[Jinksy]

If he had a club void, surely he'd have cued 5♣?

[jddons]

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church. My immediate thought, like paulg was that partner has not used RKCB (or minorwood etc if it was being played) because he has a void and 5H exclusion takes him too high. If it was in spades, then he would have signed off immediately knowing we had wasted values there; if it was in clubs he would have cued 5C giving me the chance to sign off with wasted values there; therefore it is in hearts. Would he seriously have made a slam invite with Kxx - AKJxxxx Kxx when 5D might be too high? One or both black Q's look much more likely. I'm bidding 6C looking for the grand.

[mikeh]

 jddons, on 2014-November-17, 10:37, said:

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church. My immediate thought, like paulg was that partner has not used RKCB (or minorwood etc if it was being played) because he has a void and 5H exclusion takes him too high. If it was in spades, then he would have signed off immediately knowing we had wasted values there; if it was in clubs he would have cued 5C giving me the chance to sign off with wasted values there; therefore it is in hearts. Would he seriously have made a slam invite with Kxx - AKJxxxx Kxx when 5D might be too high? One or both black Q's look much more likely. I'm bidding 6C looking for the grand.

He already knows we don't have values in hearts: our 3♠ call showed values there, and by bypassing hearts (I assume) denied values in that suit. I assume that with majors and diamond interest, we would bid hearts first.

If I am correct in that inference, then the one thing he doesn't have is a heart void.

As for your example hand, why wouldn't he look for slam with Kxx void AKJxxxx Kxx opposite a 12-14 hand that showed relative weakness in hearts and some interest in diamonds? AQxx xxx xxxx Ax makes grand laydown and that is only 10 hcp. AQxx Qxxx xxx Ax is still only 12 hcp and bad diamonds and yet grand is extremely good. And so on. Anyone who fears that 5♦ may be too high is spending way too much time as a pessimist.

[ahydra]

I'm going to pass - we showed lots of encouragement already, confirmed controls in all suits, and yet partner still signed off. So perhaps he's looking for general values rather than anything in particular - and we have a flat shape, only three diamonds, no trick source.

This is a really good problem though - the forum seems almost split down the middle.

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

The way partner bids, he has only 1KC, he cant bid 4NT, because 2KCs
commit us to 5D / 5NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

 jddons, on 2014-November-17, 10:37, said:

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church.

Thou shalt refer to thy house properly: High Church

[aguahombre]

 ahydra, on 2014-November-17, 14:10, said:

I'm going to pass - we showed lots of encouragement already, confirmed controls in all suits, and yet partner still signed off. So perhaps he's looking for general values rather than anything in particular - and we have a flat shape, only three diamonds, no trick source.

This is a really good problem though - the forum seems almost split down the middle.

ahydra

It is a good problem. Even us strong NT'rs can simply visualize an auction which started:

1C-2D (ala Mike Lawrence)
2N-3D...etc.

We can still hate the agreement that 3S might have been based on QJXX and thus we had to bid the suit twice to show one control. But, tell me how we have already "confirmed controls in all suits?" Who showed a club control and when?

[jddons]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-17, 11:04, said:

He already knows we don't have values in hearts: our 3♠ call showed values there, and by bypassing hearts (I assume) denied values in that suit. I assume that with majors and diamond interest, we would bid hearts first.

If I am correct in that inference, then the one thing he doesn't have is a heart void.

As for your example hand, why wouldn't he look for slam with Kxx void AKJxxxx Kxx opposite a 12-14 hand that showed relative weakness in hearts and some interest in diamonds? AQxx xxx xxxx Ax makes grand laydown and that is only 10 hcp. AQxx Qxxx xxx Ax is still only 12 hcp and bad diamonds and yet grand is extremely good. And so on. Anyone who fears that 5♦ may be too high is spending way too much time as a pessimist.

I started the hand as a pessimist and became optimistic whereas I imagine you did the reverse. I agree with your inference but not the interpretation. Surely the fact we have bypassed 3H has encouraged partner with his H void? - My question is why has partner cued in H and then over 4S has backed off with 5D. He knows we have values in S so a cue there can not be a disappointment to him otherwise he would have signed off earlier. My take on this is that the sequence is intended to draw our attention to the critical importance of our club holding. Is ATx good enough? surely partner can't be worse than xx - AKxxxxx KJxx? Incidentally, a very sound player from Yorkshire, Alan Martindale, had a favourite saying - "I've never won a match by bidding a slam, but I've lost plenty." Wonder where this one figured in the final analysis?

[helene_t]

Maybe partner couldn't keycard because he was afraid of two without the queen. If he needed three kcs he might not have tried for slam at all.

[The_Badger]

Pass! You have misled partner not once, but twice. I can understand the 3♠ bid but technically it is "on the edge", even incorrect: you are not maximum, you do not have 4 trumps or 3 trumps with 2 honours, and you are completely balanced. As for the 4♠ bid: that is just an error. 1NT as an opening bid is one of the most definitive bids in bridge. It shows a specific point count and shape. It partner wanted a slam, why did he bid 5♦?

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-17, 14:17, said:

Who showed a club control and when?

Partner did, when he bid 4♣.

[lamford]

 paulg, on 2014-November-17, 01:59, said:

I'd be much more confident in this analysis if he could have bid 4♥ as key-card over 3♠. And although I think it's clear, it would take me some time to do it at the table.

