[jdonn]

ATB on each problem. Feel free to assign as much as you want to bad luck or no blame, I'll feel better!

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (3♦) 4♦
4♥ all pass

---

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (3♦) 4♦
4♥ all pass

---

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (3♦) 4♦
4♥ all pass

---

On the last one, 2♠ is a strong jump shift, 2NT was artificial and essentially forced (south could have bid a natural 3♣ instead but chose not to due to lack of discussion) 4♣ showed 4+ spades and hearts with 9+ total (4-5 ok either way) (and yes I can see that isn't exactly what he holds in this case) and a club void. Over 2NT, 3♥ 3♠ and 3NT are all natural, other bids show shortness with heart support. There was no discussion beyond that so 5♣ was just a cuebid.

[MarkDean]

First one, I think it is mostly bad luck: the hands fit rather well. I would guess that if I had sat both N and S, I would have bid the same way, but felt slightly uncomfortable in each case.

Second one, I definitely agree with South's bid, and I am quite conservative in that position. 4♥ was pretty aggresive, although I think it depends a lot on partner's style.

Third one, I think 4♣ showed shortness? If so, I think South bid too much: he can tell the hands will not fit well.

[ArtK78]

1. Unlucky. Reverse either player's minor suit holdings and slam is virtually hopeless.

2. Blame for getting to a reasonable 4♥ contract?

3. The blame goes to North. South has every reason to believe that slam could be cold opposite a strong jump shift with support, despite the club void. North could certainly hold:

AKQJx
Kxxxx
Kxx
----

or better.

Anytime someone makes a call which doesn't fit his hand and the result is terrible, primary blame goes to the partner who misdescribed his hand. In this case, the lack of a 4th heart is HUGE.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on May 12 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

1. Unlucky. Reverse either player's minor suit holdings and slam is virtually hopeless.

Just playing devil's advocate, it's not hard for south to realize AKx of diamonds and Axx of clubs is worse than Axx AKx, so it's at least conceivable he could bid differently with those two hands.

[wclass___]

2nd - IMO 4♥ is not serious

I play 3♠ as either cue-bid with ♥ fit or cog
But i would Pass anyway

[skjaeran]

The first one is just bad luck. I agree with all your bids. The hands fit extremely well.

On the second one north was a little agressive. But the contract wasn't really awful. With a little luck it's making.

The third one is harder to evaluate. I don't like the 4♣ bid at all. Not sure about south's 5♣ - what would 4♦ mean here? From my perspective both players are at fault - mostly north for his jump to 4♣ with a hand that didn't really fit the description.

[MarkDean]

ArtK78, on May 12 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

1.  Unlucky.  Reverse either player's minor suit holdings and slam is virtually hopeless.

2.  Blame for getting to a reasonable 4♥ contract?

3.  The blame goes to North.  South has every reason to believe that slam could be cold opposite a strong jump shift with support, despite the club void.  North could certainly hold:

AKQJx
Kxxxx
Kxx
----

or better.

Anytime someone makes a call which doesn't fit his hand and the result is terrible, primary blame goes to the partner who misdescribed his hand.  In this case, the lack of a 4th heart is HUGE.

2. As long as they switch to a spade in time, the contract is close to hopeless. [Edit - I take it back, it does have some play].

3. I think that with AKQJx Kxxx Kxxx void, responder is not going to stop in 4♥. That hand is gigantic opposite a 1♥ opener. Do you really expect opener to move with xx AQxxx Qxx KJx?

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on May 12 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

1.  Unlucky.  Reverse either player's minor suit holdings and slam is virtually hopeless.

Just playing devil's advocate, it's not hard for south to realize AKx of diamonds and Axx of clubs is worse than Axx AKx, so it's at least conceivable he could bid differently with those two hands.

Yes - it is certainly true that Axx AKx is better than AKx Axx on this auction. And it is also true that Jx Qx in the opposite hand is better than Qx Jx. However, given that the partnership stopped short of slam with the "best" possible arrangement of these cards, it doesn't seem to have been enough to convince either of them to move ahead.

Perhaps it is too fine a distinction.

[ArtK78]

MarkDean, on May 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

3.  I think that with AKQJx Kxxx Kxxx void, responder is not going to stop in 4♥.  That hand is gigantic opposite a 1♥ opener.  Do you really expect opener to move with xx AQxxx Qxx KJx?

Responder showed a big hand with spades, hearts and a club void. How many times does he have to show the same hand?

There may be a different way of showing this hand. Clearly the 5440 hand that I suggested should find a way to take control of the auction, perhaps as a prelude to using exclusion RKCB.

[jdonn]

MarkDean, on May 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

3.  I think that with AKQJx Kxxx Kxxx void, responder is not going to stop in 4♥.  That hand is gigantic opposite a 1♥ opener.  Do you really expect opener to move with xx AQxxx Qxx KJx?

More devil's advocate, but isn't xxxxx Kxxxx KJx - a great slam? So you might think south should sign off anyway, or maybe bid 4♦, but you certainly must admit slam could be on if south signs off.

[cherdanno]

I really dislike North's bidding on the last one - even KQT is not a good enough reason to insist on playing in a 5-3 fit, rather than showing your semi-solid 8-card suit.

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

MarkDean, on May 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

3.  I think that with AKQJx Kxxx Kxxx void, responder is not going to stop in 4♥.  That hand is gigantic opposite a 1♥ opener.  Do you really expect opener to move with xx AQxxx Qxx KJx?

