[mr1303]

Playing 2/1, matchpoints, all vul

Bidding goes:

1S 2C
3C 3H
3NT 4C
4D 4S
5C 6C

even a spade lead away from the KJ wasn't enough to enable this one to make

Scoring: MP

---

[Free]

Depends on your agreements imo. What is 3NT? What is 4♣? What is 4♠? ...

Bidding slam with 3 missing Kings is asking for trouble. Imo South is just too weak for serious slam investigation, but North probably has to pass 4♠ depending on what 4♣ is ofcourse.

[xx1943]

If playing 2/1 that means 1♠ may be 21 HCP and 2♣ is gameforcing, you must rebid 2♠, to declare your minimum and can show the ♣-support later, if necessary.
If you bid 3♣ you have nothing to spare over 4♣ just bid 5♣ and do not cue.
To South: Without a side suit and without a good fit in pd's suit u shld be content with 5♣ imo. Despite the Cue of North.

[Fluffy]

rebidding 2♠ would had solved the problem, but it depends on agreements.

If on your agreements 3♣ is the correct bid, then north should bit 4NT after 4♣ to show really no interest at all of slam.

[flytoox]

I think both 3C and 4C are wrong, but 4C has more problem.

[Gerben47]

If 3♣ shows extra's (normal) that was wrong. 3♥ looks like a strange bid as well. Looking at the diamond suit 3NT should be in responder's hand.

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ (minimum) - 3NT - pass seems to work well here even though the ♥ stopper is not great.

[mr1303]

We play Lawrence style 2/1, where 3H is initially looking for 3NT, but 4C suggests slam interest, and says that 3H became a cue-bid.

We didn't have an agreement that 3C would show extra values or not, which probably should be discussed.

I bid 4S (I was South) asking for partner to only bid slam with a useful hand, and wanted partner to bid 4NT without (not this is matchpoints: 5C would not be likely to be a good score, and so I bid 6C because I figured I'd rather get a bottom going for a top than get one generally.

[Free]

mr1303, on Oct 7 2004, 05:36 PM, said:

5C would not be likely to be a good score, and so I bid 6C because I figured I'd rather get a bottom going for a top than get one generally.

In that case, 100% you

[Chamaco]

mr1303, on Oct 7 2004, 04:36 PM, said:

We didn't have an agreement that 3C would show extra values or not, which probably should be discussed.

In my opinion this is the key of the auction and I agree that such agreement should be discussed.

Lawrence suggests that if bidding (uncontested) goes 1M:2m:3m, opener should be non-minimum, wheras 1S:2H:3H opener can still minimum because showing the major fit becomes first priority.

If South was assuming 3C "à la Lawrence" (e.g. a non-minimum hand, at least , say, 14 hcp), his 4C slam try was not so bad in my opinion.

[Chamaco]

mr1303, on Oct 7 2004, 11:21 AM, said:

even a spade lead away from the KJ wasn't enough to enable this one to make

No ?
How did spades and trumps split ?

It seems that if they underlead KJ of spades, you can make the contract on a 4-2 spades split by cashing 2 spades, going to dummy twice with trumps and ruffing spades in hand discarding H loser on the 5th good spade ?

[mr1303]

spades were 6-0 as it happened, but East couldn't (or didn't) ruff, hence the lack of a Lightner double. Drew trumps and played ace and another heart, hoping that east would win and be forced to lead away from the diamond K, but sadly he didn't.

[helium]

agree whit fluffy here, 4spades was wrong 4nt dinie slam intress

[pclayton]

I can't see not raising 3♣ holding KQxx. Although I haven't heard of Lawrence's idea that opener can't raise on a non-minimum, I don't think its a good idea.

What if opener had: KQxxx, x, xx, Axxxx? This isn't a club raise? Well, OK, its one of Ben's restrictive splinters, so 3♥ works well here; thus denying a control in diamonds. Further, I know many that open this hand 1♣ (including me).

I think I like: 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3N - pass. 4N would presumably show extras, so South should be content.

