[phoenix214]

---

In a new partnership had this happen - who is to blame as to missing slam(6D is good, 6S makes on the actual layout).

Mostly the argument is about the meaning of 5D - is it cuebid or natural and over 5H, shoud guy with main spade suit move on?

Edit: Form of scoring is BAM, although I figure it is not that significant here

This post has been edited by phoenix214: 2016-April-26, 16:34

[ggwhiz]

Hmmm, my best guess is that 5♦ is a cue towards spades, 5♥ is a cue too regardless of the interpretation of 5♦.

5♠ is panic at having cued a crap suit and passing that instead of a further cue (or just raise) owning 3 of them is truly bizarre. Was tempo an issue?

[Cyberyeti]

When E bid 3♠, can't he bid 3♦ as a more useful transfer break, now we bid 6♦.

Also is 6♦ any better than 6♠. A spade lead and the ace of diamonds to no more than 2 in the opposite hand to the singleton will beat it.

[rhm]

East certainly can not do more.
So if anyone is at fault it must be West.

Some observations:
I think it was Fred, who said that cuebidding, which starts at the five level, is not very effective.
Bidding a red suit accomplishes nothing by way of control bidding.
But West may have wanted to invite slam, which he did.

Should he?
Will East accept with nothing in spades?
Hardly.

So an invitation accomplishes nothing.
Essentially West has to decide what to do over 5♣.
West knows North South are sacrificing at equal vulnerability with few HCP.
They must have a huge fit and chances are most of their meager values will be in clubs.
Accordingly most of the values East has are in neither black suit.

The value bid is a simple 6♠ over 5♣.
West is not strong enough to bid 6♣ (West would need another control in a red suit) and a small slam may well depend on the opening lead. You do not want to discourage a club lead.
Bidding side suits here only helps opponents finding the right lead.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

phoenix214, on 2016-April-26, 15:01, said:

In a new partnership had this happen - who is to blame as to missing slam(6D is good, 6S makes on the actual layout).Mostly the argument is about the meaning of 5D - is it cuebid or natural and over 5H, shoud guy with main spade suit move on?Edit: Form of scoring is BAM, although I figure it is not that significant here

---

I agree with Rainer that East did all he could. With such good trumps, I suppose that West might just pot the slam. But it seems precious to blame anyone for missing a 25HCP slam in such a crowded auction.

[Caitlynne]

I think East (who opened 1NT) bid perfectly.

In a highly competitive auction, nobody knows how high to bid and you need to know what to do if the opponents persist with 6C. Therefore, 5D should show a suit as the key consideration is fit (i.e., what strain to play/defend).

Therefore 5H is a cue bid trying for slam. Spades has been agreed and you are looking at AKQxxx of trump and a club void. That slam try can't have been based on good trump or on club values (which would be a wasted feature opposite probably shortness). So the cue bid can be based only on diamond and heart values.

6D (choice of slams) is pretty darned clear to me. I suspect that opener would/should correct to 6S, particularly at BAM.

[rmnka447]

The holding in the ♦ suit between the 2 hands is key to the slam being able to make. I don't any way either partner can figure out there's only 1 ♦ loser.

West should have some sense that East must hold something in ♦ because East can't hold much in the black suits. The most East can hold in ♠ is the ♠ J and the opponents should hold the bulk of the points in ♣.

Unfortunately, neither partner can know for sure that there aren't 2 losers. So I don't see much blame to either partner in not bidding slam.
Preempts sometimes work.

[PhilG007]

No-one to blame. The opponents did what they were supposed to do... hinder and harass the enemy.
It's part and parcel of the game.

[GrahamJson]

If anyone is to blame it is West, who could reasonably punt 6S. Note however that if East's red suits were reversed then 6S will probably have two certain losers, barring a squeeze or lucky breaks (not likely given the opposition bidding). As is is unless diamonds are 2-2 then 6S is always off on perfect defence, unless the ace is singleton. All in all I wouldn't lose sleep over missing this slam

[notproven]

I believe west should have doubled 5 ♣. It must be a cue bid, and is almost certainly a void on this auction. West knows that east has at least 3 ♠ (because east accepted the transfer over interference). East, in turn, knows from his hand that west must have concentrated values in spades, and can therefore comfortably bid the spade slam.

[bigbenvic]

notproven, on 2016-April-27, 16:38, said:

I believe west should have doubled 5 ♣. It must be a cue bid, and is almost certainly a void on this auction. West knows that east has at least 3 ♠ (because east accepted the transfer over interference). East, in turn, knows from his hand that west must have concentrated values in spades, and can therefore comfortably bid the spade slam.