More devil's advocate, but isn't xxxxx Kxxxx KJx - a great slam? So you might think south should sign off anyway, or maybe bid 4♦, but you certainly must admit slam could be on if south signs off.

Absolutely we could miss a slam if South signs off: I was responding to the hand Art was worried about.

I just think that in the context of possible hands to have opposite a hand showing a SJS in spades, and club shortness, the south hand is pretty bad. It seems likely that partner chose this route instead of an immediate splinter to accentuate his strong spades.

[awm]

Board one I'll blame south, although to a great degree it's just unlucky. South has a very control rich hand (AK-A) and a bit more than minimum values, and might be able to bid on. With that said, I don't think anyone's actions are unreasonable.

Board two seems fine to me. North pushed but game seems okay vulnerable at IMPs.

Board three I'll blame south. While north's bidding is certainly odd (should show self-sufficient spades rather than raise hearts), south is looking at a huge amount of club wastage and a void opposite partner's strong suit. While there are hands where slam is good, I think they require north to have more than a minimum for his actions. I just don't think south's shape is a positive value, so if slam is good it will typically be good if south holds a minimum like xx AJxxx Qx Axxx (i.e. eleven points with wastage in clubs); if north has play for slam opposite that he has to bid again over a 4♥ signoff anyway. Yes, AKQJx Kxxxx Kxx - offers play for slam.

[rogerclee]

1) No blame

2) No blame

3) I think south bid his hand perfectly, the only reason 5♣ didn't work out is because north only has 3 trumps, south's hand is actually rather good if partner has 4 trumps as expected. North's bidding was totally misdescriptive, and it's not hard to see how it would turn out badly opposite hands like south's that are strong but short in spades.

[ArtK78]

One last point about the third hand.

The fact that slam doesn't make is not the issue. Because of the lack of the promised fourth heart in the North hand, South has very little play for 5♥. I am sure that when South bid 5♣ he knew that some hands that North could have on the auction were not good enough for slam, but that it was highly unlikely that 11 tricks would be in jeopardy. If the North hand had one less spade and one more heart, 5♥ would be MUCH better.

I don't see how South can fail to move beyond 4♥ on the given auction. Even with the known wastage in clubs, slam is still quite possible.

[JLOL]

4H is ridiculous on board 2 in my opinion.

On the last one I think north should just show a spade one suiter.

First one was legit for sure.

edit: Jdonn I'm surprised you even posted the first one. You have 27 highs and no shortness and they preempted you. There is no chance to get to this slam while avoiding numerous bad ones at the same time. Both players bid completely automatically.

[kenrexford]

Board #1: Unlucky. Preempts suck. This is a tough on even in an uncontested auction. My best shot would be:

1♥-2♣(hee hee -- starting that fight again? -- and REALLY fishy)-
2♦(part two of the fight -- real diamonds or balanced)-2♥(trumps set -- also controversial)-
2NT(poor trumps)-3♥(not two top clubs, no diamond control, two of the top three hearts)-
4♣(non-serious, one of the top three clubs, diamond OK, no spade control)-4♦(LTTC)
4♥(can't see it)

Starting with 1♠ as Responder does little to help.

Starting with 2NT Jacoby? Standard rebids don't help. Sophisticated doesn't really either.

So, I cannot really get to slam even without interference. I mean, the interference sort-of helps, actually, by focusing each person on their Queens being perhaps well-placed. But, just not remotely enough space.


Board #2: What the Heck is North smoking? South could be way worse.


Board #3: What the Heck is North smoking?

[jdonn]

JLOL, on May 12 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

edit: Jdonn I'm surprised you even posted the first one. You have 27 highs and no shortness and they preempted you. There is no chance to get to this slam while avoiding numerous bad ones at the same time. Both players bid completely automatically.

As I left the room I mentioned to another player that I thought the slam was too tough to bid (barometer of course, we were playing the same hands at the same time). He immediately responded that he had bid it, also after a 1♥ opening and 3♦ overcall.

[hanp]

First one I would duplicate the aucion even seeing both hands.

Second one I think the 4H bid is deep. 3H is completely normal of course.

The third hand north should show a 1-suiter. Please tell me you were south!

[awm]

Continuing with the third hand, what exactly do you expect for this sequence in terms of high cards? Given four-card support and a side void I don't think it's reasonable to require more than 11-14 hcp (since the total value of the hand will put it in the slam range regardless). If you have 15+ hcp and four card support and a side void, you can pretty much force to slam opposite a major suit opening right? At least if you're not off two quick tricks.

So what should north hold assuming sane bidding? Maybe some minimums might be:

♠AKQxx
♥KQxxx
♦xxxx
♣-

♠KQJxxx
♥Kxxx
♦Kxx
♣-

♠AQJTxx
♥Qxxx
♦Axx
♣-

♠AKJTxx
♥xxxx
♦Kxx
♣-

Note that slam is quite poor opposite any of these hands, and in some cases 5♥ is at risk (for example the first hand you might lose three diamonds, and the fourth hand you might lose two hearts and a diamond, and even the second hand you have a lot of losers to ruff and might potentially go down if suits don't break).

So while I agree that north's bidding was poor on this hand, south's 5♣ call with maximum wastage seems awfully pushy to me, and was responsible for getting past the making 4M. The blame shouldn't go to the person who made the first questionable call -- it should go to the person whose questionable call was most responsible for the poor result.