[yaohung]

---

The partnership is based on BWS but apply instant double negative method. therefore.
2♦ = GF but no good 5 card suit (2 of top 3), the min value is 1K/2Qs
2♥ = nature suit
2♠ = suit
3♦ = suit
3♥ = support or waiting? 2♠ should deny decent ♥ support.(common sense or need to be discussed?). The priority is to show support first rather than introduce your suit.(agreement for one level opening)
3♠ = cue or support?
4♣ = mandatory to cue if control. no extra strength required.
4 NT = 1430

6♥ certainly is a poor slam. We all know that there must be several factors to cause a bidding disaster happening. How many factors can you identify? or just a major one?

The other table reach 4♠ which is also unmakeable so it'a push. However, I would like to know your opinion regarding this sequence.What is the best contract for this hand and how to get there? What's wrong with this losing control slam auction?

[han]

The major factor was not understanding the auction. 3H showed a doubleton heart, so no heart fit was found. 3S showed a doubleton spade, so no spade fit was found. Instead of making a "mandatory cue" for their non-existent fit, responder should be thinking about the best strain/game. Opener's 4NT followed by 6H also makes no sense at all, if 4C is a cue then it should be for spades.

[Cyberyeti]

I would have opened 1♥ although I understand 2♣.

For 4♠ to fail the distribution must be pretty hostile, I think it's probably where I end up.

[han]

I also agree that north overbid. I can understand opening 2C, but 4NT after partner has denied a fit is pretty terrible.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

4D cue over 4C might help put the brakes on.

[Codo]

I dislike 2 ♣, but okay.
3 ♥ shows two hearts, 3♠ two spades.
3 NT instead of 4 ♣ had shown the stopper and the overall shape and if this is passable, it had finished the bidding.

If I had been forced to open 2 ♣, I had tried this way:
2 ♣ 2 ♦
2♥ 2♠
3♦3 NT
4♦
This shows 2551 or 2650 and you should reach 5 ♦ from here.

[han]

Codo, on 2012-June-11, 04:14, said:

If I had been forced to open 2 ♣, I had tried this way:
2 ♣ 2 ♦
2♥ 2♠
3♦3 NT
4♦

Argh!

[Fluffy]

yaohung, on 2012-June-11, 01:41, said:

The other table reach 4♠ which is also unmakeable so it'a push.

Bridge is so unfair

as han said, first find a fit, then cue.

[gnasher]

The layout must have been pretty foul for 4♠ to be unmakeable.

[JLOGIC]

After 3S do we think south should bid 3N or 4S? 3N has going for it that we have 7 freaking points so how can it go down lol. But it does look like clubs will be our only entry to spades, and might get dislodged prematurely before we can run spades. But in 4S after a club lead it's not going to be easy to handle maybe. I'd have probably bid 4S.

[kenrexford]

Similar theme to another deal posted on BBF. In fact, same two suits!

Beyond any other comments, why if Opener bidding 6♥ and not allowing partner to pick damned diamonds?!?!?

Strangely, this same general theme came up last Thursday night. My partner and I got it right, but only because I blasted. The same issue with the same two suits. We had a diamond fit and a heart fit. At a certain point, I jumped to 6♦ to end all risk, and 6♦ failed by a trick because of an unfortunate layout (I posted the hand as "disappointed..."). Others were in 6♥ down more tricks.\

This is not unique to the red suits (or is it?), as the theme is simple. When the auction is such that the major might be "supported" because of the game bonus in a major, the minor may be the ideal slam contract, so someone needs to offer the minor for the slam.

[yaohung]

cue bidding seems to be the way for majority to work toward the slam. However, I often found players tend to reach slam if there is no quick loser in the auction. However, the tricks for slam are just not enough. Justin: 4♠ after 3♠ is a tough consideration(deny club control?) since north is still unlimited. We might end up game even with hand like below.
I guess two issues here:
a) How to show the proper strength in the GF sequence.b) Who should take the lead to bid on slam?

---

[han]

I would never write any of that.

