[Zelandakh]

CamHenry, on 2013-January-30, 08:21, said:

The big question is "do NS play transfer breaks here?".

I already asked this Henry. The OP has been unable to provide an answer.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-30, 03:43, said:

Art, I think you have perhaps missed that 1♣ was Precision-like.

True. I thought it was standard.

Responder should be assuming that the 4♣ bid is natural and forcing, as responder did not bid clubs naturally. Opener by-passed 3NT, so he must have a distributional hand. Therefore, the 5♣ bid is a significant underbid.

Responder does not have a good bid available. He could bid 4♦ and probably not get his side in trouble, but it is unlikely to accomplish anything.

If 4NT is RKCB here, I would probably use it rather than punt 6♣. I intend to bid 6♣ in all events, but there is a chance that partner has enough for a grand. It really doesn't take that much: A(xx) A(xx) xx AKQxx(x). The ♣Q shouldn't even be necessary if partner has 6 clubs. And partner did open a forcing club.

I hate having the weak hand make the key-card ask, but it seems right in this case.

There are no guarantees (see the actual result) but if you are going to bid 6♣ anyway, you might as well key-card.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-30, 09:04, said:

I intend to bid 6♣ in all events, but there is a chance that partner has enough for a grand. It really doesn't take that much: A(xx) A(xx) xx AKQxx(x). The ♣Q shouldn't even be necessary if partner has 6 clubs. And partner did open a forcing club.

There are no guarantees (see the actual result) but if you are going to bid 6♣ anyway, you might as well key-card.

The actual result was probably caused by the fact that partner didn't have the club suit that he showed, but merely a raise of our 3♣ (which he interpreted as natural). This is exactly what the UI is telling us, and that means that we are not allowed to bid 5♣.

Rik

[Cascade]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-28, 17:07, said:

The opponents suggest that this hand should be making a slam try, and that the hands may get too high, and that 5♣ while better than reflexively bidding 4♦ is actually taking advantage of the UI. Your ruling?

If I am making a slam try then I am bidding 4♦ so I am not sure that 5♣ is better than 4♦.

[Zelandakh]

I had a further think about this and constructed some hands for the authorised auction. Based on that I am going to withdraw my support for 5♣ as a LA. Nonetheless, I still think that 4♥ is the LA least suggested by the UI.

- 4NT allows us to take control and take partner's confusion out of the equation. This is usually a good way of avoiding a disaster.
- 4♦ sounds to me like natural without a club fit, not a slam try in clubs.
- While 4♥ for us is clearly agreeing clubs, partner could conceivably take it as showing hearts when not knowing that we already showed diamonds (natural slam try or whatever).
- 4♥ would, from partner's point of view, deny a diamond control. This seems the most likely thing to cause partner to misevaluate. In particular, they would bid 5♣ with A/A/QJx/AKQJTxxx.
- By showing club support, good diamonds and a heart control we put partner in a position to take control with most hands to find out about the ♦AK and place the contract. This seems like a natural thing to do.

[lamford]

The correct approach is to decide on LAs using the actual methods of the partnership, unless we think that we are supposed to follow what we think the WBFLC means. What partner thinks our bid means is only relevant when choosing between LAs. So, why did partner not bid 3NT when we are 1-1 in the majors and he has clubs and we have diamonds? Partner could just as easily have as many minor-suit cards in the authorised as in the unauthorised auction, and just as good clubs or diamonds. 4C is really just a picture bid in both auctions. If partner is raising clubs he is less likely to have primary diamond support. In the authorised auction, 4C should either be clubs or clubs and diamonds, but it says nothing about whether partner has ace of king-queen of either major. Which suit is 4NT RKCB for as well? I think we have to poll people with more information on the actual methods of the pair to decide on what the LAs are. I have changed my opinion to "no opinion" until we know more about the methods.

It has just occurred to me that the right bid after all is 4D. What more could you want? Too good to limit, no major-suit first round control, stronger than 5D, stressing the good diamonds. The fact that this might be seen by some as "unauthorised panic" is irrelevant. Partner will cue his major-suit ace, we will show club support with 5C and partner will probably bid six and go one off and everyone will be happy.

[Fluffy]

The hand with diamonds is really huge opposite the 4♣ bid. Just read Trinidad's explanation. LAs for me would be to cuebid a major, but 4NT is better.

But there is a (small) chance that 6♣ would make when played at the 6 level. Would need to see the full hand and vulneravility.

[Trinidad]

Why would I want to cue when I hold controls in all suits, except for the trump suit? I'm not interested in controls. I am interested in keycards.

Rik

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-31, 07:34, said:

But there is a (small) chance that 6♣ would make when played at the 6 level.

There is an even smaller chance that 6♣ will make when played at the 5 level. But I know what you mean. In six, declarer may hook for QJx offside. My guess is that it will be normal to cash a top club first.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-31, 08:07, said:

Why would I want to cue when I hold controls in all suits, except for the trump suit? I'm not interested in controls. I am interested in keycards.

