6D? Maybe?

[kenberg]

There is an upcoming lesson on minor suit slams. I offer a hand for discussion, I see no good way of bidding it.

I held:

: AT86432
: void
: AK985
: K

Matchpoints, everyone vul. partner is a bot in the free practice for the upcoming ACBL online game.

I opened 1 , so far so good. The opponents are silent. Partner bids 2 and, with seven spades, it seemed that 2 was right. Partner surprises me by now bidding 3 !

1 - 2
2 - 3
?

We are playing 2/1 so 3 and 4 would both be forcing but then what? I decided to simply raise 3 to 6 .  Partner passed, thankfully.  Now this was a bit of a cheat since in these bot things I know that I always have the best hand at the table so 7 seemed unlikely. Looking at the hand records someone else chose 3 over the 2 but that was greeted with 3NT so it seems that we would still be in a bind.

Here are the two hands, I'll put mine at the top since on the auction we had, my hand was dummy (the software then moves me to declarer's seat).


: AT86432
: void
: AK985
: K



: K
: AKJ73
: Q643
: JT4

Any ideas for a scientific approach? And, for that matter, we still have to make 6 if we get there. The opening lead was the A and then a shift to the 2.

I have been travelling and the connection is not always great so I have been avoiding playing except with the bots. I will not be at today's DARE. Back soon.

[jcreech]

Like so many other minor suit slam hands, it is hard to know when specific information is useful or is getting you too high.  In this hand, the K is useful as both an honor and as a singleton, where the K is only useful as a singleton.  Cue bidding is almost too high for any use at all, and each hand should still have questions about whether the slam is right.

I think you ended up choosing the path of least confusion.  Of the other choices you mentioned, I liked bidding 4 best - before you proceed toward slam, it is essential to set the suit.  3 gives you more room, but it sounds like you are insisting on spades and not asking for cooperation from partner except possibly to bid 3NT.  In the end, you don't know whether 6 will make, but it is a very reasonable shot.

[jcreech]

I am going to throw another hand out, which also happens to be one where 6 makes.

KQ43
JT2
K9843
7

AJT
A
AT65
KJ965

At the other table, the auction began 1 - 1 , then when South jump raised the diamonds, North either cue bid the K or was showing some spade beef trying to get to 3NT.  South must have had similar uncertainty, but tried to cooperate by showing the K.  Whatever North's was trying to do, he just lept to 5 , which was passed out, eventually making six.

At our table, North, in my opinion, correctly decided that they really only had one bid and responded 1 .  Now South reversed into 2 .  I don't know what agreements were in place, but if lebensohl or Wolff signoff was available, the direct bid of 3 should have alerted South that the raise was not a cheesy preference, and cue bid to try to elicit more information should have been used.  What actually happened was that South just bid 3NT, which made five.

If, on the second auction, the cue bid had been made, N-S could have had a sensible to get to slam.  They still might not get there, but at least there would be the possibility that the auction would be sensible and they get to the slam. 

Now whether they should actually want to get there is a separate question given what is missing in the trump suit plus a side ace.  And that is often a question that cannot be answered in the auction with minor suit slam bidding.

[kenberg]

Just looking at NS, the 6 on my hand is a better bet than the one on yours since the latter needs reasonable luck in .  On yours, it's easy if the are 2-2 and maybe manageable if the Q drops stiff but requires some luck. On mine, it's easy of the are 2-2  but chances are still decent when they are not, thanks to the K. They cashed the A and shifted to a small won with the Q in hand, I cashed the K and led a trump to the board, Lho showing out. If the are 3-2 it's still fine as I will ruff a draw trump and claim. Well, the are 4-1 but fortunately the four are with the three so I ruff a , back to the board with a ruff, ruff another , back to the board with a ruff, cash the last two high , then the A, then claim.