[yaohung]

han, on 2012-June-12, 01:59, said:

I would never write any of that.

I have corrected the post. very sorry.

[Mbodell]

yaohung, on 2012-June-11, 19:36, said:

cue bidding seems to be the way for majority to work toward the slam. However, I often found players tend to reach slam if there is no quick loser in the auction. However, the tricks for slam are just not enough. Justin: 4♠ after 3♠ is a tough consideration(deny club control?) since north is still unlimited. We might end up game even with hand like below.
I guess two issues here:
a) How to show the proper strength in the GF sequence.b) Who should take the lead to bid on slam?

---

There have been some recent very good articles on Bridge Winners by Andrew Gumperz about slam bidding. See here.

Now not sure these are really targeted at "Expert-Class Bridge".

There is a hierarchy of priorities (they don't always go in this order, and sometimes you get multiple steps/answers at once but this is still worth considering):

1. Figure out the likely strain.
2. Figure out the level.
If on the border between game and slam or small and grand then:
3. Make sure there is no suit with 2 quick losers.
4. Make sure opponents can't cash 2 (or 1 for grand) quick tricks in side suits and/or trump
5. Place the contract (possibly allowing alternative strains or partner's opinion sought)

You don't always need to do 3 and 4, although most people try to, but 1 and 2 are really important. Here the 2♦ said the level is at least game (but didn't necessarily agree slam or game/slam border), so it didn't complete 2. But it at least created a force until you could decide on 1. Once you decide on 1 hopefully the partnership can communicate on if game is the limit or more and get 2 figured out. As others have pointed out there wasn't a trump agreement with 3♥ (although some actions over 3♥ might have implied it). There also wasn't a trump agreement with 3♠ (although some actions over 3♠ might have implied it). I'd play that 4♣ was one such action and is a cue agreeing spades. If strain had easily been figured out earlier then something like serious/non-serious 3nt could have helped with strength and/or a non-mandatory cue versus fast arrival might have helped with 2.

I think with the actual hands I'd have bid the slam killing, but decently practical 3nt over 3♦. But I can understand 3♥ and if my hearts were Hx I'd probably do that instead.

[yaohung]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-12, 23:53, said:

There have been some recent very good articles on Bridge Winners by Andrew Gumperz about slam bidding. See here.

Now not sure these are really targeted at "Expert-Class Bridge".

There is a hierarchy of priorities (they don't always go in this order, and sometimes you get multiple steps/answers at once but this is still worth considering):

1. Figure out the likely strain.
2. Figure out the level.
If on the border between game and slam or small and grand then:
3. Make sure there is no suit with 2 quick losers.
4. Make sure opponents can't cash 2 (or 1 for grand) quick tricks in side suits and/or trump
5. Place the contract (possibly allowing alternative strains or partner's opinion sought)

You don't always need to do 3 and 4, although most people try to, but 1 and 2 are really important. Here the 2♦ said the level is at least game (but didn't necessarily agree slam or game/slam border), so it didn't complete 2. But it at least created a force until you could decide on 1. Once you decide on 1 hopefully the partnership can communicate on if game is the limit or more and get 2 figured out. As others have pointed out there wasn't a trump agreement with 3♥ (although some actions over 3♥ might have implied it). There also wasn't a trump agreement with 3♠ (although some actions over 3♠ might have implied it). I'd play that 4♣ was one such action and is a cue agreeing spades. If strain had easily been figured out earlier then something like serious/non-serious 3nt could have helped with strength and/or a non-mandatory cue versus fast arrival might have helped with 2.

I think with the actual hands I'd have bid the slam killing, but decently practical 3nt over 3♦. But I can understand 3♥ and if my hearts were Hx I'd probably do that instead.

thanks for the input. I have reviewed the BBF and found many issues are related with slam sequence.
Most players tend to see one single bid as the key for the improper slam, However, your concept is very helpful for us to evaluate from the whole picture. This is to support my view that the key is to determine the strain if any side has the opportunity for it. After 3♥ I would choose a simple 4♥ in order to make clear the hand is min value of 2♣ opening.