[goobers]

---

South deals.

(By the way, I've added extra spacing to line up the suits, but the forum autocorrects this. How do you stop it from doing that?)

Edit: Put in hand diagram

[whereagles]

When you post, your textbox header has a couple of html templates to write up the hand nicely. Try one of those.

As for the bidding, try this:

1♦ 1♥
3♦ 4♦ <--- forcing
4NT 5♥
6♦

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming a system a la standard american:

1D (-) - 1H (-)
2D (1) - 2S (2)
3C (3) - 3D (4)
4D (5) - 4H (6)
4NT(7) - 5H (7)
6D

(1) one may or may not bid 3D, but I prefer
2D, if responder passes, you wont miss
anything
(2) inv.+, shows 5 hearts and a 4 card suit
or vaules
(3) 4th suit forcing, there are days I may bid
3NT, but one does hold a 7 carder, which
does not run, and a club lead is nearly 100%
(4) denies a club stopper, denies a 6 card heart suit,
shows (secondary) support, since 2D promised a
6 carder
(5) setting trumps, ... but I am not certain thats the bid
I would have made at the table
(6) cue, and opener knows, that it has to be the king
(7) RKCB for diamonds, 2 key cards, RKCB is safe,
since you can play 5D opposite 0 or 1 key card

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

goobers, on May 1 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

(By the way, I've added extra spacing to line up the suits, but the forum autocorrects this.  How do you stop it from doing that?)

When you post there are options right above the text box that let you post hand diagrams. Click on NORTHSOUTH and it comes out pretty like this

---

[Apollo81]

1♦-1♥
3♦-3♠
3NT-4♦
4♥-4NT*
5♠-6♦
all pass

[inquiry]

If you play some-sort of limited opening bids so that jump rebids of 3♦ are allowed on this type of hand, then I am very fond of Apollo's auction. If not 3♦ is an overbid. I actually allow jump rebids on such hands, but only with also 3 card heart support (which this hand lacks).

If you do not allow jump rebids to show good source of tricks and extra legnth, the hand becomes much harder to bid. Opener is forced (unless you have a gadget bid) to rebid 2♦ then responder has to make a forcing bid of some sort and all heck can break lose. The question is which gadget do you play? I think BIL type forum is not the place to discuss any of these gadgets (before or after opener rebids diamonds) or the use of a jump rebid being quite this light.

This of course, then complicates accurate slam bidding. I suggest a 2D rebid by opener, a 2S GF reverse by responder, and a jump to 4D by Opener to show great suit and extra values. I think this will propel you to slam given the extra value held by Responder, but there could be questions about the meaning of 4NT. Ideally you will arrive in 6NT by south or 6D by south.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on May 2 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

1♦-1♥
3♦-3♠
3NT-4♦
4♥-4NT*
5♠-6♦
all pass

How does responder know opener doesn't have the same hand with QJx of clubs?

I also don't care for the 3♠ bid and prefer a direct and simple raise to 4♦, forcing. Then 4♥, 4♠, and opener can use the blackwood knowing of his club control.

[goobers]

In response to Ben's post, no gadgets here, just standard bidding.

At the table, the auction went

1♦ - 1♥
3♦ - 3♠
3N - tank, pass

At the table, both players were unsure whether a direct raise from 3♦ to 4♦ would be forcing, but after some thought, it's clear that it should be.

Would it be reasonable to bid 4♦ after 3N to also indicate slam interest? Although would this would give the impression of being 4531?

[skjaeran]

Agree with Ben that the south hand isn't worth a 3♦ jump rebid.

I guess I'd bid like this:
1♦ - 1♥
2♦ - 2♠
3♦ - 4♦
4♥ - 4♠
4NT - 5♥
6♦

[mikeh]

The S hand is borderline for 3♦: the stiff ♠Q is probably not full value, but the internal texture of the (7) card suit argues for aggression. I wouldn't complain to partner if partner bid either 2 or 3♦, altho I personally think it is a 3♦ call: I would use LTC to break the tie.