Rik

Why would you want to bid 4NT?
a) it is not clear which suit it would be RKCB in
b) unless the response is 5C you will be committed to slam in any case
c) it will not tell us whether partner has the dreaded xxx in diamonds, reducing any slam where we are off a keycard to 40%

[jeffford76]

lamford, on 2013-January-31, 04:36, said:

I think we have to poll people with more information on the actual methods of the pair to decide on what the LAs are. I have changed my opinion to "no opinion" until we know more about the methods.

I don't have any way to do this.

There wasn't a director call at the time. I was one of the opponents, and I somewhat instinctively thought "oh good he didn't just repeat his diamonds" in a UI position, and didn't really work out that he might have had other LA's that were worse for his side.

My partner did work out that they might have ended up in slam with a different call, but thought I would have called the director if the opponent had done something wrong, so also didn't call. I think that part won't happen again.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2013-January-31, 12:28, said:

Why would you want to bid 4NT?
a) it is not clear which suit it would be RKCB in

If somebody introduces his first suit at the four level, to me that means it is trump.

lamford, on 2013-January-31, 12:28, said:

b) unless the response is 5C you will be committed to slam in any case

That's correct. If I wouldn't have any tools, I would bid slam with a six loser hand opposite a strong clubber and a 10 card trump fit. I am asking for aces to see if we can bid a grand. Exchanging second round controls just isn't very helpful if we already have every suit second round controlled. And it certainly will not help us to stay out of the slams where we are missing two keys.

lamford, on 2013-January-31, 12:28, said:

c) it will not tell us whether partner has the dreaded xxx in diamonds, reducing any slam where we are off a keycard to 40%

Partner cannot have xxx in diamonds, or he would have raised our transfer. I can buy that 4♣ shows a fit, but then it is four card support. And I can believe that it denies support. But with xxx, you just accept the transfer, waiting for partner's rebid.

Well, that is to say, obviously partner can have xxx in diamonds since he didn't understand the 3♣ bid, but that we now from the UI.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-31, 18:17, said:

Partner cannot have xxx in diamonds, or he would have raised our transfer. I can buy that 4♣ shows a fit, but then it is four card support. And I can believe that it denies support. But with xxx, you just accept the transfer, waiting for partner's rebid.

We do not know the methods of the pair, and it seems neither does the OP (nor do the players no doubt). Neither of us has any idea what continuations after the transfer are, but 4C is surely a hand unsuitable for 3NT. I presume KQx x Qxxx AKQJx would bid this way. If you bid 4NT, you will get too high; if you bid 4D you have a chance of landing on your feet. It is wrong for the 4NT bidder to take control when the response will not tell you what you want to know. Even if 4NT, correctly, was Multiple Roman Key Card Blackwood for both minors, I would not choose it. And I think it is demonstrably suggested over the alternative 4D as well, and should be disallowed.

Now, as this thread has worn on, assuming partner has something like Axx Kx Qx AKTxxx, I would tend to adjust. But it is possible that 6D was making, and if so we would have some percentage of that. With the hand we are given bidding 4D, not 4NT, and with the hand opposite cueing the major-suit ace we are told he has. But we need to see the whole hand to decide on how the auction would go. It would be better if the OP obtained relevant information before posting, but that might not have been possible.

[lamford]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-31, 12:47, said:

I was one of the opponents, and I somewhat instinctively thought "oh good he didn't just repeat his diamonds" in a UI position, and didn't really work out that he might have had other LA's that were worse for his side.

My partner did work out that they might have ended up in slam with a different call, but thought I would have called the director if the opponent had done something wrong, so also didn't call. I think that part won't happen again.

In fact "repeating his diamonds" is likely to work out worse, as his partner will just think he has diamonds and longer clubs. That actually means that 4D is not "demonstrably suggested" but "contraindicated", and would definitely be allowed as a slam try. Are you not able to recall the exact declarer hand?

[jeffford76]

lamford, on 2013-February-01, 10:35, said:

Are you not able to recall the exact declarer hand?

It was approximately AK Kxxx x AKxxxx. Definitely not a diamond fit.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2013-February-01, 11:30, said:

It was approximately AK Kxxx x AKxxxx. Definitely not a diamond fit.

Certainly not the worst slam that I have ever seen.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-01, 12:16, said:

Certainly not the worst slam that I have ever seen.

That's a pretty low bar -- I'm sure we've all seen misunderstandings that result in slam on a 2-1 fit (or worse).

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-February-01, 12:19, said:

That's a pretty low bar -- I'm sure we've all seen misunderstandings that result in slam on a 2-1 fit (or worse).

My point was that one would want to be in 6♣. It is a great slam.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-01, 12:21, said:

My point was that one would want to be in 6♣. It is a great slam.

And I am sure that if clubs had broken 2-1 we would not have seen the hand on here. Bobby Wolff would argue that missing the good slam and getting lucky was just rub of the green.