Surely a double of 5♣ is penalties. If it isn't then how do you collect the 500/800/1100 when it's right? Pass and hope for partner to re-open? Does he do that when short or long in trumps? Making it way to hard IMO

I think Opener could have made things easier by bidding 3♦ to show an accept of the transfer, not a minimum and at least 8 cards in ♦ & ♠. Given he didn't and maybe KQxx isn't enough with only Txxx trump, then 5♦ is a good bid and 5♥ HAS to be a cue, with slam interest which should have fitting cards in Diamonds. If the hand doesn't fit well opposite the slam try of 5♦ then sign off in 5♠.

Given that info 5♠ should suggest a mild slam try and intimates that trump support, a Heart Control and Diamond cards aren't enough. I suggest it implies a loser in both minors and asks opener to bid 6 if he has solid 2nd round control of 1 and first of the other.

That isn't the case here, so with the club void and the Solid 6 card trump suit opposite at least 3, then East should be bidding 6♦ or 6♠ I would bid ♠ to make partner play it being lead up to does not advantage my hand at all.

90% blame West 10% blame East IF 3♦ showed a ♠ fit and good ♦ cards, otherwise 100% West to blame.

[notproven]

Sorry Bigbenvic, you missed the point. In this auction, where east promises 2+♣, and the opponents surely have 10+♣, west can't have a club stack, and everybody at the table knows it. Therefore, in this auction west would never have a reason to double for penalties, given that he knows his side has 9+♠ and most of the points, and everybody at the table knows that, too.
It's called situational bidding, where the meaning of a bid depends upon inferences taken from the rest of the bidding.
In a different auction, where west is not known to be short, and a penalty double is a viable option, a cue bid would not be smart because it would be ambiguous. In the auction given, there is no ambiguity: west CANNOT be making a penalty double, ever.

[ggwhiz]

notproven, on 2016-April-27, 16:38, said:

I believe west should have doubled 5 ♣. It must be a cue bid,

Or says they aren't making but I think we are in danger of going down at the 5 level. Your interpretation has toasted more partnerships than I can count including 3 of mine.

[bigbenvic]

notproven, on 2016-April-28, 13:11, said:

Sorry Bigbenvic, you missed the point. In this auction, where east promises 2+♣, and the opponents surely have 10+♣, west can't have a club stack, and everybody at the table knows it. Therefore, in this auction west would never have a reason to double for penalties, given that he knows his side has 9+♠ and most of the points, and everybody at the table knows that, too.
It's called situational bidding, where the meaning of a bid depends upon inferences taken from the rest of the bidding.
In a different auction, where west is not known to be short, and a penalty double is a viable option, a cue bid would not be smart because it would be ambiguous. In the auction given, there is no ambiguity: west CANNOT be making a penalty double, ever.

Assuming 19 total trumps (you say they have 10 we have 9) no known double fit (because Pards didn't bid 3♦!) Lets have a quick look at the possible results
We make 12, they make 7 5cX = +800 5s = +480 6s = +980 but are we bidding this every time?
We make 11, they make 8 5cX = +500 5s = +450 6s = -50 (or 100) can we stop every time it's right?
We make 10, they make 9 5cX = +300 5s = -50 (or 100 if doubled!)
In each of those cases there is more to be gained from taking the money than bidding on UNLESS we get to slam and it's right

Yes the total tricks could be 20 or 21 and yes we have the better point count, we could (and do) have a double fit so the Law could be +1 or +2 on top again which makes bidding on better but you don't know in this auction you are guessing. Which is why I like 3♦ instead of the lazy 3♠ so much!

I've seen many opponents, (including CHO) jump to 5 of a minor in these situations when they only have a 9 card fit, let alone 10 or 11. The more people play a wide ranging style of pre-empting the wider the range of hands they can have. Is 3♣ a legit overcall or a pre-empt? If a pre-empt is it 6 or 7, if legit could it be 5? I prefer to have rules in bidding that are consistent, define when we are in a forcing auction, define when X is penalty or take-out (or other) Define when a pass becomes forcing within an auction ie we're in a GF or have b id game with clear intent to make etc.

Here the transfer is unknown, the super-accept is not GF so we are not in a game forcing situation. West knows what is going on, East doesn't. So a pass from West over 5♣ is more needed IMO to show the weak transfer, rather than the void slam try hand?

This is more likely when using a weaker ranged no-trump, BUT we have assumed the 1nt was 15-17(18) when it is weaker I feel the likelihood of a west needing a pass to be a I give up or I have no more to say more likely and if so then a double needs to be penalty, the frequency of when we have a void vs when we need to decide to bid on, pass or penalise is I think greater than when we have a void in their suit. I haven't run the numbers that is just a gut feel!

[mr1303]

The problem is that for a strong NT, this isn't close to a max. 4 small spades and a wasted K of clubs.

Compare with 10xxx, AKx, AKQx xx, and you see how much better East could be.