[awm]

♠98xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣Kx

Partner opens 1♦, I bid 1♠, partner rebids 2♣ and I correct to 2♦.

Now partner bids 3♣.

Scoring is matchpoints (ACBL tourney). Partner is a good player but tends a bit to the conservative side in his bidding. What should be my next call?

[Fluffy]

I voted for 3♦, but I counted only 2 kings somehow. With the given han I would try 3♥, I am thinking about slam.

[rogerclee]

I like 4♠ the most, a slam try with no spade waste. 3♥ seems like the only other serious alternative, but I think this might obscure later bidding, so I would rather just say what I have to say immediately. I will move to slam over anything but 5♦ by partner.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jan 6 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

I like 4♠ the most, a slam try with no spade waste. 3♥ seems like the only other serious alternative, but I think this might obscure later bidding, so I would rather just say what I have to say immediately. I will move to slam over anything but 5♦ by partner.

The Bluhmer, or Empathetic Splinter. I agree.

[mike777]

3h

[Echognome]

rogerclee, on Jan 6 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

I like 4♠ the most, a slam try with no spade waste. 3♥ seems like the only other serious alternative, but I think this might obscure later bidding, so I would rather just say what I have to say immediately. I will move to slam over anything but 5♦ by partner.

4♠ is great if it is interpreted as a Bluhmer. I'm not sure if it would be.

[whereagles]

I've underbid with 2♦ the round before and pard, a conservative player, persisted with 3♣??

6♦, on the spot. More worried of missing out on 7 than going down in 6.

Sure, a bluhmer is ok if pard gets it (but isn't a bluhmer in 4♥??). Or 4♦ if pard takes it as forcing.

[Fluffy]

Agree with gnome

[awm]

It seems at least possible that responder might have five good (or six bad) spades and want to offer a choice of games in this sequence. Of course, maybe that hand bids 3♠ and not 4♠. But it doesn't seem completely obvious to me that 4♠ isn't "please choose 4♠ or 5♦ depending on your spade holding."

[mikeh]

awm, on Jan 6 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

It seems at least possible that responder might have five good (or six bad) spades and want to offer a choice of games in this sequence. Of course, maybe that hand bids 3♠ and not 4♠. But it doesn't seem completely obvious to me that 4♠ isn't "please choose 4♠ or 5♦ depending on your spade holding."

Depends on who partner is I've known about Bluhmers for years, and so have my partners (I think) because we all subscribe(d) to The Bridge World, but I have never made one, never even seen or heard of one being made in the real world.

So, while I believe that bridge logic makes 4♠ unmistakably the correct call, my own style is to bid something else and ask partner later how he would have construed 4♠.. if he says 'oh, a slam try with no spade values', I will apologize.

On the hand, I bid 3♥, then make another move if room is available... probably via a club cue. I think that that approach will slowly do what a Bluhmer would do quickly.

Of course, maybe a pickup partner would take this as a moderate 5=5=3=0, too weak to inflict a 4SF 2♥ call? Nah...

PS I don't think that I have underbid to the posted point in the auction.

[RichMor]

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

When responder makes a simple preference instead of rebidding his first suit
and
opener continues over responder's simple preference
then
responder's first-suit rebids are forcing and suggest playability in opener's suits.

Sort of like
1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠
where responder had a chance to rebid 2♠ on round 2 but didn't.

Not standard practice probably but sort of logical.

[kenrexford]

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

When responder makes a simple preference instead of rebidding his first suit
and
opener continues over responder's simple preference
then
responder's first-suit rebids are forcing and suggest playability in opener's suits.

Sort of like
1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠
where responder had a chance to rebid 2♠ on round 2 but didn't.

Not standard practice probably but sort of logical.

Makes a lot of sense, actually.

[Apollo81]

I would bid 3♥ because I am sure partner will not pass it, and I may get some good information out of partner via his next call.

[jdonn]

I like 4♠ and expect my partners to understand it. It leaves partner in a perfect position to simply bid blackwood even if he is void in spades. 3♥ or 4♦ would probably work fine but since I have an extremely descriptive bid available I can't imagine why I wouldn't use it (unless I was worried partner wouldn't get it.)

[jdonn]

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump.

[RichMor]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump.

'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ?

What would they look like ?

[skjaeran]

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump.

'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ?

What would they look like ?

A strong 4-card suit. And empty or near empty hearts. Probing for 3NT. Maybe something like KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Jan 7 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump.

'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ?

What would they look like ?

A strong 4-card suit. And empty or near empty hearts. Probing for 3NT. Maybe something like KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx

Sure, or 5 card suit. AQxxx xxx Qx JTx. It's not that you want to play in spades, it's that you are describing your hand so partner can know what to do, such as bidding 3NT.

Likewise 3♥ points to a spade weakness IMO.

[RichMor]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jan 7 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

RichMor, on Jan 7 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ?

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump.

'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ?

What would they look like ?

A strong 4-card suit. And empty or near empty hearts. Probing for 3NT. Maybe something like KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx

Sure, or 5 card suit. AQxxx xxx Qx JTx. It's not that you want to play in spades, it's that you are describing your hand so partner can know what to do, such as bidding 3NT.

Likewise 3♥ points to a spade weakness IMO.

The original auction was:
1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
3♣ - ?

I don't think the example hand KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx is a simple preference to 2♦.
AQxxx xx Qx JTx is.

In any case, opener could have bid something other than 3♣ with some Heart values. And responder can bid 3♥ or even 3NT over 3♣ with some Heart values.

So bidding 3♠ to 'show where we live' seems attractive at first but what does it gain? Bidding 3♠ to show values in pard's suits is probably less frequent but more useful.

[awm]

Partner's actual hand:

♠x ♥Ax ♦AQJTx ♣AQTxx

Slam in diamonds is quite good. 3NT will make ten tricks in practice most of the time because the opponents are not that likely to lead spades.

At the table I was sure that slam was a possibility, but partner would certainly bid the same way with any 2-1 combination in the majors including one ace. Slam is not very good opposite any other such combination. It wasn't clear to me what the best way was to investigate so I blasted 5♦ for about a 40% board.