[ArtK78]

Scoring: IMP

1NT* - 2♠**
3♣*** - 3♠****
4♦**** - 5♣
5♥**** - 6♣
All Pass

* 15-17
** - Transfer to clubs
*** - Top club honor
**** - cue bids

---

When the ♣Q failed to fall, slam was virtually hopeless. It turned out that everything was wrong and even 5♣ cannot make (unless you play the correct opponent for Qxx of clubs).

The other table got to 3NT which was easy.

Assign the blame, if any.

[Fluffy]

the methods who didn't let north show the shortness are to blame partially.

But nothing to do with Soth's 5♥ bid, it is from another planet, he might be facing spade shortness opposite, he has a sure heart loser, he doesn't have trump support, he has no extras, he has nothing and yet he tried for 7! lol.

If north was desperate for a heart cuebid, he would had bid 4♠, not 5♣.

[jdonn]

After the minor suit transfer have responder's rebid show shortness instead of being a cuebid. I think you'll like the results. That being said I'm not nearly as down on south's actions as Fluffy is. Trying for 7 was pointless but south has 17 with amazing controls, of course he will go on to 6.

[Fluffy]

josh, think of this, partner has a shortness very likelly, and it is not in hearts, do you like it on spades or on diamonds?

[jjbrr]

Fluffy, on Feb 22 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

the methods who didn't let north show the shortness are to blame partially.

But nothing to do with Soth's 5♥ bid, it is from another planet, he might be facing spade shortness opposite, he has a sure heart loser, he doesn't have trump support, he has no extras, he has nothing and yet he tried for 7! lol.

If north was desperate for a heart cuebid, he would had bid 4♠, not 5♣.

No extras? A completely prime 17 is somehow bad after partner transfers to a minor and cuebids?

[jdonn]

Well think of this. Partner had an 11 count and slam was pretty good. A minor suit lead makes it good and a major suit lead makes it ok.

I think you are overthinking this shortness thing, south is very maximum with great controls, why would he come up with an argument like that to convince himself not to bid slam?

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

Well think of this. Partner had an 11 count and slam was pretty good. A minor suit lead makes it good and a major suit lead makes it ok.

I think you are overthinking this shortness thing, south is very maximum with great controls, why would he come up with an argument like that to convince himself not to bid slam?

Because his partner did not show slam interest?

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Feb 22 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

Well think of this. Partner had an 11 count and slam was pretty good. A minor suit lead makes it good and a major suit lead makes it ok.

I think you are overthinking this shortness thing, south is very maximum with great controls, why would he come up with an argument like that to convince himself not to bid slam?

Because his partner did not show slam interest?

We must have different ideas of what "cue bid" means then. I normally don't cue bid without slam interest.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Feb 22 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

Well think of this. Partner had an 11 count and slam was pretty good. A minor suit lead makes it good and a major suit lead makes it ok.

I think you are overthinking this shortness thing, south is very maximum with great controls, why would he come up with an argument like that to convince himself not to bid slam?

Because his partner did not show slam interest?

We must have different ideas of what "cue bid" means then. I normally don't cue bid without slam interest.

This is the crux of the matter, does "cuebid" in this context mean slam try, or just a stopper trying to get to 3N or what. I'm no semantics genius but south obviously thought 3S was trying for slam, in which case driving to 6 was fine (but trying for 7 was dumb).

Agree with bidding shortness being really good in this auction. Jdonn taught me many years ago that 3D should also be shortness, and with 4-6 minors you just bid your short major then 4D if necessary (or pass otherwise). It makes your 4-6 minor bidding a little less accurate, especially for the 3N or 5m decision, but it helps a ton when you actually have short diamonds. Keep in mind short diamonds is much less likely than short major though, because you also can't have a 4 card major limiting you to 3316 or 7+ clubs.

Some people also include balanced slam try with short diamonds in the 3D bid to give more room for balanced mildish slam tries and the ability to stop in 3N, but I don't really like it.

Anyways, I would say the system sucked, north had to try for a slam with his hand since many hands make it cold, and south didn't know his AQT of diamonds were not pulling much weight. Overall it's not the worst slam ever though due to LHO being endplayed at trick 1 into giving us a finesse.

[Fluffy]

the very maximum is were my criterium differs from yours, you have the worst possible support, no ruffing value, no source of tricks, no intermediates and 1 honnor wasted

Comparing this hand with ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, wich one is better?, and you can even add a queen.

