[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-February-22, 12:32, said:

Late to this one.
I too would bid 1D then over 1S reverse into 2H. In my better partnerships the cheapest reverse promises one of several strong hands, although unfortunately not this one But I would bid it nevertheless. If partner can bid the 2NT positive relay then I bid 3C (fourth suit) to indicate the natural reverse, over a weak 3S I bid 4S (benefiting from the inferences of not hearing 1D-2S).

By one of those weird short circuits that characterize bridge forums, we encountered a similar but less strong 1444 hand in the club same day, and it caused intense traffic in our technical discussion. I'll post it in a separate thread to avoid confusion here.

I’d avoid reversing. In my view, unless it’s unavoidable, it should show at least 5 diamonds. Partner will/should bid as if it does so your short, weak diamond suit will lead to disappointment if he goes slamming with, say Qxx or Axx support. I get that sometimes there is no alternative but I’d treat the spade queen as equivalent to xx. Thus, imo, treating the hand as 2=4=4=3 is less of a distortion than would be implied by a reverse.

Your experience may be different from mine in terms of reverses.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2026-February-22, 13:04, said:

I’d avoid reversing. In my view, unless it’s unavoidable, it should show at least 5 diamonds. Partner will/should bid as if it does so your short, weak diamond suit will lead to disappointment if he goes slamming with, say Qxx or Axx support. I get that sometimes there is no alternative but I’d treat the spade queen as equivalent to xx. Thus, imo, treating the hand as 2=4=4=3 is less of a distortion than would be implied by a reverse.

Your experience may be different from mine in terms of reverses.

I share your dislike of a reverse on 4 cards, but in our case this one is mitigated by agreements. Partner will not as a rule raise a minor on less than 4 cards, even if I showed 5, so if she does feel it is best nonetheless to raise with Hxx then at least we have chances in the suit and are both aware we are on thin ice.
If she does bid a "weak" 3S after the reverse then I'm comfortable bidding game with the Q, as you say.

[DavidKok]

Here are both hands:

---

Both hands had several close decisions to make. As you can see, North doesn't need keycards and crucially also doesn't need 'keycards outside hearts'. If your partnership is prone to rushing into ace-asking, or struggles to establish a trump suit by the 3♠-level, this is a tough deal to bid.
So how would you all have shown the North hand? If South represents a balanced 18-19 (or 17-19), or even 20-21, I think North should set spades and try for slam - but investigating 7 is not easy.
If opener shows a reverse hand, or even 4x1, I think North can have a little more confidence that the minor suit cards are valuable. It's only 'long hearts' where North has to seriously downgrade.

Congratulations to mikeh for getting both spades and NT in the South hand, that protects the ♦K on this deal.

[mike777]

Great practice, ty David for posting
Well worth the time

[Cyberyeti]

I think we play 6N(S)

1♦-1♠
1N-2♣
3♣-3♠
3N-4♣(cue)
4♦-4♥
5♣-5♥
6N

partner is known to NOT have 4 clubs or diamonds, has the Ace of clubs and NOT the ace of diamonds and a heart void.

To make enough for a slam try if he doesn't have 8 or 9 spades, he has AKxxxxx, void, xxx, Axx with maybe a minor diamond honour.

[DavidKok]

The bids starting with 4♥ seem like magic to me. North knows of the 7-2 spade fit, the control in all suits and the tremendous trick-taking potential but convinces South to infer that the spades are AK-seventh to find a notrump contract. Luckily South had the ♥A or your sequence could have been wildly misunderstood.
I have no doubt people could bid this way, but to bid so conservatively as North and give up on your announced fit seems so risky to me.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-23, 14:40, said:

The bids starting with 4♥ seem like magic to me. North knows of the 7-2 spade fit, the control in all suits and the tremendous trick-taking potential but convinces South to infer that the spades are AK-seventh to find a notrump contract. Luckily South had the ♥A or your sequence could have been wildly misunderstood.
I have no doubt people could bid this way, but to bid so conservatively as North and give up on your announced fit seems so risky to me.

I tend to distrust those people whose auction is posted after they see both hands. That’s not necessarily that I don’t believe they’d ever bid that way but, rather, because I do not trust anyone…myself absolutely included…to be able to be honest with themselves once they’ve seen the hands.

Moreover,I have doubts about the plausibility of cyber’s sequence. He has opener cooperating over 4C…by bidding 4D. Then 4H? To me that would be as ambiguous as was 4D…I doubt many would play it as promising a void. Some would take it as last train, saying nothing about hearts but showing a hand unable to take control, not strong enough to bid slam but too strong to sign off. Over which opener has a maximum but he has only one ace and partner is already playing him for 2 card support. If partner can’t bid more than 4H do we really want to make a strong slam move when he’s playing any spade contract? Maybe…but it is definitely not clear.


