree.

Now, this raises a question of interpretation. Should the re-cue merely ask responder to suggest a trump suit... bearing the connotation that S will not pass but will either suggest another suit or raise.. or should it mean what both Frances (I think) and I intend: a suggestion that S has significant extra values, fits whatever suit or suits N has in mind, and is a try for small slam?

I think that on balance, it should mean the latter. With a strong 1-suiter, South can jump.... bear in mind that the sequence of double and then showing a one-suiter shows a very powerful, flexible hand... since a 3-level overcall is hardly a weakness bid. With a hand that will force to slam and has grand slam ambitions, S can handle anything N does if north bids AS IF S were merely inviting.

Since N was not stretching, he will happily contract for 12 tricks, but I would expect a contract of 6♥... at a high-level of theory, I would suggest 5N over 5♦, as pick-a-slam, but of course there is no way for S to bid 6♣ or 6N... and I don't think he is quite good enough to bid 6♦... which would fetch 6♥ anyway.

Is this scheme foolproof? Of course not... but preempts work because they consume bidding space... and I think the scheme makes more sense than simply saying that we can't make an intelligent, non-master-minding, partner-involving bid over 4♦.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 10 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Since N was not stretching, he will happily contract for 12 tricks, but I would expect a contract of 6♥... at a high-level of theory, I would suggest 5N over 5♦, as pick-a-slam, but of course there is no way for S to bid 6♣ or 6N... and I don't think he is quite good enough to bid 6♦... which would fetch 6♥ anyway.

We were all agreed up to this point, but I would have thought that over 5D, North has an easy 6C bid. He is, I hope, implying a two suiter with longer clubs: if he had a strong enough 1-suiter to want to cue last round, he has enough to do more than bid a slam this time!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the t/o by South is ok, although, 3NT
is also an option.

North should simply bid 4H, ... nobody knows
what 4D means, and you have a preference
with regards to the mayor.
The jump to 4H is a slight underbid, but it does
show some values.

Over 4H South can invite, he does not need to do
it, an invitation North will happily accept.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 10 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 10 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Since N was not stretching, he will happily contract for 12 tricks, but I would expect a contract of 6♥... at a high-level of theory, I would suggest 5N over 5♦, as pick-a-slam, but of course there is no way for S to bid 6♣ or 6N... and I don't think he is quite good enough to bid 6♦... which would fetch 6♥ anyway.

We were all agreed up to this point, but I would have thought that over 5D, North has an easy 6C bid. He is, I hope, implying a two suiter with longer clubs: if he had a strong enough 1-suiter to want to cue last round, he has enough to do more than bid a slam this time!

I agree with 5♦ as well as 6♣. Advancer can hardly have better cards. Frances, Mike and I all agree that North should have bid 4♥. Then 5♦ by doubler and 6♣ by advancer (Mike prefers 5NT).

I am not so sure that we will be able to play in 6♣, Frances. Like Mike I think we will end up in 6♥. People who know me can confirm that I have been in considerably worse slams.

Yes, 6♣ and 6NT are laydown, but if you can't get the one you love, you've got to love the one you get

Roland

[pclayton]

I'm OK with 4♦ or 4♥. The hand is worth a game bid, but the heart suit is pretty anemic.

4♥ is woefully inadequate. I can see either 5♦ or 5N pick a slam. 5♦ will fetch 5♥ and you'd land in 6♥. 5N might get 6♣, but how can South know to pass with KQx?

Nasty, nasty hand.

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Jan 10 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

Advancer can hardly have better cards. Frances, Mike and I all agree that North should have bid 4♥. Then 5♦ by doubler and 6♣ by advancer (Mike prefers 5NT).

I'm afraid we aren't. I think you and Mike are agreed, but I'm not certain (as Mike simply agreed with both of us!).

I agree with the 4D bid, because I use it to show two places to play, not necessarily both majors (cf the auction 1D x 3D x which I also think shows any two suits). I believe that treatment is about equally common to the promise-both-majors treatment, so with a pick-up partner all you can do is guess.

Either way, South continues with a slam try of 5D and on this particular deal I happen to get the prize.

[By using 4D as any two suits, I will play in 5C rather than 4H with
QJx
Kxxx
x
AJ10xx

AKxx
Axx
xx
Kxxx

I will find it easier to get to the right slam on deals such as this one.

By using 4D as both majors, you will play in 4S rather than 4H when partner is 54 in the majors, and you will find it easier to get to the right slam on deals where opener is, say, 3523 and knows of a big heart fit.]

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 10 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jan 10 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

Advancer can hardly have better cards. Frances, Mike and I all agree that North should have bid 4♥. Then 5♦ by doubler and 6♣ by advancer (Mike prefers 5NT).

I'm afraid we aren't. I think you and Mike are agreed, but I'm not certain (as Mike simply agreed with both of us!).

I agree with the 4D bid, because I use it to show two places to play, not necessarily both majors (cf the auction 1D x 3D x which I also think shows any two suits). I believe that treatment is about equally common to the promise-both-majors treatment, so with a pick-up partner all you can do is guess.

Either way, South continues with a slam try of 5D and on this particular deal I happen to get the prize.

[By using 4D as any two suits, I will play in 5C rather than 4H with
QJx
Kxxx
x
AJ10xx

AKxx
Axx
xx
Kxxx

I will find it easier to get to the right slam on deals such as this one.