So when declarer has the K the hand looks pretty good. Of course in the auction I held the hand with the four so I did not know about the K, just lucky. But it would not be a completely hopeless contract even if the K were a spot.  I make it if split 2-2 and 3-2. Not great, but possible. It's a strange hand. 28 highs, the AK are worthless, the K is worthless, so really it is a decent slam on 18 highs. Seven-five come alive or some such.

On the hand you give, whether I respond 1 or 1 depends a bit on who my partner is, but 1 - 1 - 2 - 3 seems like a good start, with 3 being a game force since a lesser hand begins with either a 2NT relay to 3   or (my preference) a 2 relay to 3 (the 2 relay allows opener to, instead,  show his three card holding which, on a different hand, could be useful). Given that 3 sets trump and is a game force, then I imagine many have either kickback or minorwood available. I don't play either in any partnership, it requires discussion and we just don't get around to it. Once we find we are missing an A and missing the trump  Q we might well sign off, it's one of those optimist versus pessimist things.


I am looking forward to the talks on minor suit slams.  Sample: I think 1 - 1M - 1NT - 2 - 2NT - 3 is a slam try in , or at least a game forcing call  with a serious interest in playing in rather than NT. Certainly that is the case if playing 2 way nmf but I think it should be so if playing simple nmf as well. Perhaps such things will be discussed.

[wackojack]

English Bridge is the EBU's magazine released quarterly.  It has a regular feature called "Beat Today's Experts".  David Bird  finds interesting problem hands for bidding from the archives of international tournaments.  The hands to be bid can be cut out and bid with your favourite or available partner.  Marks are awarded for how close or not you get to the best contract and these marks are compared with the marks the experts bidding.  Occasionally super science gets the tops marks but mostly it is the exercise of good bidding principles and judgement that win the day.  Indeed in the post-mortem this is what David Bird highlights. 

On to Ken's and Jim's bridge hands:

Ken's:  I would not bet on there being a scientific way of reaching 6  ken's raise of 3 to 6 looks eminently sensible and practical and my guess that most experts would do the same or equivalent. 

Jim's: I suggest: 
1     1   (Walsh style)
2     4  (Showing a singleton or void  , and likely 5 card  support.  4  , 3 , 1  , therefore 5     
4      4  ( cue bidding)
4N       5  (1 if you play 1430)
6      pass.

KQ43
JT2
K9843
7

AJT
A
AT65
KJ965

The key is for responder to recognise that this is a game forcing hand opposite a reverse once the 5-4  fit and 4-3  fit has been discovered.  Then opener to recognise that responder's shape has to be 4351.  Could it be even 5251?  Could responder find this out?  Is it worth the extra possible imp?   

[Masse24]

Ken’s hand:

1 – 2
2 – 3
4 – 4
4 – 4NT
5 – 6

With 4 agreeing as trump and showing a control. (It’s not asking for a stopper, we blew past 3NT. It’s not a continuing search for strain, since with four responder bids them after 2 . Ergo, it agrees . It must.)

The other “science” route would have opener agree with 4 . A far more common method I am sure.

Jim’s comment about both partners having questions about slam is right. Responder doesn’t know of the nine-card fit or partner’s stiff honor. 

[jcreech]

I like Todd's auction for Ken's hand, but I feel that the 4 bid is something that needs partnership discussion to be clearly agreeing to diamonds. 

At the table, with even a familiar partner (but the auction undiscussed), I would be concerned that partner is showing black suit misfit with red suits, and  completely unwilling to be in NT.  It is clearly forcing, but forcing in what? 

However, there are some partners where we have discussed some general principles, such as in a NT auction, after a transfer and bidding a second suit, that a return to the transfer suit agrees that suit, while a bid of a new suit agrees to the second suit.  With those partners, I would view the 4 bid as likely to carry Todd's meaning, but in the back of my mind, I would dredge up visions of the auction Eddie Kantar and Miles Marshall had to reach 7 on a 2-1 fit.

[Masse24]

Jim’s hand:

Not a slam I want to be in for the reasons stated by Jim and Ken.

