[awm]

---

IMPs, strong team match, board one. Methods are 2/1 GF with transfers over 2NT rebid. Cuebidding style is basically "forum standard" (up the line, first and second round controls, often won't cue shortage in partner's long suit first round). No kickback or minorwood or other special RKC agreements, just 1430 keycard.

Which bids do you agree/disagree with? What was the worst bid?

[PhilKing]

I don't disagree with 6♣ necessarily - it depends on whether we play 4NT as rolling.

[Zelandakh]

We bid a non-forcing 2NT followed by limiting out hand further with 4♣ (rather than 4♥). If slam is not making when partner continues over this with 4♦ then I am expecting the ATB to be pointing at the other hand. What can partner even have here to make 2 slam moves after a SF NT and with a weak suit - ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AKx ♣Jxxxxx maybe?

[helene_t]

Maybe the problem is that we missed 7?

[awm]

---

6♣ was not a success. The other table bid 1♠-1NT-2♣-3♣-3NT, making five on a non-spade lead.

[straube]

I think North is a king light for his bidding. Also, raising to 3N should be routine; it's more likely to be the better game.

[the_clown]

While 2N is possibly an overbid (borderline for me) North has an easy 3N over 2N. Looking for a slam in clubs when 4 keycards in partner's hand may not be enough doesnt look good to me.

[steve2005]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-24, 17:05, said:

We bid a non-forcing 2NT followed by limiting out hand further with 4♣ (rather than 4♥). If slam is not making when partner continues over this with 4♦ then I am expecting the ATB to be pointing at the other hand. What can partner even have here to make 2 slam moves after a SF NT and with a weak suit - ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AKx ♣Jxxxxx maybe?

yes now that we see all the hands 4♦ is an over bid,

would even have to question transferring to clubs, lousy club suit but 9 pts mostly in the reds balanced good for 3N.

[billw55]

Agree, bypassing 3NT with the north cards is bizarre. 19+9 = 28, no aces, no shortness, weak long suit = don't go slam hunting. General hint, if you make a try (4♦) get a favorable response (4♥) then have to sign off anyway, you probably shouldn't have gone down that road.

South was also wrong though. He already overbid a little, then cooperated with one slam try, so raising to 6 seems silly.

[kenrexford]

 billw55, on 2014-May-30, 07:32, said:

South was also wrong though. He already overbid a little, then cooperated with one slam try, so raising to 6 seems silly.

Where did South overbid?

1♠ obviously is right

2NT also obviously is right

4♣ also obviously is right

4♥ also obviously is right

The only possible place for dispute is the 6♣ call, but IMO 4♥ was for Grand Slam purposes. If the 4♦ call was on ♠x ♥xx ♦AKJx ♣Qxxxxx, for instance, 13 tricks should be easy to take.

[billw55]

 kenrexford, on 2014-May-30, 07:49, said:

Where did South overbid?

Whoops, I misread the south hand as balanced. That said, I would probably still rebid 2♣, although it is close enough that I don't care very much. Maybe that makes me an underbidder?

[FrancesHinden]

I'm surprised at everyone saying that 4C is obviously right.
Perhaps it's a matter for discussion on what the 3S bid shows. I admit I would simply have bid 3NT on responder's hand over 2NT.
We play transfers here, but 3S (initially) shows a weak hand with long clubs. 4C is not forcing. I would bid 3NT on opener's hand over 3S to say that opposite xx Jxx Kx Jxxxxx I will be making 3NT.
If you play 3S as showing a slam try in clubs, then I think responder's hand is too soft, although obviously it could be right.

Finally I don't know where the 6C bid came from (assuming that 4C as forcing etc), what have you got that you haven't shown?

[gnasher]

 straube, on 2014-May-29, 23:39, said:

I think North is a king light for his bidding. Also, raising to 3N should be routine; it's more likely to be the better game.

If you add a king to the North hand, doesn't that make it a 2♣ response to 1♠?

[straube]

 gnasher, on 2014-May-31, 03:52, said:

If you add a king to the North hand, doesn't that make it a 2♣ response to 1♠?

Got me there. I think LTC counts a king as roughly equivalent to a loser. Maybe a bit more distribution then? x Kx KJx Qxxxxxx would have worked on this hand though even this pretty much needs a perfecta..

[gszes]

Assuming the 3s transfer to clubs could be a hand like
Q Qx xxx Jxxxxxx, possibly intending to pass 4c, I think
it borders on almost criminal to merely bid 4c with a hand
that has massively improved. 4h (in conjunction with your
2n bid) should let p know you have no dia control but
probably something there and that your hand has dramatically
improved due to the club suit (massive fit) what might have
happened after 4h we will never know.

Having now seen both hands the north hand should take the
time to count out openers hand (after 4h) and include the dia Q
and once they do that they will see that it is unreasonable to
assume your side will score all of the rest of the tricks outside
diamonds. If opener has good enough spades you are either
missing two aces off the top or need luck in the trump suit.
Depending on your system you can sign off if 4n is (unlikely)
a sign off or settle for 5c and hope its imps not MP.

[nigel_k]

IMO North has the wrong sort of hand to be looking for an 11 trick contract opposite 18-19 balanced, let alone a 12 trick contract. It has no shortage, no spade help and is just too soft. South was entitle to cooperate especially with that spade holding and would have expected something more like x Kxx Kxx Qxxxxx. North's 5♣ does not deny a spade control - he may simply feel he has done enough.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I am fine with the auction (souths bids) up to the last bid.
5C should deny a singleton spade (or a 2nd round spade control),
without this, 6C will be no fun, since North needs also to cover
1 heart, 2 diamonds.

North should pass 3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rmnka447]

I think the right bid over 2 NT is 3 NT. Some counting puts the combined assets of the hand at 28-29 points normally not quite enough to be in the slam zone with somewhat flat hands.

I can see where South got excited holding ♣ AKxx, thought he knew North's problem, and carried on to 6. But I think an inference was missed when North bid 5 ♣. If North had held ♠ Kx or ♠ x, wouldn't North have cued 4 ♠? The inability of North to cue in ♠, then seems to indicate that at least 1 ♠ loser exists. Holding ♦ Qx, South can't be sure a second loser doesn't exist because North's 4 ♦ bid doesn't promise more than a 2nd round control.

Without some assurance a second loser doesn't exist, then South must pass. Bidding 6 is speculating that North holds the ♦ AK, the ♦ AJ (where the slam might be on a finesse), or the ♦ A with other cards where you can pitch the potential ♦ loser (♥ KQ maybe).

[whereagles]

• 1♠ and 1NT are textbook.
  
• 2NT has two flaws: shape semi-balanced and HCP is 1 low, with little compensation. I can live with one flaw but not two, so to me this is an error. I prefer 2♣, after which North can bid 3♣ or 2NT, reaching 3NT easily.
  
• 3♠ is hoping for the magic hand across. I mark this as an error.
  
• 4♣ is ok.
  
• 4♦ is a natural consequence of the intention started with 3♠, so it's ok.
  
• 4♥ is ok, but probably pointless. South's bad bidding turned out nicely: he has an excellent hand in the context of north's slam try. Since grand is a mirage and south has all the keycards needed, he could simply bid 6 now.
  
• 5♣ is ok. No spade control, so no RKCB.
  
• 6♣ is normal.

I think 3♠ is the major culprit here. 2NT isn't a thing of beauty but the slam try is out of order.

[whereagles]

 billw55, on 2014-May-30, 07:32, said:

South was also wrong though. He already overbid a little, then cooperated with one slam try, so raising to 6 seems silly.

Why? Couldn't North have, say

Qx
xx
AKx
Qxxxxx