[hrothgar]

Pair of hands from a team game last week.

Curious what folks things is the right plan
(You're playing a pretty boring 2/1 style)

Hand 1

You hold

♠ A632
♥ KQJ
♦ A82
♣ KQT

Partner opens 1♣ in first seat

Spoiler

I couldn't think of anything better than responding 1♦.
When partner rebid 1NT, I decided to blast 6.
In retrospect, a quantitative 4NT would have been much better.

Hand 2

You hold

♠ T9653
♥ AQ
♦ AK96
♣ AQ

Partner opens 1♥ and the auction proceeded

1♥ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♦
3♥ - ???

[jillybean]

1. 1♠

Spoiler

I dont understand 1D but then I still have a problem if partner responds 1N, 6N seems reasonable.

2. 4N, we have a ♥ fit

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on Dec 29 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

1. 1♠

Spoiler

I dont understand 1D but then I still have a problem if partner responds 1N, 6N seems reasonable.

On the first hand, I considered 1♠; however, ultimately rejected it:

My hand is 4=3=3=3. Between this and the weak spades, I wasn't sure whether Spades or NT would play better.

I figured that a 1♦ would let partner show their hand hand easily.
If partner rebid in a major, I'd know that she had an unbalanced hand and would be well positioned to explore either a Spade slam or a club slam.

If partner rebid in NT (as she did), I'd be in a good position to investigate range easily.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 29 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

jillybean, on Dec 29 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

1. 1♠ 

Spoiler

I dont understand 1D but then I still have a problem if partner responds 1N, 6N seems reasonable.

On the first hand, I considered 1♠; however, ultimately rejected it:

My hand is 4=3=3=3. Between this and the weak spades, I wasn't sure whether Spades or NT would play better.

I figured that a 1♦ would let partner show their hand hand easily.
If partner rebid in a major, I'd know that she had an unbalanced hand and would be well positioned to explore either a Spade slam or a club slam.

If partner rebid in NT (as she did), I'd be in a good position to investigate range easily.

This sounds a bit like masterminding to me. Spades could easily be the right place to play when opener is 4(32)4 or 4423, and opener can't show an "unbalanced" hand by rebidding 1♠ on either of these hands. And, once you've started with 1♦, why wouldn't opener be converting 6♣ to 6♦ with (23)44 or xx45 shape if you go slamming in clubs?

The mention that your spades are weak doesn't sway me. Won't opener rebid 1♠ with 4xx5 shape even if her spades are Qxxx? That is, opener bidding them first does not assure that the combined spade holding is adequate for slam.

FWIW, I'd respond 1♠ and raise opener's 1N rebid to 6N. Though, like you, I might regret not having invited with 4N instead.

[Phil]

1. 4N, but you know me. Kxx Axxx Kxx Axx is a max and we are a long way from 12.

2. 4N is quantitative, so start with 4♣.

[fromageGB]

hrothgar, on Dec 29 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

I figured that a 1♦ would let partner show their hand hand easily.

I hate the idea of missing the spade slam when opener has to rebid 1NT over your 1♦ when he has 4 spades. Time to persuade him to play transfer Walsh. 1♣ 1♥ 1NT 4♣ for me would be Gerber to ensure we are not missing 2 aces in 6NT.

[Gerben42]

I don't understand 1♦. I like to bid suits that I have, not suits that I don't have. If ♠ are raised, we are sure that ♠Q will be important.

12-14 + 19 is just worth 4NT, that's for sure. Perhaps even 3.5 NT only.

Hand 2: 6NT, protecting the ♣ finesse lacking ruffing values. I vision something like:

AK
KJxxxxx
xx
xx

[cherdanno]

6N on the first is a serious mistake. I would rather bid 3N than 6N.

[jdonn]

I agree with many people.

On the first, not bidding 1♠ is too far out there for me. Dare I ask what we do if partner raises diamonds? How can we involve partner in the decision making if we show diamonds and then raise his spades? A game forcing 2NT wouldn't offend me nearly as much. Also agree 6NT is a huge overbid, this isn't even a very good 19. In fact as I think of hands for partner, I'm very close to not even bidding 4NT.

On the second, you bid 4♣ to show a good heart raise then bid keycard, wtp?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 1S, I have 4 of them.
#2 4C, a cue for hearts - it can be argued, that 4C does not show a club control,
but it is setting trumps, and it is a move toward slam

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Just curious...

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♥-P-?

First, I assume that 3♠ would have been a GF option on another deal. So...

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♥-P-3♦-P-
3♥-P-4♠???

Seems like a "Bluhmer" or an Empathetic Splinter, if you will. Using logic for the next steps, Opener can sign off at 5♥ with no spade control, or answer RKCB with spade control (starting at 4NT but skipping 5♥). Or, using non-logic but "natural" for the rebids, anything below 5♥ would be a further cue. Something like that.

