[helene_t]

Scoring: MP

1♠-2♦
2♠-3♣
4♣-4♦
6♣

---

This happened yesterday. I wonder if either East or West should have limited their hand, either by a 3♥ waiting bid or through principle of fast arrival. Playing SAYC. Would it be different in 2/1? Btw, thanks to East's fifth trump the slam has some play. Could East have (even) less?

[Walddk]

I don't think the auction is unreasonable. Maybe East shouldn't have cue bid 4♦ with that hand, considering that opener showed a minimum by rebidding 2♠. A raise to 5♣ would have been better in my opinion. 5♣ is at least superior to 3NT, also at matchpoints.

I assume that you were playing standard or Acol, and that 2♦ therefore was not game forcing. If so, 3♣ was the bid that forced the partnership to game. In that context, having shown a minimum, West had fair cards with three aces, and a raise to 4♣ was in order (stronger than 5♣).

The hand is too good for a direct 5♣.

As it is, slam is very poor. East's ♥Q is wasted. ♦Q instead would have been much more useful and would have made his hand considerably better. Honours feel a lot more comfortable with other honour(s) in a long suit.

The slam has indeed some play, but it takes a very lucky layout to make it.

Playing 2/1, 2♦ would already have been game forcing, but I don't think that the auction would have been any different from the one you had at your table. It's the action over 4♣ that matters.

Roland

[helene_t]

Actually, 2♠ is forcing (not in the Dutch/Scandinavian(?) standard systems but we were playing SAYC) so it does not necesarily show a minimum. Maybe there is an inference that West could have bid 3♣ with a stronger hand, but I think 2♠ must (almost) always be correct with 6-4. After 3♣ I (West) reasoned that maybe 3♣ was a probe for notrump, but in that case partner would bid 4♠ after 4♣. I decided I would pass 4♠ but raise 5♣ to 6 (maybe too optimistic, I do find card evaluation difficult).

With a regular partner, I could have shown a minimum with a 3♥ waiting bid so 4♣ would show extras. Is this a good agreement? Maybe confusing since 3♥ could also be an (advanced) cue. Anyway, I wouldn't assume a pick-up partner to understand 3♥.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

I decided I would pass 4♠ but raise 5♣ to 6 (maybe too optimistic, I do find card evaluation difficult).

Raising 5♣ to 6 doesn't make sense. Partner did not cue bid, so you could easily have been without a diamond control.

Roland

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

Actually, 2♠ is forcing (not in the Dutch/Scandinavian(?) standard systems but we were playing SAYC) so it does not necesarily show a minimum.

This is not correct Helen. Let me quote from the Standard American Yellow Card:

Opener's (non-artificial) Rebids
13-16 Points NT at cheapest possible level (NF)

Rebid own suit at cheapest available level (NF)

Raise Partner's suit at cheapest available level (shows 3+ trumps) (NF)

Bid "up the line" (eg.,1-P-1-P-1) has a wider range of 13-18 points.(NF)

Non-reverse bid in a new suit (has a wider range of 13-18 points)
(forcing if bid at the 3 level)

....

So the 2♠ rebid does show a minimum, unless you have a special agreement (I have with some partners) that there is a force to at least 2NT after a 2-o-1 response.

Roland

[Chamaco]

As a responder, after 4C,
using kickback, I would have taken charge asked keycards for clubs (opener is supposed to have a good unbalanced hand- and he has a good hand indeed despite minimum hcp content- , and we have no 2 quick-losers suit).

When I discover that an Ace and the trump Q are missing I signoff in 5C.
If only an ace OR only the trump Q are missing, slam has more play, since it is rightsided for a diamond lead.

However, not playing kickback, there is no room to xplore for the club Queen.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

Actually, 2♠ is forcing (not in the Dutch/Scandinavian(?) standard systems but we were playing SAYC) so it does not necesarily show a minimum. Maybe there is an inference that West could have bid 3♣ with a stronger hand, but I think 2♠ must (almost) always be correct with 6-4. After 3♣ I (West) reasoned that maybe 3♣ was a probe for notrump, but in that case partner would bid 4♠ after 4♣. I decided I would pass 4♠ but raise 5♣ to 6 (maybe too optimistic, I do find card evaluation difficult).

With a regular partner, I could have shown a minimum with a 3♥ waiting bid so 4♣ would show extras. Is this a good agreement? Maybe confusing since 3♥ could also be an (advanced) cue. Anyway, I wouldn't assume a pick-up partner to understand 3♥.

I think 3H over 3C would still be a try for 3NT,
since it is clearly Fourt Suit Forcing, and 3H is
probably best, because, 3C may have been made
on a 3 card suit, showing only some values, e.g. KQx,
and responder may still hold a doubleton spade.

Over 4D you still have the possibility to bid 4H,
as a cue bid, this may be master minding, but
on the other hand, you have a nice minimum
opening hand, but still a minimum opening hand.

The 4H bid should show some kind of cooperation
towards slam, but the jump to 6C is kind of unilateral.

Partner will read the Heart Cue Bid as shortage and
sign off.

Personnal I would not worry to much about reaching
this slam, because if this slam happens to be your
worst ever, ... I will ask you about slam bidding in the future.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Apr 13 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

Actually, 2♠ is forcing (not in the Dutch/Scandinavian(?) standard systems but we were playing SAYC) so it does not necesarily show a minimum.

This is not correct Helen. Let me quote from the Standard American Yellow Card:

Opener's (non-artificial) Rebids
13-16 Points NT at cheapest possible level (NF)

Rebid own suit at cheapest available level (NF)

Is this realy standard? According to OKBridge responder shows 11+ and 2♠ shows 13-16. I can't immagine you would bid non-forcing when you know you have at least 16+11=27 HCPs. I think it's a mistake. The document doesn't state that 1♠-2m-2♥ is forcing, either.

