[mikeh]

Just back from a small sectional in Nanaimo, a small town on Vancouver Island. Played three events with my regular partner…two one session and one two session mp pairs. The two hands here yielded us good mp scores….one was, I think, justified but lucky and the other also gave us a good score but we should have done better.

The first involves what I think is the second strongest playing hand I’ve ever held and illustrates one difference between mps and imps.

Nobody vul, you deal and pick up void AKQxxx x AKJ98x

1H (p) 2H (x) to you.

We use exclusion so 5S is tempting and, I think, right at imps where you want to be in grand opposite the diamond ace but not opposite either no ace or the spade ace.

But at mps, using exclusion to cater to the unlikely chance that partner has the ace of diamonds means telling LHO not to lead a spade, increasing the chances of a diamond lead when , without it, it may be a three way guess. A black suit lead gives you a lot of chances for an overtrick even if partner lacks the spade ace. If clubs come home (wouldn’t a club lead be nice?) you can expect to pitch dummy’s diamonds and if you have a trump left you can trump your diamond in dummy.

So I bid 6H to maximize the chances of an overtrick while abandoning the chance of a cold grand.

Dummy held the spade ace and that suit was led so 13 tricks came home.

The second board led to a result that scored well in the event but would have been well below @verage in a strong field, imo.

---

1H seems normal although some might think it’s too strong. Two suiters are difficult to bid after 2C so I agreed with partner’s choice.

2H seems ok. Nothing wrong with a maximum.

2S set a game force, which no other bid below game does. Slam is definitely possible but requires partner to hold useful cards. 2S gets partner thinking the right way.

3D was a poor choice. 3S would have been much better.

4C furthered the slam try and seems normal.

4S was a belated effort to cue spades but led to a misunderstanding. We normally use 4S as keycard when hearts are agreed upon, as here, but that conflicts with an general principle which is that we never use keycard unless we know what to do after any response. There is no possibility that a hand that bid a mere 2H can use keycard.there’s no way he can count tricks.

Anyway, partner intended 4N to show 4 keycards and took my 5C (intended to show 1 keycard) as asking about the heart queen, so he bid 5D. I, of course, thought that he was the one asking, so I jumped to 6H. I’d already shown the diamond King.

Everything behaved. 13 tricks rolled home and this was a grand that one really wants to be in. Only truly unlucky breaks could set us.

My mistake…3D….was the killer. Over 3S, partner keycards, asks for the trump queen and I show him that and the diamond king and bidding grand is easy,

As it was, only a third of the field got to 6 and I don’t think anyone bid seven…though I didn’t check.

[Cyberyeti]

Second hand, what would 2N have been rather than 3♦ ?

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-August-11, 04:19, said:

Second hand, what would 2N have been rather than 3♦ ?

Spade values, something like KJx xxx QJxx Qx? Definitely regressive, in terms of a slam hunt. No specific agreement but that would be consistent with our style. Opener’s 2N would have been a different hand type, asking me o bid tge cyeapest suit in which I’d accept a short suit try.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing 4 card majors as I do I think S would hold his nose and bid 1N over 1♠.

1N should not be slam regressive, Kxx, Qxx, any 7 cards should now be an OK slam, see if he cues S later.

[pescetom]

The first hand, you didn't mention who did have ♦A: I take it not your partner

The second one I like to think we would have bid 2♠ 3♠ but that could well be resulting.
In any case something like
1♥ (1♠) 2♥
2♠ 3♠
4♣ 4♦
4N(even) 5♠
5N(Q?) 6♣
...

I think Opener can count 13 tricks already if hearts J behaves.

[jillybean]

In the second auction, what would a 3S bid have shown? I assume 1st round spade control Why did you bid 3D?

[awm]

I don't see why 3♦ is wrong; opposite a different hand the diamond king could be a critically important card (say ♠x ♥AKJxx ♦AQJxx ♣Ax. My normal style is to cue up the line, so 3♠ would deny a diamond control, which would obviously make 3♠ a very wrong call in this auction. I guess it's a matter of agreements?