Also, I am not in love with the reverse, which must be decided when the hand is opened. It would not be my choice of rebids. Half the values are in the short suits. This is not a feature, it’s a flaw. I would be much more inclined to upgrade this robust 17 to an 18 count and rebid 2NT (planned when I opened 1 ).

However, in the search for a slam, and assuming the reverse is my partner’s choice:
1   – 1
2   – 3 ^a
3 ^b – 3 ^c
4 ^d – 4 ^e
4 ^f – 5 ^g
Off a keycard and the trump queen, opener bows out gracefully in game.

Where:
(a) 3 is game-force and agrees trump.
(b) 3 is a control.
(c) 3 is a control.
(d) 4 is Minorwood.
(e) 4 (1430) shows one keycard.
(f) 4 asks for the trump Queen.
(g) 5 denies the Queen.

A minimal degree of sophistication must be assumed, so either Minorwood or Kickback for minor suit slams is highly preferred over a 4NT ask.

[kenberg]

The two hands discussed above seem like a good advertisement for the talk tomorrow about bidding minor suit slams.  And, presumably, about staying out of minor suit slams when the bidding shows them to be iffy.

There are several things that come to mind but I think I will hold it to a question for Todd about Jim's hand. You express skepticism about the reverse. But what to do? I would never open it 1 , it's a good hand and I want to give pard accurate info about shape. If I open 1 I will never be able to convince him that I have more clubs than diamonds, and that could be a problem if pard has a significantly different hand. I could open it 1NT but I am not fond of that. So 1 and then 2NT over 1 ? All in all, I think 1 - 1 - 2 is the right start. Pard will not always have a slamish hand and I think we will have a good shot at landing in the right place. Pard might have a modest hand with five spades: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 (usually a weak hand) - 2 . Now we have found our fit and if pard has anything above a bare minimum we should have a decent play for 4 .  When, instead, we have a minor suit fit, either minor, we will find it and then have a reasonable shot at finding the right level.

Anyway, the talk tomorrow should be of interest, I expect to be there.

Amusement: Becky (my wife) and I have been in Berkeley for ten days or so, Becky being involved with yoga. After a weak of yoga, some chips made without grain (apparently that's good, beats me) and other very healthy stuff, Becky announced that she absolutely needed a Diet Coke. It probably would have been easier to find a place that sells marijuana. Berkeley  is another planet. We did have a great time, but the place is seriously weird. Great weather. It was 94 in Baltimore when we returned.

[wackojack]

I am in favour of the reverse.  Aces are worth more than 4 points and good 3 card spade up-rates the 17 points even allowing for a possible disadvantage of the A  singleton.  I think that a lot depends on how you regard a reverse.  Obviously forcing.  Is it a hand that definitely shows a certain strength?  Or a hand that necessarily shows strength because of the way it forces the auction upwards? If you take the 2nd view you could argue that with this particular reverse if partner has a min 5HCP you can still bail out in 2  via Blackout.  (1 -1  - 2 -2  , = min with 4 spades.  So you can play in 2  . 

Back to Jim's hand. 

Half the time the A  will be the wrong side and then you will need to ruff 2 hearts in dummy and therefore play diamonds to be 2-2.  That makes the chance of making to be 47% (by my calcs), other things being equal.  If opps are poor it may be a bit more.  So yes you reach this slam if both parties a slightly optimistic but not over optimistic.  South with the reverse and North with the splinter.   