After 2♦, responder has an easy 2♠, which is simply a game force, ostensibly based on ♠s. However, responder knows that there is no real likelihood of being raised here: certainly not beyond 3N. Opener might have to raise on, say AQx x AQxxxx Jxx: I think 3♠ here is best.

Anyway, that is an irrelevancy.

Should opener rebid his ♦s after 2♠?


IMO, no: he has shown 6+ in the suit already and someone has to bid notrump.

Give responder 4=5=2=2 with Kxxx KQxxx Ax xx and we are beyond 3N (I note that the form of scoring is not given: this issue is of far more importance at mps than at imps.

So:

1♦   1♥
2♦   2♠
2N   ?

Now responder has a real problem: we are beginning to see the problems arising from bidding only 2♦ with a 5 loser hand!

It is easy to say that responder should upgrade the ♦A, but what if opener held xx xx KQJxxx AQx... how would the auction be different?

And 3♦ here sounds like 2♠ was an artificial gf based on primary ♦ support, for which Ax is a little light.

If responder did decide that the hand was worth one mild try: then he continues 3♦ and now wild horses should not keep S, who has been underbidding, from driving to slam.

But I can see a lot of players bidding a simple 3N, ending the auction.

If opener rebid 3♦, which I think is correct, then slam is pretty easy, even if the partnership has no way to stop in 4N.

1♦   1♥
3♦   4♦
4♥   4♠

and several ways to go from here.

Given that this is the B/I section, I assume that most would treat 4N here as keycard (I don't... for me, 4N denies the ♣A but promises a hand too good to signoff in 5♦.. I would make this bid hoping to hear 5♣, but intending to bid 6♦ otherwise)

Responder should not take 4♥ as delayed ♥ preference: the 4♦ bid committed the partnership to ♦s or notrump.

If responder wanted to go slower, he could try 3♠ and then over 3N, either bid 4♦ or bid 4N... however, I think those choices would be errors.

3♠ then 4♦ suggests responder is bidding around the ♣ shortness, and he doesn't have the right ♣ length...

3♠ then 4N fails to give true value to the undisclosed ♦A: we know that partner's suit is now solid, but he doesn't, so he may be too pessimistic if he has stretched based on his suit (as he has). Furthermore, it devalues, for slam purposes, the internal strength of the ♥ suit.

So I think opener should rebid 3♦ and then N will make a strong slam try of 4♦, over which S, with all side suits controlled and the hard-working (opposite most slam-try responses) ♥A, will drive to slam.

[Apollo81]

Quote

Apollo81, on May 2 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

1♦-1♥
3♦-3♠
3NT-4♦
4♥-4NT*
5♠-6♦
all pass

How does responder know opener doesn't have the same hand with QJx of clubs?

He doesn't. LHO may also fail to lead from ♣Axx on this auction.

Quote

I also don't care for the 3♠ bid and prefer a direct and simple raise to 4♦, forcing. Then 4♥, 4♠, and opener can use the blackwood knowing of his club control.

The only comment I have on this is that you have opener, who has already stretched to a 3♦ bid, voluntarily both co-operating with the 4♦ slam try and then bidding Blackwood. If I were opener I would be thinking I want out of this auction unless partner can drive to slam himself. Of course the ♥A should also be a good card so I'd have mixed feelings. I'm not saying you're wrong about what opener should bid after 4♦, but not bidding as you suggest would be an easy mistake for a lot of people to make.

[mikegill]

4h shows a club control by inference. Responder didn't pull 3N to 4c, which would be a diamond slam try also - he can't be bidding clubs naturally here. So responder denied a club control with his 4d bid, and opener wouldn't be cooperating with any slam tries if he didn't have one himself.