But it seems to me the real issue is the confusion as to whether 4♠ was keycard or control showing. In principle either might be playable, but having a miscommunication here was quite costly. If you were sure that 4♠ was a control and 4nt was keycard, you would have no problem reaching the grand.

[jillybean]

In the second auction, what would a 3S bid have shown? I assume 1st round spade control Why did you bid 3D? (Fixed)

Do you have a variable kickback? It can only be kickback if you know what to do with the response. As you say, a hand that can only bid a mere 2H shouldn’t be using kb.
Otherwise, it’s a cue?

[mikeh]

awm, on 2025-August-11, 09:16, said:

I don't see why 3♦ is wrong; opposite a different hand the diamond king could be a critically important card (say ♠x ♥AKJxx ♦AQJxx ♣Ax. My normal style is to cue up the line, so 3♠ would deny a diamond control, which would obviously make 3♠ a very wrong call in this auction. I guess it's a matter of agreements?

But it seems to me the real issue is the confusion as to whether 4♠ was keycard or control showing. In principle either might be playable, but having a miscommunication here was quite costly. If you were sure that 4♠ was a control and 4nt was keycard, you would have no problem reaching the grand.

You nailed my thinking at the time I bid 3D but I think I erred.

Yes, 3S would tend to deny a diamond control but that presupposes that I won’t get a chance to show that control later.

My hand is as close to perfect, for slam bidding, as a 2H raise could be. Oh, I could come up with slightly better super max 2H raises, particularly since this was mps where hyper aggressive game bidding is not a good tactic, but this was an amazingly good raise once partner showed slam interest, which 2S did in our methods. With game only values he bids game and with game invitational values he has several ways to involve me, including an artificial 2N or a natural help suit try.

If I had to make one bid for my life over 2S…I was going to be barred after one bid…it would have been 6H. So I know that even if he signs off over 3S, perhaps due to concern over a lack of a minor suit cuebid, I’d bid 5D.

As it is, he’d have used keycard over 3S and then asked for the trump queen, at which point I show that card and the diamond king.

I’d never bid 5D over 4H to show a stiff. It’s unlikely (but not impossible) that I have long enough hearts to allow him to ruff a bunch of diamonds….I’d usually have bid differently at some point, since with the spade ace, long hearts and a stiff diamond I would often have a mixed raise (which is how we play 3H over 2S) or a 2N bid (4+ hearts, invitational) or 4H.


My final takeaway, in terms of assessing responsibility, is that when one partner creates an ambiguous situation, as I did, then that partner wears most of the responsibility for an ensuing poor result.

Having said that, this was matchpoints where, for deliberate players like us, time can be a factor. At imps I don’t worry about taking two, three or even five minutes to work something out, even when that annoys the opps. Doing that once or twice in a 15 board segment isn’t usually an issue….and once in a 7-8 board match is usually ok. But at mps it’s unfair to our opps and could risk time problems for us as well, so I don’t spend quite as much time over these low frequency situations as I might at imps.

[pescetom]

I can see your reasoning about the first hand, but the chance that partner has the golden diamonds Ace is not that small, a little better than 1 in 3. Might the problem not be in the method to identify it? A Specific Ace Ask is more stealthy than Exclusion:
4NT 5♧
6♡ P
Sure, it means giving up any hope of learning about partner's distribution or possible clubs. It would also deter a spades lead in the actual situation of holding only the spades Ace, but that is only 22% or so.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2025-August-12, 02:20, said:

I can see your reasoning about the first hand, but the chance that partner has the golden diamonds Ace is not that small, a little better than 1 in 3. Might the problem not be in the method to identify it? A Specific Ace Ask is more stealthy than Exclusion:
4NT 5♧
6♡ P
Sure, it means giving up any hope of learning about partner's distribution or possible clubs. It would also deter a spades lead in the actual situation of holding only the spades Ace, but that is only 22% or so.

What makes you think partner has a one in three chance of holding the diamond ace?

Plus, more importantly, on what reasoning do you conclude that AKQxxx is a no loser trump suit?

For 4N to work you need much more than to find him with the diamond ace. You need him to hold adequate trump support.

I can almost guarantee that had I opened 4N he’d have something like KQxx void AKxx Qxxxx.