[skjaeran]

This hand is from a district teams championship match on Monday.

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - 2♥
3♥ - 4♦
4♥ - passs

---

This was our 2/1 sequence to the 2nd best contract and -13 IMPs. We're a new partnership with too few agreements in place, but I should obviously have done better anyway. Would you?

[jillybean]

short answer, no

[Echognome]

This one is very close in my view. I would have bid it the same up through 4♦, which, for me, would mean a cue bid with serious interest in slam. What can opener make of the lack of a spade and club cuebid and holding good trumps? Hard to imagine anything less than responder has, so perhaps another move is warranted.

[cherdano]

If West decides not to splinter (reasonably, although I might bid 4♦ if I know we don't have good agreements over 3♥), and you don't play serious or frivolous 3N, I can't see getting to this slam.

[Fluffy]

IMO after West bid 3♥ instead of 4, East is worth another move.

[helene_t]

I like Gnome's line. But I have different methods in my partnerships and would not have found the slam.

[skjaeran]

As you've inferred serious/frivolous 3NT isn't in our agreements yet. I agree that both west and east COULD make another move, but that's close and not clear IMO. The grave error occured earlier though.

[kenrexford]

It is very difficult to assess what should have happened without knowing the agreements, but I'll take a stab.

Without serious or frivolous in use, 3♥ presumably shows some non-minimum. Responder has a nice hand, with only five losers and a trick source, and so he makes a slam move. I am guessing that the cuebidding style is not Aces-first. If so, the 4♦ call showed slam interest with no spade control (maybe -- don't know the agreements) and no club control.

Opener's hand is huge in that context. Great trumps, a first and a second in the blacks, and the diamond Queen. So, IMO, Opener has "it," whatever it must be.

So, my gut tells me that your approach must lead to the conclusion that Opener owes Responder something more than a 4♥ call. My gut also tells me that the correct call would be 5♦ -- sufficient controls in the blacks, good trumps, a diamond card, and unwillingness to commit to a simple RKCB auction.

Responder would make the right decision after 5♦.

[jdonn]

I think opener should just splinter, the weak spades are a reason not to but it still seems right. Then it's easy, no complicated agreements needed.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Oct 24 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

I think opener should just splinter, the weak spades are a reason not to but it still seems right. Then it's easy, no complicated agreements needed.

My reason not to splinter (in a regular partnership) is that I have the ♦Q, not the weakness of the spade suit.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Oct 24 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 24 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

I think opener should just splinter, the weak spades are a reason not to but it still seems right. Then it's easy, no complicated agreements needed.

My reason not to splinter (in a regular partnership) is that I have the ♦Q, not the weakness of the spade suit.

I strongly disagree with that agreement, you are losing out on perfectly good splinters because of a card that is so often irrelevent.

[mike777]

Wow interesting discussion.

I must admit splinter seems fine but even without I would have just rkc over 4d without a second choice or option. Interesting that for so many 4H was option one.

[skjaeran]

I was east. I agree with partners 3♥ rebid. A splinter would show a void for me, so that's no alternative.

The bad bid was my 4♦ cuebid.
Even without any agreements about serious 3NT I should have made just that call, to give partner the opportunity to make a cheap 4♣ cuebid.

Whether or not my partner should make some other call than 4♥ is IMO a very close decision - I don't fault his choice at all. He can't be sure the 5-level is safe, even if it rates to be.

So I'll take the blame for missing this slam. If I rebid 3NT there's no way for us to avoid getting there.

[mike777]

skaeran, on Oct 24 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

I was east. I agree with partners 3♥ rebid. A splinter would show a void for me, so that's no alternative.

The bad bid was my 4♦ cuebid.
Even without any agreements about serious 3NT I should have made just that call, to give partner the opportunity to make a cheap 4♣ cuebid.

Whether or not my partner should make some other call than 4♥ is IMO a very close decision - I don't fault his choice at all. He can't be sure the 5-level is safe, even if it rates to be.

So I'll take the blame for missing this slam. If I rebid 3NT there's no way for us to avoid getting there.

Wow interesting conclusion...you think 4d was a poor or incorrect bid..wow...
I thought responder bid great...