Why cant north be AKxxxx x QJx Axx. Opposite xx Axx AKxx KQJx, a 17 count, 6S is very good. Opposite the 19 count we have, it it’s almost as equally bad. And I defy Cyber to explain how and why his partnership could tell what’s going on after his

As for converting to 6N….that is truly magical thinking. I see nothing in Cyber’s proposed auction that lets south know that spades rate to play for no losers.

My take on these kinds of hands is that it’s usually best for responder to make the final decision after a cooperative auction. It’s the hand with the long suit that is usually best able to count tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-23, 14:40, said:

The bids starting with 4♥ seem like magic to me. North knows of the 7-2 spade fit, the control in all suits and the tremendous trick-taking potential but convinces South to infer that the spades are AK-seventh to find a notrump contract. Luckily South had the ♥A or your sequence could have been wildly misunderstood.
I have no doubt people could bid this way, but to bid so conservatively as North and give up on your announced fit seems so risky to me.

They won't be misunderstood, what do you think S's hand is ?

xx, KQJ, KQJx, KQJx or close ?

he just asks keycards with that over 4♥ or bids 4♠

[mw64ahw]

mw64ahw, on 2026-February-22, 08:45, said:

...
I gave you the basics above:
After 2♣-2♦-3♥
3♠-3N
4♠ is a sign-off
with
4♠ a basic slam try

but there are also
4N+ as slam tries
plus
3♠-3N
4N+ as slam tries
depending on what responder is looking to show/protect.

So having seen partner's hand the auction with the 3 keycards and the void goes
2♣-2♦
3♥-3♠
3N-5♣ odd KCs, must be 3
At this point which Ace doesn't matter and opener can count 7♠,2♥ and either 2♦ & 2♣ or 1♦ & 3♣; subtracting the missing Ace we finish in 6N

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2026-February-23, 15:43, said:

I tend to distrust those people whose auction is posted after they see both hands. That’s not necessarily that I don’t believe they’d ever bid that way but, rather, because I do not trust anyone…myself absolutely included…to be able to be honest with themselves once they’ve seen the hands.

Moreover,I have doubts about the plausibility of cyber’s sequence. He has opener cooperating over 4C…by bidding 4D. Then 4H? To me that would be as ambiguous as was 4D…I doubt many would play it as promising a void. Some would take it as last train, saying nothing about hearts but showing a hand unable to take control, not strong enough to bid slam but too strong to sign off. Over which opener has a maximum but he has only one ace and partner is already playing him for 2 card support. If partner can’t bid more than 4H do we really want to make a strong slam move when he’s playing any spade contract? Maybe…but it is definitely not clear.


Why cant north be AKxxxx x QJx Axx. Opposite xx Axx AKxx KQJx, a 17 count, 6S is very good. Opposite the 19 count we have, it it’s almost as equally bad. And I defy Cyber to explain how and why his partnership could tell what’s going on after his

As for converting to 6N….that is truly magical thinking. I see nothing in Cyber’s proposed auction that lets south know that spades rate to play for no losers.

My take on these kinds of hands is that it’s usually best for responder to make the final decision after a cooperative auction. It’s the hand with the long suit that is usually best able to count tricks.

5♥ marks the void (or AK) and denies a diamond high card control, 4♥ is a control, which S knows from his actual hand is a shortage. N will not bid a shortage in one of S's known suits, so has a top club.

Also no blackwood over 4♦ is revealing, with ♥x or A or K it is likely N would have used blackwood with a heart control and a club control, and partner showing a diamond control.

When partner bids 5♥ he is potentially inviting a grand opposite the nuts, Qx, xxx, AKQx, KQJx, I would expect him to have ♠J or a 7th one almost all the time. It's unambiguously looking for more than xx in spades as 6 to the AKQ and an ace is a 2♠ response.

The hand you give is a minimum 2♠ response for us which does change the auction a lot. Also 6N is epically bad on the actual hand but 6♠ is not terrible and likely where we would play, and decent with the addition of the ♠10 or J.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-February-23, 17:13, said:

5♥ marks the void (or AK) and denies a diamond high card control, 4♥ is a control, which S knows from his actual hand is a shortage. N will not bid a shortage in one of S's known suits, so has a top club.

Also no blackwood over 4♦ is revealing, with ♥x or A or K it is likely N would have used blackwood with a heart control and a club control, and partner showing a diamond control.