By using 4D as both majors, you will play in 4S rather than 4H when partner is 54 in the majors, and you will find it easier to get to the right slam on deals where opener is, say, 3523 and knows of a big heart fit.]

I am rarely guilty of being too agreeable, but maybe I was here

To the extent that Roland and Frances disagree, I go with Frances (see, Roland... if you Danes would only surrender your bogus claims to Hans O, I might vote differently).

However, I rejoin Roland on the final contract. I fully appreciate the attraction of 6♣ but surely South will assume that 6 of a major will be playable and may indeed be better: we all know that on many hands a 4-4 fit will generate an extra trick compared to the 5-3 on the same hand. Plus the difference between 980 and 920 (or 1370 and 1430) is not utterly insignificant lacking a clear indication that the 1370 result is easier to obtain.

IFF (if and only if) the 4♦ 6♣ sequence promises 2 places to play, I think S will pull 6♣.

An issue that has been touched on only peripherally is whether any of us might use 4♦ 6♣ as a powerful one-suiter: i.e. 4♦ could be either two places to play, in which case we either pass doubler's game bid or we make the cheapest pull, or a powerful one-suiter, in which case we intend to bid our suit next: thus over 4♥, 5♣ would deny the 2-suiter and show a slam try with long ♣s etc.

My concern is that IF we play that approach, the 6♣ call over 5♦ is problematic... and my preference of 5N makes more sense.

Ok, now I have disagreed with both of you, and I (for one) feel relieved

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jan 10 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Now, this raises a question of interpretation. Should the re-cue merely ask responder to suggest a trump suit... bearing the connotation that S will not pass but will either suggest another suit or raise..

That's one of the points. If you know pard will take 5♦ as "pard, I have one of the suits you suggested as trumps. How good are you for a slam?" then bidding 5♦ is probably a no-brainer. I confess I don't know what my pard would make of 5♦, which is why I don't bid it

The other point is I think you probably have slightly higher requirements for the 3-level dbl than I. To me

AQJx
Axxx
x
xxxx

is enough for doubling 3♦. You'll probably require the ♥Q more. If pard can find a cue opposite a take-out dbl of this sort, then I pretty much think we're on slam territory with the original hand

[neilkaz]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 10 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Now, this raises a question of interpretation. Should the re-cue merely ask responder to suggest a trump suit... bearing the connotation that S will not pass but will either suggest another suit or raise..

That's one of the points. If you know pard will take 5♦ as "pard, I have one of the suits you suggested as trumps. How good are you for a slam?" then bidding 5♦ is probably a no-brainer. I confess I don't know what my pard would make of 5♦, which is why I don't bid it

The other point is I think you probably have slightly higher requirements for the 3-level dbl than I. To me

AQJx
Axxx
x
xxxx

is enough for doubling 3♦. You'll probably require the ♥Q more. If pard can find a cue opposite a take-out dbl of this sort, then I pretty much think we're on slam territory with the original hand

I compete as aggressively as whereagles does vs preeempts and I hope my PD's do as well and his listed hand is a fine minimal takeout for me.

Anyhow, the 4♦ response is fine and for me it is a game force and obviously suggests more than 1 place to play, unless it is a monster which will make a slam invite next.

After hearing 4♦, South has 21 support points and should be able to imagine that slam has great chances. Therefore the 4♥ bid is very weak, and I'd bid 5♦ as an invite and showing multiple places to play as well.

North then can bid 6♣ or 6♥ and south passes and that's that. South passes 6♣ with good 3 card support since N should certainly bid slam in a 4 card major before he bids it with only 4 ♣.

I don't find this hand that difficult and slam should be reached one way or the other as long as South realizes that he has plenty enough to invite.

.. neilkaz ..

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2007, 02:35 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 10 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Now, this raises a question of interpretation. Should the re-cue merely ask responder to suggest a trump suit... bearing the connotation that S will not pass but will either suggest another suit or raise..

That's one of the points. If you know pard will take 5♦ as "pard, I have one of the suits you suggested as trumps. How good are you for a slam?" then bidding 5♦ is probably a no-brainer. I confess I don't know what my pard would make of 5♦, which is why I don't bid it

The other point is I think you probably have slightly higher requirements for the 3-level dbl than I. To me

AQJx
Axxx
x
xxxx

is enough for doubling 3♦. You'll probably require the ♥Q more. If pard can find a cue opposite a take-out dbl of this sort, then I pretty much think we're on slam territory with the original hand

A classic 'straw man' argument: you state that I 'probably' need the ♥Q in addition to AQJx Axxx x xxxx in order to double, so that you can then defend my criticism of your unilateral 6♥ call over 4♦.

Nowhere did I even suggest that I needed AQJx AQxx x xxxx or the like in order to double... and I continue to assert that you have (as is almost invariably the case with your posts) chosen a bid that surely makes playing with you as a partner a frustrating exercise, since you are masterminding rather than co-operating. It may be that you truly are as inexperienced as your earlier post suggests: you saw no way of involving partner over 4♦, while other, more experienced players happily bid 5♦... or it may be that you are congenitally unable to be a partner, in the real sense of the word. Whichever it is (and I hope it is the former, since that can be cured), please don't use straw man arguments in the future.

[whereagles]

I can refute your arguments, mike. But I'm not going to bother because you lack politeness and respect for the other person.