[Phil]

ACBL speedball - IMP Pairs. Random opponents as usual.

---

Now?

[ArtK78]

Partner could not bid 3NT. You can't bid 3NT. What is to be gained by a pass here? You know that you want to play in 5♣ unless partner has second round spade control, so why not bid it? Partner is still there and can bid 6♣ with a spade control.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-02, 11:17, said:

Partner could not bid 3NT. You can't bid 3NT. What is to be gained by a pass here? You know that you want to play in 5♣ unless partner has second round spade control, so why not bid it? Partner is still there and can bid 6♣ with a spade control.

I think this works, if our 2S cue created a game force. We can bid 5C here if we are only interested in 2nd round spade control, and 4C otherwise.

But if 2S did not commit us to game, we don't have that luxury and have to utilize a forcing pass to create the force implying slammish intent with this one, 4C to play in 4C, and 5C to play it in 5C.

[dake50]

I think this works, if our 2S cue created a game force. We can bid 5C here if we are only interested in 2nd round spade control, and 4C otherwise.

But if 2S did not commit us to game, we don't have that luxury and have to utilize a forcing pass to create the force implying slammish intent with this one, 4C to play in 4C, and 5C to play it in 5C.

***
Agree. Does 2S force game or 4-level?
I choose game-force and take your lumps when
4C is all there is in this hand.

[cherdano]

There is another option besides playing 3NT and playing 5♣.

How can defending 3♠X be wrong if partner decides to double after our forcing pass?

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-02, 11:17, said:

Partner could not bid 3NT. You can't bid 3NT. What is to be gained by a pass here? You know that you want to play in 5♣ unless partner has second round spade control, so why not bid it? Partner is still there and can bid 6♣ with a spade control.

Are you saying that 5♣ invites partner to bid slam with a spade control? If so, what would you do if you just wanted to play in 5♣?

In my world, the way to invite slam with a spade control is to bid 4♣, initiating a cue-bidding sequence. If partner cue-bids 4♠, you bid slam; if he bids 4♥, you bid 5♣, denying spade control but inviting him to bid six with the right hand.

[lamford]

I would be worried that partner thinks 2♠ was forcing only to 4 of a minor. I cannot see what is wrong with bidding 4♥ now, and partner will bid 4♠ with the expected spade control. I expect clubs at least as good as AKJxxx opposite.

[mikeh]

I would certainly use the forcing pass here.

As opener, with say xxx KQx x AKJxxx, how would you have bid differently any earlier in the auction?

Now, 5♣ has reasonable play, but is far from cold, while they are going for 500 at least, absent any freakish shape.

I think we have to give partner the chance to double.

I don't think the FP solves all of our problems, since partner may pull, and now can we justify 4♥ as a slam try? On another hand, we'd have passed and then planned to pull the double as a strong slam try....if he pulls ahead of us, how do we distinguish between a hand that wants to slam-try opposite a pull and one that wants to slam-try opposite a double?

But that's another problem for a later round....I do think we have to make one move (4♥ for me, since it's not clear that 4♦ is a cue) if he bids 4♣ and, in the meantime, if he doubles, I have a clear pass.

[Phil]

I passed.

Forget about the fact partner also passed (?!) in a momentary lapse of reason with x Kxxx xx AKQJxx.

Can anyone construct a logical auction to 6♣?

[xxhong]

1C p 1D 1S
2C p 2S(gf, may have C gf hand or D gf hand) p
3H 3S 4C(it is a C gf, no S wastage and some slam interest) p
4D(RKC)...

Phil, on 2012-April-02, 16:46, said:

I passed.

Forget about the fact partner also passed (?!) in a momentary lapse of reason with x Kxxx xx AKQJxx.

Can anyone construct a logical auction to 6♣?

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-April-02, 16:46, said:

I passed.

Forget about the fact partner also passed (?!) in a momentary lapse of reason with x Kxxx xx AKQJxx.

Can anyone construct a logical auction to 6♣?

