BBO Discussion Forums: ATB - BBO Discussion Forums

ACBL IMP pairs on BBO. No one vul. W is the dealer.



1♠ is 10+HCP, otherwise standard 5 card majors.
2♠ is Bergen, showing exactly 3 card support (unless 4333). Since we play light openers, the upper limit of the single raise is higher than normal - possibly as much as a bad 12.
4NT was key-card.
5♣ showed 1 or 4.

As a tactical matter, we tend to raise directly with any 3 card support rather than take the slower route of bidding 1NT first (which, as we play it, is semi-forcing - opener will pass with a flat 10 or 11 count).

Not too surprisingly, the spades broke 4-1 with Jxxx behind the AKQTx. The ♣A is onside, as is to be expected on the bidding.

(1) Is it wrong to be in slam?
(2) Who is primarily to blame for not finding the superior heart fit?

i blame south - he had so many other options, like what kind of selfish player responds to blackwood by showing his number of aces rather than introducing his qjxx?

It seems the one who could have introduced the heart suit but didn't would be responsible for not finding the heart fit. Over 2NT, 3H would have done it. Even if North's LHO gets active, responder will have been brought into the decision making; and if LHO remains silent, you are in the heart slam via Wood.

Even without competition, 3H (highest undersuit) after a spade raise would be real for us because of our other game-try methods. But, when competition starts, it's gotta be real.

Hmm, I overlapped with Wank's much more eloquent way of putting it.

wank, on 2014-September-04, 08:33, said:

Only a player who forgot to check the hand records in advance.

I did not intend that my post be one-sided, but I did present the facts.

I thought that some would respond 1NT on the South cards despite the tendencies. If partner passes 1NT, it might not be that bad.

No one has yet addressed the other question - is it wrong to be in slam?

ArtK78, on 2014-September-04, 09:20, said:

It's a non-question. We are not all droolers, so obviously we can see that it's not a mistake to be in 6♥.

PhilKing, on 2014-September-04, 10:11, said:

<Drools> I'm not sure it's 100% obvious, E may easily have a stiff club and he's sure as hell leading it on this auction.

But really N should be bidding 3♥ over 2N although I'm not clear what should happen if the next hand bids 5♦.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-04, 10:22, said:

I make the a priori odds of that about 1 in 7 on a back of the envelope calc, so it's not much disincentive.

ArtK78, on 2014-September-04, 09:20, said:

Playing 2/1 .... a 2S bid is 8, 9 hcp exact .

Bidding 1NTF with this 7 hcp hand ( 9 LTC ) is not too far-fetched ...probably borderline with the A x doubleton .

Jinksy, on 2014-September-04, 10:44, said:

Add that to the chance of a spade void and first round ruff, and the chance of the club ace actually being offside, the slam I think is good, but not the worst one to miss, of course a confident fake lightner for a spade lead against 6♥ and I bet N bids 6♠ hoping partner has the J.

Note that 6♥, while clearly better than 6♠, still requires the ♣A be onside (or led). Even with the 2NT bid, West is a passed hand so there is no guarantee that he has the ♣A.

The results on this hand were interesting. No one bid 6♥. A handful (about 10% of the field) bid 6♠. Most of the rest were evenly divided between 4♥ and 4♠. The outliers were a few playing in 5♦x.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-04, 10:22, said:

I don't recall saying it is 100% obvious to be in 6♥.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-04, 10:22, said:

The good news is that it probably won't happen this time, even though it is a legitimate concern. He didn't bid 5D over Wood.

aguahombre, on 2014-September-04, 12:00, said:

I'd much rather bid 5♦ over 3♥ than I would over 4N, before they know whether they're going slamming.

I'm looking at a 5-5 3 loser hand. So I'm opening the hand 2 ♣.

With my favorite partner, our auction would proceed as follows:

2 ♣

Big hand no more than 4 losers if a major or 3 losers if a minor.

...... 2 ♦

Waiting bid.

2 ♠

5+ ♠s no more than 4 losers.

...... 2 NT

Forward going 7- 20 HCP (We play very disciplined raises. A raise to game 4 ♠ is a signoff. A raise to 3 ♠ shows 7+ AND at least either Hxx or xxxx in the trump suit. Without either of those raises, we simply force with 2 NT.)

3 ♥

...... 4 ♥

4+ ♥s since opener promises no more than 4 at this point.

4 NT (1430 for ♥)

...... 5 ♣ (1 KC)

5 ♦ (Queen ask)

...... 5 NT ( I have it, no K)

6 ♥


Given the actual auction, I blame North for driving to slam without planning to show the ♥ suit. If South held something like xxx xxx QJxx Axx, the slam still wouldn't make even if ♠s came home. With one A missing, slam depends on bringing in the ♥ suit without a loser. That's something North can never know about without introducing ♥s at some point. After a 3 ♥ help suit game try and 1430 after South's return to ♠, would 5 ♥ be an ask for ♥ help? (5 ♦ would be the Q ask.)

BTW, I would bid 2 ♠ with the South hand. Pairs that play 2 ♠ constructive would have an advantage on this hand. They'd probably bid 1 NT Forcing with South's hand and opener could make a 3 ♥ jump shift. That would get the pair on the right track.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-04, 10:22, said:

Thinking about it, if you play Unusual over Unusual, 3♣ over 2N looks a lot better to me.

Jinksy, on 2014-September-04, 14:08, said:

u/u is a thing responder does. Are you suggesting u/u by a raised Opener would be a useful extension?

1nt is close but really biding 2s was fine, a minimum but fine.

Given that 2s is constructive, you are never going to stop short of slam.

As many others have suggested much prefer 3h and take the risk that we are preempted out of rkc.

Of course opening 2c here in the forums with this hand type is forbotten.

3h over 2s seems well reasoned due to possibly playing a much more balanced
heart contract at the 4 level (with 8 spades) but if responder cannot come up
with a cue bid over 3h then searching for slam is just too optimistic.

IMHO north was too optimistic and found a great hand opposite but failed to
even suggest 6h (another flaw that might be systemically impossible) and
got "unlucky" only to the extent that their luck was not total with regard
to responder's hand.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-04, 12:03, said:

Valid point. In fact it seems as if he didn't bid 5D over 4NT specifically because he wanted them to find slam in Spades without difficulty because of his spade surprise.