[mikeh]

Apollo81, on May 2 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

The only comment I have on this is that you have opener, who has already stretched to a 3♦ bid, voluntarily both co-operating with the 4♦ slam try and then bidding Blackwood. If I were opener I would be thinking I want out of this auction unless partner can drive to slam himself. Of course the ♥A should also be a good card so I'd have mixed feelings. I'm not saying you're wrong about what opener should bid after 4♦, but not bidding as you suggest would be an easy mistake for a lot of people to make.

I think you are wrong in this comment, and that it is a common error.

Yes, 3♦ reflects an aggressive evaluation of our hand, but we make the evaluation because we are optimistic about our hand. We then hear partner make just about the strongest move he can make, short of either bidding keycard or just blasting some slam. This is GOOD news, not bad news... it means that partner has working cards over there, and that we have probably made the right decision with 3♦.

Moreover, and critically, we are looking at every suit controlled! This is a key asset for aggressive slam bidding.. and we can infer that partner may not have that same luxury.

If we decide to make an aggressive move, and catch a strong response, it should be a rare hand on which we switch to pessimisim until and unless the auction tells us that we have reached our maximum level.

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on May 2 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

I think you are wrong in this comment, and that it is a common error.

Which part was wrong?

Quote

The only comment I have on this is that you have opener, who has already stretched to a 3♦ bid, voluntarily both co-operating with the 4♦ slam try and then bidding Blackwood.

This was just a fact.

Quote

If I were opener I would be thinking I want out of this auction unless partner can drive to slam himself.  Of course the ♥A should also be a good card so I'd have mixed feelings.

I submit that I'm the only one that can read my mind. I never claimed that this was the right thought.

Quote

I'm not saying you're wrong about what opener should bid after 4♦, but not bidding as you suggest would be an easy mistake for a lot of people to make.

We agreed right? Failing to bid 4♥ would be an easy mistake for a lot of people to make.

[jdonn]

I think the way I would have worded the point Mike was trying to make is this. If we bid 3♦ and partner bids 3NT, it's entirely possible that could go down if any outside suit is just stopped once. They knock out the stopper, win the ace of diamonds, and run the suit. In other words, 3♦ is an aggressive bid because in a sense we have a bad hand for game in context.

However, it's a great hand for slam. The 7th diamond, which probably has almost no impact on the chances to make 3NT, is often crucial for slam, perhaps being the 12th trick and often letting us ruff two hearts in our hand to set up the 5th one without losing control. Moreover as he said, we have every suit controlled.

So our 'aggressive' 3♦ bid was aggressive it's a bad hand for game. However, it's a great hand for slam, so once partner shows slam interest I don't think I'm on the light side any more, just the opposite I am now quite proud of my hand.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 2 2007, 03:09 PM, said:

I think the way I would have worded the point Mike was trying to make is this. If we bid 3♦ and partner bids 3NT, it's entirely possible that could go down if any outside suit is just stopped once. They knock out the stopper, win the ace of diamonds, and run the suit. In other words, 3♦ is an agressive bid because in a sense we have a bad hand for game in context.

However, it's a great hand for slam. The 7th diamond, which probably has almost no impact on the chances to make 3NT, is often crucial for slam, perhaps being the 12th trick and often letting us ruff two hearts in our hand to set up the 5th one without losing control. Moreover as he said, we have every suit controlled.

So our 'agressive' 3♦ bid was agressive it's a bad hand for game. However, it's a great hand for slam, so once partner shows slam interest I don't think I'm on the light side any more, just the opposite I am now quite proud of my hand.

Thx, Josh: that is a good paraphrase of the point I was trying to make. I am sorry of I upset Appollo, either by misunderstanding his post or by poor wording of my post. Having made the aggressive call, partner's slam move retro-actively justified the bid, and my call is no longer, in context, so aggressive that I should be trying to get out of the auction.

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on May 2 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

I am sorry of I upset Apollo

I wasnt upset, just distracting myself from programming at your (and my own) expense =) No hard feelings