First of all i dont like the pass, you are transfering your headache to pd with the hope that he may double, a partner who doesnt even know you have a 3 card fit to his 6 or 7 card suit, with all due respect to Arend i dont like it at all. I maybe wrong though.

If you made the bid Andy suggested as an option (4♣) and inform pd about your fit and about your intentions (that you are not seeking the best game anymore but slam instead) instead of transfering your headache by a forcing pass you end up in slam easily imo. Your pd's pass was obv due to big misunderstanding or lack of pdship agreement for your initial cue. Having bid his hand as weak as possible 3 times (1-2-3 ♣) he will not only cue as andy said but also will probably not stop before slam imo.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-April-02, 16:46, said:

I passed.

Forget about the fact partner also passed (?!) in a momentary lapse of reason with x Kxxx xx AKQJxx.

Can anyone construct a logical auction to 6♣?

1♣ [P] 1♦ [1♠]
2♣ [P] 2♠ [P]
3♣ [3♠] P [P]
4♣ [P] 4♥ [P]
4♠ [P] 4N [P]
6♣



where 4N is showing interest in slam but not enough to bid it (or to force to it via 5♦].

Alternatively, over 4♠, S could just blast, but I think that is too much

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2012-April-02, 18:17, said:

First of all i dont like the pass, you are transfering your headache to pd with the hope that he may double, a partner who doesnt even know you have a 3 card fit to his 6 or 7 card suit, with all due respect to Arend i dont like it at all. I maybe wrong though.

If you made the bid Andy suggested as an option (4♣) and inform pd about your fit and about your intentions (that you are not seeking the best game anymore but slam instead) instead of transfering your headache by a forcing pass you end up in slam easily imo. Your pd's pass was obv due to big misunderstanding or lack of pdship agreement for your initial cue. Having bid his hand as weak as possible 3 times (1-2-3 ♣) he will not only cue as andy said but also will probably not stop before slam imo.

What I don't understand is why partner can't be 3=3=1=6 on the auction to date and why, given that, you want to avoid doubling the vulnerable opps.

As for partner....he could (should) infer that we have a useful hand when we pass....either a better hand with longer diamonds or a club fit...in either case, he will be well positioned.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2012-April-02, 18:17, said:

If you made the bid Andy suggested as an option (4♣) and inform pd about your fit and about your intentions (that you are not seeking the best game anymore but slam instead) instead of transfering your headache by a forcing pass you end up in slam easily imo. Your pd's pass was obv due to big misunderstanding or lack of pdship agreement for your initial cue. Having bid his hand as weak as possible 3 times (1-2-3 ♣) he will not only cue as andy said but also will probably not stop before slam imo.

This seems to end up in a circle. 4C would be forcing, only if the 2S cue committed the partnership to game. Even if it were only forcing to 4C, here we are at 4C.

But, this opener would not think 4C was forcing, because this opener didn't think 2S was necessarily that strong. How do I know this? We have evidence from his bid of 3C over 2S; if 2S was seriously forcing to any game, 3C would have shown a 7th club or a collection of crud with nothing better to do. This hand would bid 3H instead of 3C.

Conclusion: 4C wasn't available as forcing; he would have passed that. Pass had to be considered forcing, but he let it float out. Responder was all on his own.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2012-April-02, 19:42, said:

What I don't understand is why partner can't be 3=3=1=6 on the auction to date and why, given that, you want to avoid doubling the vulnerable opps.

Because my opponents are aware that they are red too, and my pd said he doesnt stop ♠ suit, that makes it perfectly clear for me that we are good for at least 5♣ and maybe more.

I have a fit that my pd doesnt know and expecting a good judgement from him seems like leaning on pd too much. I would personally not do that

By bidding 4♣ i perfectly deliver the message and i wont really try to catch some opps who bids like maniacs on this hand, there are other hands to catch them. What am i supposed to tell my pd if later he says "i bid clubs 3 times and i also said i dont have spade stopper, and you have 3 of them ?"