[kenberg]

More thoughts on the upcoming Marc Smith talk later today.  A big problem with minor suit slams is that the partnership often has not discussed what means what.  Minor suits just "don't get no respect".  Take the simple beginning 1 - 1 .  If the partnership is not playing Walsh style then it is unlikely that the hand should be played in diamonds. Possible but unlikely. If they are playing in the Walsh style them it will not be at all unusual for to be the correct strain. So it is best to know what your agreements are. Here are a few thoughts from BWS:

BWS:
Responses:
      In response to one club, with four of a major and four-plus diamonds, responder bids: one of the major with four diamonds, one diamond with invitational-plus values (otherwise one of the major) with five diamonds, one diamond with six diamonds.
      In response to one diamond: two clubs is forcing to game; three clubs is invitational.
      A one-notrump response shows 6-10 points.
      A jump-shift to the two-level is limited with majors if two of a major (five-plus spades, four-plus hearts, game-invitational if two spades, weaker than game-invitational if two hearts), strong [see section G, above, for requirements] if two diamonds.
      A two-notrump response is natural and invitational.
      A single raise is game-invitational or stronger, forcing to three of the raised minor, and denies a four-card or longer major; a double raise is preemptive (but of sufficient strength to support a contract of three notrump or four of the minor opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP); a double jump-shift is a game-forcing splinter.
      A three-notrump response shows a balanced hand, 16-17 HCP, and little suit-slam interest.
      A triple jump-shift response is natural (an exception to "one level above a splinter is Exclusion Key-Card Blackwood").
End of BWS insert

I am not so much saying that a pair should play this, rather I am saying that a pair should know whether or not they are playing this. And there is quite a bit more at
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html#IVH

So here is my thinking: As I understand it, pairs will be invited to sit and play. Many of us,  including me, will not have much of any agreement about any minor suit auctions. I suggest that unless/until Marc says otherwise, we interpret calls in the BWS style. To repeat, I am not claiming this is the best style, I am only claiming that it would be useful if the partners are playing the same style. Those pairs who have discussed minor suit auctions presumably will play whatever they have agreed to.

[Masse24]

I agree, Ken.
The “discussion” thing is a big problem. We play with plenty of randoms on BBO, so detailed minor suit slam auctions go undiscussed. And in the IAC the agreements before beginning are along the lines of, “2/1, 1430, 4-suit transfers, and UDCA” – and away they go.
Stepping away from the “minors suck” think we were all taught is where it must begin. I love to find minor suit slams where everyone else is in 3NT +3!
A few things to begin with:

1.    Visualize the possibility of slam. Don’t fall into the, “well, we do not have a major fit so let’s park it in 3NT” mind-set.
2.   Have well-defined methods to show (and agree) minors over 1NT & 2NT. There are lots of them. Do some research!
3.   Make proper use of splinters.
4.   Employ Minorwood or Redwood as RKC asks for the minors—and know when they apply! I recently witnessed IAC experts who had this auction: 1 – 4 and neither knew if it was Minorwood (which they had agreed to play) or not.
5.   Understand how to agree to partner’s suit without actually bidding it.
6.   Make proper use of control bids. This is mandatory.

Off to do some yard work. Be back to watch.

[wackojack]

Not seen BWS before.  However, I am familiar with most of it except one bit not clear.  Minor suit jump shifts:
1 -2 ?  Is this a 5 card mixed raise 8-10 where 1 -2 is stronger 11+.
1  - 3  .  Is this  also a 5 card mixed raise 8-10 where 1  -2  is stronger 11+?

I am familiar with and like the reverse Flannery jump shifts into 2  /  .  Recently I mentioned to Joost when Rev Flannery solved problem rebids.  (in place of very weak 6 cards)  Both uses are rare.  Not sure which would be more frequent and therefore more useful. 

[kenberg]

My understanding of BWS:

 1 - 2 is a strong jump shift into . I have not looked carefully at the details, but I think it is like a Soloway jump shift: Game forcing, a hand that will be played in or in or in NT. It shows and it might or might not have a fit for , but is uninterested in playing in a major.

1 !d -3 !c is an invitational bid with a suit. Basically, the message can be thought of as "If we were playnig old fashioned bids, Goren or SAYC or whatever, I would bid have bid a forcing but not game forcing 2 over your 1 , planning on bidding a passable 3 over any simple rebid that you make.