[bd71]

Scoring: MP

1S-3S
???

Playing generally standard methods...a non-spade bid here would show first or second round control.

---

This hand is from the February 2007 "Bidding Box" article in the ACBL Bulletin (for those not familiar, two typically-expert pairs bid a set of 8 intentionally-difficult hands). I'm not very satisfied with the approach the two pairs took, and wanted to get other opinions (you can look it up, but I will follow-up with their answers after we get some responses).

[ArtK78]

What is 3♠? A limit raise? If so, I am tempted to bid 5♦ exclusion RKCB. If partner has his values outside of diamonds a small slam should have good play. Even a grand is possible, but I don't think there can be a cold grand opposite a limit raise.

[jjbrr]

I'd bid 4♣ and take the low road opposite a 4♦ cue.

[bd71]

ArtK78, on Mar 10 2010, 05:05 PM, said:

What is 3♠? A limit raise? If so, I am tempted to bid 5♦ exclusion RKCB. If partner has his values outside of diamonds a small slam should have good play. Even a grand is possible, but I don't think there can be a cold grand opposite a limit raise.

Yes, 3S is a limit raise.

[helene_t]

Partner has 10 of the 25 points I don't have. And I need 3 out of 4 useful cards. OTOH the fact that p has four spades of course raises the odds a little, and I am happy to be in 6 requiring one of two finesses (in spades and hearts). Then again, opps didn't bid diamonds, that increases the odds a little that p has wasted values.

I think I sign off. Second choice 4♦, as I really need p to have ♣A for slam to be good. Then again, if his club control is a singleton we are doomed. Edit: Jeremy's 4♣ bid is better than 4♦.

[Apollo81]

I agree with jjbrr and strongly disagree with a direct signoff. At the very least we should cuebid once. KQxx Kxx xxx Axx and Kxxxx xx xxx AJx are both good grands.

[rogerclee]

4C and 4H over 4D. If partner can't cuebid diamonds we probably can't intelligently look for a grand, but slam has to be great.

[jdonn]

4♣ and over 4♦ I bid 4♥ but over 4♥ I...well, force to slam somehow. I'm still worth a cuebid over 4♦ I think, for example KQxx Kxx Kxxx xx or so.

Exclusion must seriously be the most overused convention imagineable...

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

4♣ and over 4♦ I bid 4♥ but over 4♥ I...well, force to slam somehow. I'm still worth a cuebid over 4♦ I think, for example KQxx Kxx Kxxx xx or so.

Exclusion must seriously be the most overused convention imagineable...

you mean after regular blackwood? lol, if I just had a cent for every noob that bids blackwood with a void....


I agree with jeremy's general plan, I hate 3 suiters a lot, you have to take care of third round of hearts and clubs somehow, and ♦A is a big waste.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you're guessing here, even if partner has diamond values the slam may still be on, KQxx, x, Axxx, J10xx is a fine slam for example.

The problem with 5♦ exclusion is that you don't know what to do if partner shows 1. Does he have Kxxxx, x, xxxx, J10x with some extra frosting cards, or does he have Jxxx, xxx, KQx, AJx.

I'm going to bid 4♦ which ostensibly denies a club control, if partner bids 4♥, I'm seriously well placed as he's showing a club control too and I'll now bid 5♠ (worried about the trumps), if he bids 4♠, I'll try again with 5♣ which stresses first round ♦ control (prob a void in this sequence) and second round ♣ and certainly shows a ♥ control too, probably first round. Partner will value A♣ not a singleton and any sort of ♥ control.

[jdonn]

I thought the problem with exclusion is, um, we have a 15 count with bad trumps! If partner wasn't going to cuebid at all over 4♣ then do you really want to be at the 5 level? Kxxx xxx AQJx xx, yay! And wait since that's a keycard you are going to be in SIX opposite that, right?

[Fluffy]

with my partner I play 4♦ splinter and 3NT non-shortness slam try, not perfect here, but probably useful

[nigel_k]

IMO you want a way to discover how well the hands fit - not just cue bidding. Make a slam try after a limit raise the same way you would make a game try after a single raise.

If playing short suit tries, then obviously 4♦ is perfect on this hand. If playing long suit tries, bid 4♣ and he will bid 4♦ with values in diamonds and you can signoff. If he doesn't bid 4♦ over 4♣ you are pretty close to just blasting slam.

[awm]

If I cuebid 4♣ and partner cues 4♥, then I'm bidding keycard with a void. This sequence should deny ♦A from partner, so I'll have no problem interpreting his response. If he shows two with the queen then he has something like KQxx Kxx xxx Axx or Kxxxx Kxx xxx Ax and I'm bidding the grand. Of course, these hands are unlikely but since I'm forcing to slam anyway and know he doesn't have ace of my void suit, may as well RKC.

If I cuebid 4♣ and hear 4♦, then I'll cuebid 4♥ and pass 4♠ if partner is not willing to take control. Hopefully these really nice hands with diamond wastage that some other people have suggested (some of which I might've game forced on to begin with) are pushing on over 4♥.

I think cuebidding after 1♠-3♠-4♣ is basically mandatory. The limit raise already limited partner's hand to a pretty narrow range. This game is just too hard if partner can refuse to cuebid his red suit controls in this auction because he "doesn't like his hand." Note that this is not a situation for "serious 3NT" or the like -- one hand is already tightly limited.

[whereagles]

> I think cuebidding after 1♠-3♠-4♣ is basically mandatory.

me too. I'll think more about this if pard bids 4♦, but not before

[mcphee]

A difficult spot for sure as we need a few specific cards. However slam could be rolling in with very little, like the AC and KH even facing 4 small trump. I would try 3N and see if dear partner can advance with 4C which would be pleasing to hear.

[kenrexford]

Common theme. There is an approach (called something but I cannot ever recall the name) where after a 1M-P-3M sequence, Opener can two-way split slam tries, with perhaps a relay as a general try and a non-relay as a shortness try, or vice-versa. I think this makes a lot of sense, personally.

In this sequence, for example, 3NT as a general slam try (serious?) and four-bids as shortness-indicating slam tries.

[jjbrr]

mcphee, on Mar 11 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

A difficult spot for sure as we need a few specific cards. However slam could be rolling in with very little, like the AC and KH even facing 4 small trump. I would try 3N and see if dear partner can advance with 4C which would be pleasing to hear.

I admit I don't like this approach. Might partner be cuebidding a stiff ♣? If so, now you're in a terrible spot to judge what to do. You can't bid 4♦ because partner will think his ♦ values are useful. You can't bid 4♥ because partner will think we have no ♦ control when he has xxx(x) or something lol. You can't bid 4♠ because partner gave you the ♣ cue you wanted to hear so badly. Etc.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Mar 11 2010, 06:33 AM, said:

In this sequence, for example, 3NT as a general slam try (serious?) and four-bids as shortness-indicating slam tries.

This is just another way of saying 3N is our only slam try without shortness, there is no seriousness involved when it is your only choice.

Personally I like 3S/3N shortness ask and other bids are natural (help suit) slam tries.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Mar 11 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 11 2010, 06:33 AM, said:

In this sequence, for example, 3NT as a general slam try (serious?) and four-bids as shortness-indicating slam tries.

This is just another way of saying 3N is our only slam try without shortness, there is no seriousness involved when it is your only choice.

Personally I like 3S/3N shortness ask and other bids are natural (help suit) slam tries.

If you have a slam try, without shortness, and partner made a limit raise, then you are by definition as "serious" as you could contextually be.

If the relay is a shortness ask, and other calls natural slam tries, that works too.