If I were playing kickback, it would take me no time at all to bid it, but I would not do it with a void. Could partner have bid exclusion with a void? I think 5C instead of 5D from partner would be last train, so I would pass now. If 5C from partner would have been reverse last train, then I would bid slam now.

[whereagles]

 jddons, on 2014-November-18, 05:12, said:

"I've never won a match by bidding a slam, but I've lost plenty."

A few years ago Zia's team was playing a semifinal of a major championship and they were trailing for like 20 imps.

In 12 boards they bid 5 slams, of which 4 went down, and missed another cold one. They ended up losing the match by 40 imps or so, whereas they'd have won it by 10 had they bid no slam at all.


Zia later confessed that was food for thought.

[WesleyC]

I don't really understand whats going on in your auction, but I would already have bid slam over 4H.

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies. The passers form the majority.

I'd be surprised if partner had a void anywhere. She could have started with 2NT transfer to diamonds, and presumably using that followed by a jump would be an autosplinter. This route is not so attractive with a club void, but if she chose to start with 3♦ holding a club void, wouldn't she have bid 5♣, either over 4♠ or directly over 3♠?

Partner's actual hand was Q10x AJx AKJ10xx x. Opposite this, 6♦ is a good contract, essentially requiring one of two finesses. However, if you change partner's ♠10 to a small one then now slam is some way below 50%.

This suggests to me that the decision is quite close, but make the spades more chunky: AJ108 (or AQJx without ♥Q) for example and now raising to slam looks a lot more tempting.

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-16, 08:45, said:

I think it's automatic to pass. I have only three diamonds, I don't have a doubleton, I have five points in queens and jacks, I have poor spots in my four-card suit, and partner didn't bid Keycard.

Interesting how one can see the same hand in different light.
Responder has bypassed 3NT, so should have a strong slam try.
For a weak notrump I have 2 aces and the queen of trumps. 4 controls for a weak notrump is certainly above average.
The only dubious value I got is the queen of hearts and it might be working too.
If this is not sufficient what business did responder have to bypass 3NT?
And if responders hand was unsuitable for 3NT responder could have shown a poor slam try by bidding 5♦ directly over 3♠.
What else do you want for slam?

 Fluffy, on 2014-November-16, 10:50, said:

Why didn't partner use blackwood? is it because he is down opposite a 5♥ response?

No, it is not, because we have promised some diamond support, so at worst we will be on a 2-2 break.

This logic looks flawed to me.
Just because a slam is not completely hopeless is not a good justification to bid it.
Without the queen we have more than a 50% chance to lose one trick in the trump suit.
This alone must have a big impact whether we should be in slam or not.

Responder did not keycard because 2 aces without the queen would not have been sufficient.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 jallerton, on 2014-November-29, 04:12, said:

Thanks for the replies. The passers form the majority.

I'd be surprised if partner had a void anywhere. She could have started with 2NT transfer to diamonds, and presumably using that followed by a jump would be an autosplinter. This route is not so attractive with a club void, but if she chose to start with 3♦ holding a club void, wouldn't she have bid 5♣, either over 4♠ or directly over 3♠?

Partner's actual hand was Q10x AJx AKJ10xx x. Opposite this, 6♦ is a good contract, essentially requiring one of two finesses. However, if you change partner's ♠10 to a small one then now slam is some way below 50%.

This suggests to me that the decision is quite close, but make the spades more chunky: AJ108 (or AQJx without ♥Q) for example and now raising to slam looks a lot more tempting.

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

It is always hard to say what to do over a break in tempo. The reaction here clearly demonstrates that 6♦ is not obvious.
But without that I do not share your analysis, mainly because responder overbid already in my opinion.
Responder needs an ideal hand for slam to be good and apparently had no way of showing his club shortage, which is key to the good slam.
What responder thought about before bidding 5♦ escapes me completely.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

Quote

I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

It sounds like the TD recognized that pass was a logical alternative, but after asking players (of the appropriate skill level) found that an insignificant number of them would actually choose to pass. The laws state that in this case the 6D bid is allowed. What else can the director possibly do?

[Fluffy]

 jallerton, on 2014-November-29, 04:12, said:

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

Consulted players knew the full hand, right? this is so typical and I don't understand why rules do not address this common issue, human beigns are unable to draw logic conclusions ignoring data that they do know.

[Fluffy]

 rhm, on 2014-November-29, 09:46, said:

 Fluffy, on 2014-November-16, 10:50, said:

Why didn't partner use blackwood? is it because he is down opposite a 5♥ response?

No, it is not, because we have promised some diamond support, so at worst we will be on a 2-2 break.

This logic looks flawed to me.
Just because a slam is not completely hopeless is not a good justification to bid it.
Without the queen we have more than a 50% chance to lose one trick in the trump suit.
This alone must have a big impact whether we should be in slam or not.

Responder did not keycard because 2 aces without the queen would not have been sufficient.

Rainer Herrmann

Let me explain this, partner is not scared of the 5♥ response because for the 5♥ response to be bad this things have to apply:

We colaboraed with slam try with 3 small diamonds (can't calculate, but around 20-30%)
We have a diamond loser (depending on the presence fo the Jack, but around 50% overall)
We have exactly 2 keycards (60-80% or so)

Combine all of them and you have 6-12% I think. So partner is not going to give up blackwood and lose the meaning of the 5 level bids because of an event that happens only 6-12% of the time.