[EricK]

pclayton, on Oct 7 2004, 09:54 PM, said:

I can't see not raising 3♣ holding KQxx. Although I haven't heard of Lawrence's idea that opener can't raise on a non-minimum, I don't think its a good idea.

What if opener had: KQxxx, x, xx, Axxxx? This isn't a club raise? Well, OK, its one of Ben's restrictive splinters, so 3♥ works well here; thus denying a control in diamonds.  Further, I know many that open this hand 1♣ (including me).

I think I like: 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3N - pass. 4N would presumably show extras, so South should be content.

The original hand is a weak hand in support of ♣, but the hand you quote is not at all weak - 5 card support, no wasted values, a strong 5 card side suit - I'd rate it at least a trick stronger than the original one.

If I were playing the style of not immediately supporting on minimum hands then I would certainly not support on the original hand but I would on the hand you quoted (either with a raise or a splinter depending on agreements).

Eric

[EricK]

My sequence:

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT
3♣ 3♥
3NT

Eric

[mike777]

2/1 Novice here.

So with KQXXX=XX=KX=KXXX OR MANY OTHER MINIMUM REBIDS I AM MISSING SLAM WITH ...1S=2C=2S?

[luke warm]

mr1303, on Oct 7 2004, 01:21 PM, said:

Playing 2/1, matchpoints, all vul

Bidding goes:

1S 2C
3C 3H
3NT 4C
4D 4S
5C 6C

even a spade lead away from the KJ wasn't enough to enable this one to make

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ QT8xx ♥ xx ♦ AT ♣ KQxx ♠ A9 ♥ Ax ♦ Qxx ♣ AJTxxx

i agree with phil, i'd bid 3C over 2C every time... i can see the point, barely, in punting 6C, but if i'm thinking that way i don't see any advantage to cuebidding... if i plan on bypassing 3NT anyway, why not just bid 4C over 3C (as rkc)? true, you'd be in 6C anyway

i imagine responder thought opener had better spades, but i doubt he thought he had 4 clubs... so with the actual hand i'd want to give 3nt a chance ('specially at mps)

are you sure spades were 6/0? this doesn't seem possible, especially since west led a low one and east didn't ruff

mike, nah you aren't necessarily missing slam with that hand, but if you're not neither would you by raising clubs directly

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Oct 7 2004, 11:43 PM, said:

2/1 Novice here.

So with KQXXX=XX=KX=KXXX OR MANY OTHER MINIMUM REBIDS I AM MISSING SLAM WITH ...1S=2C=2S?

If you hold such a hand, and bid 2S instead of 3C, you won't miss many slams if pard does not keep the bidding open.
You may occasoinally lose, true, but on balance you'll gain to stay in a more affordable game such as 3NT.

Using Lawrence's approach you will support responder's minor less often.
But when you do, then your hand is much better defined: you should have a non-minimum hand, and your support should have at least one of the top 3 honors or 2 of the top 5, or be 4 card long.

When you have e better defined hand, then responder will be in a better position to decide whether give up the notrunmp game for minors suit slam prospects.

[luke warm]

i really don't understand this... lawrence (if i remember correctly) advocated rebidding your M if no better bid was available... this meant, say, 2524 minimum... but if pard bids 2C, what is lost by bidding 3C? you're in a gf auction, you've found a fit, pard can bid 3S if he's looking for nt, he can bid 3nt himself, he can look for slam in clubs or bid 5C.. hell he can even go back to hearts, intending to do that from the beginning

to deny a 9 card fit, even with minimum points, just seems counterintuitive to me, especially in a gf auction

[mike777]

Novice 2/1 here.

If one is opening almost all 5=2=2=4...11Hcp hands none of these arguments are convincing. Are we bidding out our shape with 3 or 4 clubs and no extras or are we rebidding 2s with almost all 11-13 hcp hands?

Passing junky 11 HCP 5-4 solves this issue but assume that is not allowed in online bridge.

Does a "Bart" 2clubs solve this issue?



At this point p may have a laydown slam with 11 Hcp or a no play slam with 11 HCp.