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 09:06 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♠-2♦
2♠-3♣
4♣-4♦
6♣

---

This happened yesterday. I wonder if either East or West should have limited their hand, either by a 3♥ waiting bid or through principle of fast arrival. Playing SAYC. Would it be different in 2/1? Btw, thanks to East's fifth trump the slam has some play. Could East have (even) less?

There are a few points about the bidding.
Wests bidding:
1♠, 2♠ shows a weak hand. After a fit is found it may be slightly upgraded, but 3 Acces are just 3 tricks. A single Ace must be downgraded, because of the inflexibility when to use it. The ♠ are not so easy to develope, you might need to ruff 3 times to make it high. So i would see it's value equivalent to 13-14 HCP. I don't see a reason to bid 6.
Easts bidding:
KQ ensures one trick, but it is really not worth more than Kx, because the Q will fall under the Ace unless partner has Axx and does not use the ace at once. Opposite a weak hand it's ok to try game. East should do it by bidding 5♣. 4♦ gives an impression of strength that is not there.

[inquiry]

The only problem with this slam is the horrible duplication in hearts. Move those five points in the form of KQ out of hearts and into the other suits, and the contract is not as bad (for one thing, no club hook would be necessary if ♥Q and ♣x was exchanged.

The problem here was the 4♦ bid in my mind. With this bid, EAST shows slam ambition, and looking for opener to cue-bid. Howver, West has controls in ALL the suits, and there is no need to cue-bid controls to assure no two quick losers. Over 4♦, 4NT blackwood is also of little value, as there is no room to stop below slam. So over 4♦, with West I would jump to slam as well.

On the other hand, 5♣ by EAST over 4♣ is a perfect bid. 1) real clubs (3♣ was not prepared), 2) Minimum value for bidding so far (12 hcp and I forced to game, and I lack a fit for partners first suit, and I have 1/2 my points in one of our joint short suits).

As an aside, do you play 3♥ by opener and then pull 3NT to 4♣ as weaker or stronger than an immeidate 4♣, or the other way around, or do you have no thoughts/agreements on this issue. This probes rather an immediate 4♣ is slamish or weak the way you play (assuming after 3♣ game force is in effect).

Ben

[Chamaco]

Yes, agree with Ben.
Add to W the club queen and slam is odds-on, even with a minimum opener.

At least from East's perspective, this hand is not about point counts but ONLY about sidesuit controls and trump honors.


That is why I believe East should just take over and use any tool available to find out about keycards: if 4D is kickback, west is able to check how many of the 6 keycards (4 Aces and trump KQ) West has , and with only one keycard missing he'll bid slam.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

The document doesn't state that 1♠-2m-2♥ is forcing, either.

But it does in SAYC no matter what OKBridge writes. Another quote:

....... Bid a lower-ranking 4-card suit at the two level (also 13-18 points), NF over 1 level response, forcing after 2 level response.

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Apr 13 2005, 01:48 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

The document doesn't state that 1♠-2m-2♥ is forcing, either.

But it does in SAYC no matter what OKBridge writes. Another quote:

....... Bid a lower-ranking 4-card suit at the two level (also 13-18 points), NF over 1 level response, forcing after 2 level response.

Roland

Agree.
In SAYC, a 2/1 response by unpassed hand guarantees a rebid unless opener rebids 2NT or raises responder.

In practice, bidding is forcing to 2NT or to 3 of a suit.

[helene_t]

Of course, I didn't realize that: If 4♦ is kick-back, my 6♣ shows 9 keycards :-)

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2005, 02:00 PM, said:

Of course, I didn't realize that: If 4♦ is kick-back, my 6♣ shows 9 keycards :-)

Which should be quite reassuring for East, if he wasn't worried for the trump Queen....

[HeartA]

Walddk, on Apr 13 2005, 05:46 AM, said:

This is not correct Helen. Let me quote from the Standard American Yellow Card:

Opener's (non-artificial) Rebids
13-16 Points NT at cheapest possible level (NF)

Rebid own suit at cheapest available level (NF)

Raise Partner's suit at cheapest available level (shows 3+ trumps) (NF)

Bid "up the line" (eg.,1-P-1-P-1) has a wider range of 13-18 points.(NF)

Non-reverse bid in a new suit (has a wider range of 13-18 points)
(forcing if bid at the 3 level)

....

So the 2♠ rebid does show a minimum, unless you have a special agreement (I have with some partners) that there is a force to at least 2NT after a 2-o-1 response.

Roland

While I agree with Roland most of the time, this time I don't agree. 2♠ is certainly forcing (2/1 responder promised to bid again, or forced to 2NT). 2♠ is not necessary weak. With 16 hcp (or even more, add ♦A to the opener's hand, but with 6-1-3-3 or 6-2-2-3 distribution) and one suiter (not good enough for 3♠, not suitable to open 1NT), I would rebid 2♠.

I agree with others that all bids before 4♦ were OK. I would bid 5♣ over 4♣. By the way, West's 4♣ should show 6-4 in ♠-♣. That West didn't bid 3♣ over 2♦ confirmed a minimum opening hand.

[han]

Agree that East, with an aceless minimum, should not cuebid 4D.

[beatrix45]

Happy to join the choir. The one and only bad bid in this auction was the 4♦ cue bid. Remember, folks, bidding, esp. slam bidding is a conversation. When East bid 4♦ she was saying, "I have lots of extras, is there a slam in this hand?". After all, she could have passed 4♣, but the fifth club and the 12 HCP (cheesy though they may be) justify a raise.

[han]

I disagree that 4C could have been passed, this should be a slam try, especially at matchpoints. East should not cooperate.