It may sound fancy and brilliant in the forums but at the table i would not pass when i have a bid that perfectly delivers the message across.

@ Aguahombre : I play this initial cue as gf, so my comment was accordingly.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-April-02, 23:59, said:

Because my opponents are aware that they are red too

Given the auction so far, do you think it wise to trust the opponents' judgement?

[JLOGIC]

Agree with others that pass is obvious, if for no other reason than it allows partner to double.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-April-03, 01:22, said:

Given the auction so far, do you think it wise to trust the opponents' judgement?

I am not trusting them,it seems like they are walking the dog but i wont trust pd's decision either when he bid a suit 3 times and i am asking him if we can dbl their contract when he is the last person to know when it is correct and when wrong to double. I dunno Andy, to me it sounds wrong to hide a fit from pd when i also think opponents are walking the dog, it never ends up good for me.

mikeh, on 2012-April-02, 19:36, said:

1♣ [P] 1♦ [1♠]
2♣ [P] 2♠ [P]
3♣ [3♠] P [P]
4♣ [P] 4♥ [P]
4♠ [P] 4N [P]
6♣

Mike something wrong with this auction... If we make a forcing pass, after pd's last 2 bids showed nothing but weakness, do you really want him to bid only 4♣? Imo 4♣ bid, for a man who doesnt know his pd has 3 card support, is an underbid with a solid suit that can play vs a void. He has a monster after bidding 1-2-3♣ and pd is making a forcing pass i think he should just bid 4♠ with this hand. How can he have a hand thats better than what he holds for someone who only bid 1-2-3♣ and his 3rd bid was a forced one, not even a free bid. Just a thought.

With the hand he held, i think whether we bid 4♣ or pass we would reach slam regardless.

Also there is a good case for bidding 4♣ by pd over our 2♠. This hand is too good after he already bid 2♣ and pd cued for 1-2-3 ♣ imo

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2012-April-03, 18:41, said:

I am not trusting them,it seems like they are walking the dog but i wont trust pd's decision either when he bid a suit 3 times and i am asking him if we can dbl their contract when he is the last person to know when it is correct and when wrong to double. I dunno Andy, to me it sounds wrong to hide a fit from pd when i also think opponents are walking the dog, it never ends up good for me.

what do you think a double by him would show?

It isn't a penalty double, in the sense of announcing 'we've got them'. It is a general statement of values and shape....it primarily denies short spades......he virtually has to double with all 3 card holdings and many, if not most 2 card holdings, given that he has already denied a stopper. Those are precisely the hands on which we want to defend...if we have two spade losers off the top, and no other losers, we rate to be 500 or more on defence, and (in addition) there will be some hands where we are 200-800 and game fails: I previously gave him xxx KQx x AKJxxx and you still haven't explained why he can't have that, or whty he wouldn't gladly double with that, or why we'd prefer to be in 5♣. Let me make it xxx KQx x AKxxxx...I think most would still bid 2♣ over 1♠ (I know I would and I don't understand a pass) and now.....5♣ is against the odds and we still rate to go at least 500 against 3♠.

I defy you to give me a hand on which it is wrong to defend, single-dummy, when partner has spade length.

If you don't trust your partner to understand this auction....maybe it is you who don't understand it (at least, not as I do) or maybe you need a better partner. I wouldn't have thought this would be a difficult decision, and am surprised, given how I usually agree with your arguments, or see considerable merit even when I don't, that your views appear so dramatically different.

[benlessard]

Maybe its offbeat but I would never play 2S as totally GF here. I think 2C can be up to a bad 17. So 3C is only a courtesy raise, therefore i need a way to show a limit and for me 2S is perfect for that. Over my 2S If partner bid 3C FP is OFF otherwise its going to be ON.

In the problem im glad that pass is forcing and im WTP passing here. I have a fondness to play Xed contracts when we dont have a stopper and no stiff in their suit.