[Ant590]

Chronic underbidding from both players?

Scoring: IMP

---

1♣ -- 1♠*
2♠** -- 3♦***
3NT

* Transfer Wash (diamonds or min balanced)
** Natural extras, equivalent to 1♣-1♦-2♠
*** Extras, bad hands go through Lebensohl

[billw55]

I think opener underbid more. He could be a whole ace weaker for his bidding. Was a 2NT opening possible? How many diamonds did responder promise - if six, opener can consider 4♦ to start looking for slam.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, chronic underbidding, mainly by the big hand.

2N-4N-6N is not an improbable sequence on these hands without getting sophisticated.

Realistically, the big hand would like to bid 4N quantitative rather than 3N which we could do as 4H would be keycard, but some may not have this available.

We have odd methods here, which would certainly reach the small slam, and might reach the grand if the big hand finds the 6C bid.

1C-1D
2N(GF unbalanced)-3D(6+cards, any nondescript hands bid 3C)
3S(5+C, 4S)-4C
4D-5D
6C-7D

[Trinidad]

Underbidding by responder. In terms of points, opener has shown about 20 with his 2♠ bid. Responder has shown that he has the full values for a 1 over 1 response (say 7-8). Both side are looking for the correct strain. Opener suggests clubs and spades; responder suggests ♦; opener NT.

And now suddenly responder passes?!? Of course, 3NT is not forcing, but if your partner forces to game opposite the 6 points that you promised and you have a full opening bid, I think that you are worth another bid (or two).

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on Apr 20 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

Underbidding by responder. In terms of points, opener has shown about 20 with his 2♠ bid. Responder has shown that he has the full values for a 1 over 1 response (say 7-8). Both side are looking for the correct strain. Opener suggests clubs and spades; responder suggests ♦; opener NT.

And now suddenly responder passes?!? Of course, 3NT is not forcing, but if your partner forces to game opposite the 6 points that you promised and you have a full opening bid, I think that you are worth another bid (or two).

Rik

OP described 3♦ as "extras" - I don't think 6-8 points would qualify, unless I have misunderstood something.

And has opener really shown as much as 20? I was thinking more like 17+ or so.

[gwnn]

chronic underbidding by both, it would be difficult to ascertain who was worse but it's most likely Opener because he knows how awesome his ♦K is.

[cherdanno]

Ignoring the underbidding contest, 3NT is just a very bad bid. Partner has just shown a good 6-card suit, you have Kx in his suit and Ax in the unbid suit. 3H is obvious.

[billw55]

It is true responder's hand is also good for his bidding. But what call will he try over 3NT? From his seat it doesn't look like such a great fit. Maybe 4NT? How well would that work when opener has ♦x or ♦xx (very reasonable on the bidding)? Gwnn is right, the magic card is the ♦K and opener has it.

[whereagles]

Both underbid, I don't know why. Normally, when I see situations like this, it happens because both players are too afraid to sieze the responsibility to take charge.

It's more psychological than anything else, and actually rather normal.

[gwnn]

west has the best possible hand in the universe for this bidding, I would be reluctant to name his 3NT bid 'rather normal'.

[hanp]

3NT is bad.

[ArtK78]

Everything was fine up to the 3NT bid. I don't agree that opener could have an Ace less than he has for his bidding, but certainly he should have less than he has - about a Queen or even a King less.

Responder has a good hand for his bidding, but why would he act over 3NT? Any call over 3NT would be aggressive.

Given that 3♦ showed "extras," opener would not be out of line by bidding 6NT rather than 3NT.

[jjbrr]

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2010, 07:14 AM, said:

Ignoring the underbidding contest, 3NT is just a very bad bid. Partner has just shown a good 6-card suit, you have Kx in his suit and Ax in the unbid suit. 3H is obvious.

ding ding ding

[pooltuna]

Ant590, on Apr 20 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

Chronic underbidding from both players?

Scoring: IMP

---

1♣ -- 1♠*
2♠** -- 3♦***
3NT

* Transfer Wash (diamonds or min balanced)
** Natural extras, equivalent to 1♣-1♦-2♠
*** Extras, bad hands go through Lebensohl

They don't call 3NT the slam killer bid for nothing.

[mikeh]

pooltuna, on Apr 20 2010, 10:00 AM, said:

Ant590, on Apr 20 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

Chronic underbidding from both players?