But, I think this looks like a classic Bluhmer situation if 3♠ would have been GF.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

On the first, not bidding 1♠ is too far out there for me. Dare I ask what we do if partner raises diamonds? How can we involve partner in the decision making if we show diamonds and then raise his spades? A game forcing 2NT wouldn't offend me nearly as much. Also agree 6NT is a huge overbid, this isn't even a very good 19. In fact as I think of hands for partner, I'm very close to not even bidding 4NT.

Yep. After 1C-1S-1N, a competent NMF sequence can find out if partner is minimum or maximum. If partner is max with 3-5 in the blacks, you can discover that, too. You will end up in 3NT(opener has 11 or 12) or 6NT--not 4NT. If opener responds 3S to NMF (3334 or 3433 max), you might end up in 5NT

p.s. 1c-1s-1nt-2d-2H would merely show a weak opener with only 2 spades --not necessarily 4 hearts.

p.p.s Some people do not like 2D as the only NMF, and don't like the Hardy Adjunct follow-ups. There are other competent methods after a 1NT rebid, and I respect them. The point is that you should have a method other than a blast to slam or a nebulous quantitative 4NT, whatever it is.

[Jlall]

What are you guys talking about not bidding even 4N on the first hand? We have KQT of partner's suit, and 31-33 HCP. Seems like a perfect situation to invite slam, getting there whenever we have 33 HCP, or when we have 32 HCP and partner has a 5 card suit (opposite our KQT), and probably not other than that.

Yes I know that 33 HCP is not necessarily a slam, but it certainly rates to be.

Richard: Just respond 1S. This doesn't preclude getting to NT when it's right even if you have a 4-4 spade fit, and it does have the advantage of not misdescribing your hand immediately. If partner raises to 2S you can still attempt to get back to NT.

[ggwhiz]

1. 1 spade. Even if I'm inclined to bid notrump later, this is a good suit to keycard on if it works out that way.

Owning the spade queen or not if pard digs their heels in on my slamish attempts could be the deciding factor.

2. Big Black. Not only do we have a heart fit, pard has a stiff spade at most, bidding hearts full of holes 3 times. I'm suspecting the grand.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Dec 29 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

What are you guys talking about not bidding even 4N on the first hand? We have KQT of partner's suit, and 31-33 HCP. Seems like a perfect situation to invite slam, getting there whenever we have 33 HCP, or when we have 32 HCP and partner has a 5 card suit (opposite our KQT), and probably not other than that.

Construct maximums for partner. A ton are bad slams.

But I still bid 4NT because there are some good slams and because I can't stand not to. But someone should do a sim, I wouldn't be surprised if 6NT is not a favorite opposite 13 with 5 clubs + any 14.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

But someone should do a sim, I wouldn't be surprised if 6NT is not a favorite opposite 13 with 5 clubs + any 14.

Giving south a balanced 1♣ opening without four spades (4432, 4333 or 5332; 1C with (23)44), I get slam to be

12 HCP = 22% (9,495 deals)
13 HCP = 48% (6,362 deals)
14 HCP = 74% (4,143 deals)

on a double dummy basis. On the auction 1♣-1♠-1N-6N, I would expect declarer to have only a slight advantage over double dummy, probably small enough to ignore.

edit: added missing 3=4=3=3 shape to sample and increased sample size

[aguahombre]

When I suggested a possible way to find out it partner is minimum without bidding a quant 4NT, it was with this in mind:

If Opener has, say JX Axx kQJ JXXXX, you will stop at 4NT and probably push the board. On a really bad day 3NT will gain a game swing --and the cost was nothing for the lower level exploration, still getting to slam like the other team if pard is max-whether that makes or not.

[jdonn]

I'm surprised it's so high, glad I bid 4NT anyway! Was there a lot of guesses on suit combinations or something?

[TimG]

I didn't look at any of the hands. There might be some combination that biases this in favor of DD more than typically, but I don't really think responder's hand suggests that.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 29 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

What are you guys talking about not bidding even 4N on the first hand? We have KQT of partner's suit, and 31-33 HCP. Seems like a perfect situation to invite slam, getting there whenever we have 33 HCP, or when we have 32 HCP and partner has a 5 card suit (opposite our KQT), and probably not other than that.

Construct maximums for partner. A ton are bad slams.

But I still bid 4NT because there are some good slams and because I can't stand not to. But someone should do a sim, I wouldn't be surprised if 6NT is not a favorite opposite 13 with 5 clubs + any 14.

Would easily take that bet.

Seriously if you think that slam is bad opposite that range then why are you bidding 4N?