[Jlall]

Fluffy, on Feb 22 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Comparing this hand with ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, wich one is better?

lol really? The orginal hand is much better. Having AQT instead of Axx and the ace of hearts instead of the king is way better than having a third and fourth trump and a side doubleton and it's not close at all.

Often your third and fourth clubs are irrelevant because partner has the queen himself, and often your doubleton is irrelevant because partner is also doubleton. I mean you cherry picked the hand to eliminate all our wasted values that happened to be opposite a stiff, and give us a doubleton in partners tripleton, and add trumps when partner happens to have 7 and not the queen...

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Feb 22 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

the very maximum is were my criterium differs from yours, you have the worst possible support, no ruffing value, no source of tricks, no intermediates and 1 honnor wasted

Comparing this hand with ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, wich one is better?, and you can even add a queen.

Yes obviously Kx Axx in the red suits is better than Axxx AQT when north has Qxx x instead of x Qxx. And obviously the extra club support is crucial when north doesn't have the queen. And why is 1 wasted honor bad opposite a shortness for a 1NT opener, it seems normal to me. And why does north need a shortness anyway? I think you are just playing to north's actual hand.

It hadn't occured to me 3♠ might not show slam interest (if north is looking for 3NT then why not 3♥ instead?) but if 3♠ might be looking for the best game then clearly south should bid 3NT at that point.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Feb 22 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Feb 22 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Comparing this hand with ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, wich one is better?

lol really? The orginal hand is much better. Having AQT instead of Axx and the ace of hearts instead of the king is way better than having a third and fourth trump and a side doubleton and it's not close at all.

Often your third and fourth clubs are irrelevant because partner has the queen himself, and often your doubleton is irrelevant because partner is also doubleton. I mean you cherry picked the hand to eliminate all our wasted values that happened to be opposite a stiff, and give us a doubleton in partners tripleton, and add trumps when partner happens to have 7 and not the queen...

yes and no, Ax opposite KQ10xxx is not amazing. And the fact that we know partner has 2 hearts at least makes reasonable that he has 3. Of course it doesn't have to be the case but it is way better to have ♥Ax than ♥Axxx. ♥Kx might be better often.

I am maybe assuming to confidently that north must have a shortness, with just a semi-bal powerhouse he should had bid 4NT instead of 3♠. and if this pictures the diamond shortness (only possible unless partner happens to have stiff spade ace) we can improve our hand moving the ♦Q10 somewhere else.

So all in all I insist, we already made a free cuebid, partner had the opportunity to bid 4♠ to force us to slam with a heart control, so we need something more extraordinary to move to the 6 level.


EDIT: at this point I realiced partner failed to bid 3♥, I guess this changes the things, not sure towards what, I'll need Art's explanation towards what 3♦&3♥ would had mean instead of 3♠.

[Fluffy]

My methods are not perfect but here would gain some IMPs

1NT-2♠
3♣-3NT = diamond shortness
pass

alternatively

1NT-2♠
2NT-4♣ = good hand for clubs-> strong with diamond shortness
4NT-pass

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on Feb 22 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

EDIT: at this point I realiced partner failed to bid 3♥, I guess this changes the things, not sure towards what, I'll need Art's explanation towards what 3♦&3♥ would had mean instead of 3♠.

This is an unpracticed partnership. While my partner and I have occasionally played together for 12 board segments of local team matches, yesterday was the first time we played as partners for a full 2-session event. Our methods after a transfer to a minor were discussed only in passing. All bids after my 3♣ bid were cue bids. I will say that we did not have a bidding misunderstanding, only that we arrived in a mediocre contract.

This discussion brought out how important it is to show shortness in the responder's hand. Even with the disclosure of a diamond shortness in responder's hand, I am not 100% convinced that you will want to play 4NT rather than 5♣ at IMPs, it is certainly true that you will want to play 3NT rather than 5♣.

I do not know how the opponents arrived at 3NT at the other table, but I suspect it was an accident, as my teammates were surprised when the dummy appeared with a 7 card club suit.

[aguahombre]

In an unpracticed partnership, I would play the odds:

1) our 26-28 pt slam won't make, or
2) We will screw up the auction.

Thus, with the odds in our favor, would try 3NT.

(edit) I forgot 3) the opps will screw up the auction.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think there is blame to assign, there is a very good probability of a helpful lead, at worst you get a free finesse or a guess solved, and a heart lead is quite likely to be from the king.

I think this slam is just about with the odds in theory, and very much with them in practice due to the lead issue.

[jchiu]

South knew that north does not have a heart control for his signoff. Five hearts was taken through rosy glasses. 70% south, 30% not playing 3di shows a short diamond.