Dealer: East Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ AQJ2 ♥ A3 ♦ K8 ♣ AKT63 ♠ 76 ♥ J86 ♦ AQJ765 ♣ QJ

1♣ -- 1♠*
2♠** -- 3♦***
3NT

* Transfer Wash (diamonds or min balanced)
** Natural extras, equivalent to 1♣-1♦-2♠
*** Extras, bad hands go through Lebensohl

They don't call 3NT the slam killer bid for nothing.

I didn't know they called Bob Hamman's favourite bid 'the slam killer'.

As it is, I agree with those who criticize the 3N bid...it was a woeful avoidance of helping out partner.

As for jumping in notrump, forget it: we have telegraphed the opening lead and have zero reason to infer a second heart stop in partner's hand.

3♥ is ok, in the sense that it is forcing, but what does it say? Surely it more or less invites 3N or a black suit preference? Are we going to be happy over any of those?

Why not a forcing (we are told that 2♠ showed the equivalent of 1♣  1♦  2♠, hence it is gf already) 4♦ call?

We have all kinds of room to clarify level, but let's start by unambiguously setting trump.

Of course, on the given hand, responder doesn't have a cue available. However, that QJ of clubs is a fantastic holding on the auction.

I like 4N, in minor suit slam try auctions to say 'extra values, but can't cue bid' and that would be a perfect call here over 4♦. However, that is not mainstream, so I suspect that responder would bid either 5♣ (treating QJ as a control in the context of the auction) or 5♦...which I would, as west, raise...in essence, as West, I am committing to slam while trying to see whether notrump is playable and whether we belong at the 7 level. I will accept the risk that we fail in 6♦....which is surely almost never going to be worse than a finesse and a break and will often be cold.

My ideal auction:

1♣   1♠
2♠   3♦
4♦   4N
5♣   5♦
5♥   6♣
7♦   7N

I recognize that this may be resulting

[Trinidad]

billw55, on Apr 20 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 20 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

Underbidding by responder. In terms of points, opener has shown about 20 with his 2♠ bid. Responder has shown that he has the full values for a 1 over 1 response (say 7-8). Both side are looking for the correct strain. Opener suggests clubs and spades; responder suggests ♦; opener NT.

And now suddenly responder passes?!? Of course, 3NT is not forcing, but if your partner forces to game opposite the 6 points that you promised and you have a full opening bid, I think that you are worth another bid (or two).

Rik

OP described 3♦ as "extras" - I don't think 6-8 points would qualify, unless I have misunderstood something.

And has opener really shown as much as 20? I was thinking more like 17+ or so.

A jump shift by opener is forcing to game. Responder's 1 over 1 shows 6+. Using the old rule that you need about 25-26 to force to game without a known fit, simple arithmetic shows that the 2♠ bid shows 19-21 points.

That is also where the root of the problem lies. Opener considers the 2♠ bid a GF jump shift (as 1♣-1♦; 2♠) and then he has a little left over, but not much. Responder considers the 2♠ bid a reverse, forcing for one round only, probably because the bid is at the two level.

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on Apr 21 2010, 06:53 AM, said:

A jump shift by opener is forcing to game. Responder's 1 over 1 shows 6+. Using the old rule that you need about 25-26 to force to game without a known fit, simple arithmetic shows that the 2♠ bid shows 19-21 points.

OK.

So if you hold, say, ♠AQxx ♥KQx ♦x ♣KQJxx

then after 1♣-p-1♦-p, you are comfortable bidding 1♠ nonforcing?

[whereagles]

yes, completely.

[gwnn]

Trinidad it's not really so simple because after
1♣-1♠*

you have only two minimum bids 1NT and 2♣. Hence you need to bid 2♠ on hands that are not really game forces.

You need to throw in some 1♠ rebids in 1NT/2♣ and some, quite non-zero, in 2♠.

1♣-1♦
1♠ is eminently playable as 11-18 but

1♣-1♠*
1NT is perfectly unplayable as 11-18.

[Ant590]

Yes, Casaba has it right, my comment about the equivalence of 1♣-1♦-2♠ and 1♣-1♠-2♠ was quite misleading.

There are some hands which would have bid 1♠ over 1♦ which now have to bid 2♠; i.e. hands that can't really bare to be passed out in 1NT/2♣ but would have chanced a 1♠ bid as the latter is hardly ever passed (whereas 1NT/2♣ is more frequently).