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Oct 24 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

Even without any agreements about serious 3NT I should have made just that call, to give partner the opportunity to make a cheap 4♣ cuebid.

If you have no agreements about playing serious 3NT then wouldn't it be natural? I guess 3NT would probably make anyway if partner passed, but it would badly hurt the chances to evaluate for slam. Anyway given that you have no agreements (but you still had the agreement that a splinter bid shows a void?) it's hard to fault missing every 13 opposite 14 slam.

[Halo]

I liked 3H, and 4D, and 4H. Why can't East bid 5D. Seems to emphasise the concentration of values and black suit losers. Is the five level so dangerous.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Oct 24 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

skaeran, on Oct 24 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

Even without any agreements about serious 3NT I should have made just that call, to give partner the opportunity to make a cheap 4♣ cuebid.

If you have no agreements about playing serious 3NT then wouldn't it be natural? I guess 3NT would probably make anyway if partner passed, but it would badly hurt the chances to evaluate for slam. Anyway given that you have no agreements (but you still had the agreement that a splinter bid shows a void?) it's hard to fault missing every 13 opposite 14 slam.

I agree with that, without agreements I would expect 3N to be natural.

[kenrexford]

I have an idea -- make better agreements. I could even suggest a starting point for study.

Seriously, though (pun intended), discuss and agree to play Serious 3NT. Next time, there will be no need to make it up at the table. TADA!

On the note about not splintering because of the stiff being a Queen. With very tight, restricted splinters, I allow a Queen. However, my splinters are restricted enough that it tells a lot more about the hand. Here, a 4♦ splinter could be a Queen, but the splinter would deny a club control, show two top hearts, and would show 3 of the top four spades. PLUS, there's a way to check if the stiff is a Queen, or even a Jack.

Without such tight splinters, I agree that a stiff Queen is too much, especially with Axx in clubs. This combination converts an A-K in diamonds from partner into no club losers. I disagree that the stiff Queen is rarely worth anything. I would agree that it is rarely valued as worth anything, but that's different.

[mikeh]

I have considerable sympathy for the result.

Harald, does/did your partnership have an agreement about the degree of support shown by 3♥?

My default agreement, in serious partnerships, is that we cannot play 3N after the raise to 3♥. We don't (usually) play serious 3N, but we do play that 3N denies the ability to cue clubs.

However, if you had not yet discussed whether the partnership can play 3N after 3♥, clearly you could not have risked the bid. Imagine playing 3N down on the run of the club suit

In that case (no discussion) I would have missed the slam as well. Responder does not, imo, have sufficient 5-level safety to risk moving over 4♥, and opener (just barely) lacks enough to do more than bid 4♥.

Nothing, in my view, to be ashamed of in a new partnership. This is precisely why new partnerships have to work hard to become successful..... and why all strong partnerships have or develop rules. I bet you have clear rules in place now

[Impact]

1. Assuming 2/1 GF I think that with 4 card good trump support Opener should have taken the opportunity to splinter if that was part of the partnership agreement (having done so he obviously does not have enough to move over responder's subsequent 4H).

2. In the absence of a splinter by opener, and the 3H non-minimum - or perhaps lacking "picture jump" eg 5-4-2-2 concentrated values in S &H,
I assume responder's bid is a cue (as opposed to shape or concentration) based on the following:-
a) denial of a REAL S cue (ie SA/K) but ambivalent as to distributional shortage in S or holding SQ;
denial of C control
c) I don't know what 3NT or its absence would imply but I like the agreement that after such a start it is NOT natural and either is an early DI or similar including as an alternative trump Honour(s) possibly turbo even.

On the assumption of at least a) & above opener COULD move -just-but if he assumed that this was a mere "courtesy cue" and denied whatever 3NT would show, he would not move.

The problem is the poor S suit with the lead coming through the exposed K, no obvious source of side suit tricks but opener does hold very good trumps and the crucial CA.

In my view had opener described his hand with the splinter he would not have caught himself in the conundrum that followed (made far worse by the absence of agreements).

Rule: All things being equal, describe if a description is available - particularly with a minimum!
regards,