When partner bids 5♥ he is potentially inviting a grand opposite the nuts, Qx, xxx, AKQx, KQJx, I would expect him to have ♠J or a 7th one almost all the time. It's unambiguously looking for more than xx in spades as 6 to the AKQ and an ace is a 2♠ response.

The hand you give is a minimum 2♠ response for us which does change the auction a lot. Also 6N is epically bad on the actual hand but 6♠ is not terrible and likely where we would play, and decent with the addition of the ♠10 or J.

This is the problem to which I referred. Knowing that the actual hand made 6N good, you showed us your auction to the optimum spot. I show you a hand consistent with your bidding but one that makes 6S the better spot and what do we see? Now you miraculously avoid 6N.

If you want us to be impressed by your systemic agreements or judgement, you need to stop resulting quite so obviously.

Btw, I think it silly to have the agreement, in your auction, that 5H is a try for grand. As I read your auction, NS are not yet committed to small slam so any ‘try’ below 5S has to be, at the time, trying for small slam. Now, if the other partner signs off in 5S and the 5H bidde bids on, then, yes, it was a try for grand.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2026-February-23, 17:38, said:

This is the problem to which I referred. Knowing that the actual hand made 6N good, you showed us your auction to the optimum spot. I show you a hand consistent with your bidding but one that makes 6S the better spot and what do we see? Now you miraculously avoid 6N.

If you want us to be impressed by your systemic agreements or judgement, you need to stop resulting quite so obviously.

Btw, I think it silly to have the agreement, in your auction, that 5H is a try for grand. As I read your auction, NS are not yet committed to small slam so any ‘try’ below 5S has to be, at the time, trying for small slam. Now, if the other partner signs off in 5S and the 5H bidde bids on, then, yes, it was a try for grand.

The problem with this is that I know the negative inferences from the bids that aren't made, and you don't, and it would take a lot of time to explain them all. For example if partner had long spades and a worse hand than this he can bid 3♠ or 4♠ or 2♣ then 4♠ over 1N, so this sequence is quite narrow fitting between those and a direct 2♠ response.

I am not resulting at all, it is completely obvious for S to protect his ♦K if he's going to bid a slam, if he was declaring spades, he might bid 6♠, but we don't play transfers there. He also could get a heart lead which would be useful. Partner's hand is an open book in the actual auction once he bids 5♥, and S can count 12+ tricks if the spades behave, and possible diamond chances if they don't.

I can't imagine a hand where N bids 5♥ and does not bid on over 5♠, hence the comment about a grand slam try.

[mike777]

Seeing both hands I hope we would get to 6S, however, it feels more like a blasting situation than scientific.

Tough hand

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-February-24, 04:05, said:

The problem with this is that I know the negative inferences from the bids that aren't made, and you don't, and it would take a lot of time to explain them all. For example if partner had long spades and a worse hand than this he can bid 3♠ or 4♠ or 2♣ then 4♠ over 1N, so this sequence is quite narrow fitting between those and a direct 2♠ response.

I am not resulting at all, it is completely obvious for S to protect his ♦K if he's going to bid a slam, if he was declaring spades, he might bid 6♠, but we don't play transfers there. He also could get a heart lead which would be useful. Partner's hand is an open book in the actual auction once he bids 5♥, and S can count 12+ tricks if the spades behave, and possible diamond chances if they don't.

I can't imagine a hand where N bids 5♥ and does not bid on over 5♠, hence the comment about a grand slam try.

I’m sure you believe what you wrote. You haven’t persuaded me.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2026-February-24, 09:26, said:

I’m sure you believe what you wrote. You haven’t persuaded me.

I explained it all up to 4♣ before I saw the other hand, what would you do different after that, because it's all simple cue bidding from there on in.

[DavidKok]

The story has an unfortunate end, here I present all four hands:

---

6♠ is one off due to the split, but 6NT makes because of the fortunate lie of the diamonds - no guess needed (you take 3♠, 2♥, 3♦ and 4♣ tricks). One pair got to make 6♠XN= on a heart lead, but at my table the lead was the ♦A for 1 off and a shared bottom (most of the field was in game). I think single dummy 6♠S is the best contract.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-24, 12:43, said:

The story has an unfortunate end, here I present all four hands:

---

6♠ is one off due to the split, but 6NT makes because of the fortunate lie of the diamonds - no guess needed (you take 3♠, 2♥, 3♦ and 4♣ tricks). One pair got to make 6♠XN= on a heart lead, but at my table the lead was the ♦A for 1 off and a shared bottom (most of the field was in game). I think single dummy 6♠S is the best contract.

Isn't 6N(S) always better, it makes whenever the spades break or whenever the ♦Q is onside, it also avoids potential minor suit ruffs.