[jillybean]

---

[DavidKok]

I'm not entirely comfortable with this slam, but I would have bid differently all the same. East has a lot of extra values. For me 2♦ is game forcing. I would have bid 2♥ over 3♦, possibly continuing 1♥-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♦-3♠; 4♣-4♦ and now I think East is in a good position to take captaincy and maneuver to 6.

Here 3♠ shows a control, and because of the earlier 2NT bid and East's own spade holding they can deduce it must be the ace, and 4♦ denies a minimum for the auction so far (West could have signed off with 3NT instead of 3♠ and with 5♦ instead of 4♦).

On the auction as given East is surely worth another bid over 3NT, for example 4♣ (if that shows a control for ♦).

[TylerE]

I would have reversed into spades rather than raising diamonds. 3d feels like both an underbid and less support than I'd really like.



How about something like...

1H-2D
2S-2N
3D-3S
4C-4N
6D

3S and 4C are cues, 6D would be 1 keycard + a working void.

[mikeh]

Depends on methods to some degree but generally speaking, raising on Qxx should be a low-ranking choice even if the partnership style is for 2D to promise 5+.

I’d be happy with 2H, with a lesser hand, intending to bid diamonds next if convenient, as it often will/should be. Whether that shows 5 or 6 is another style question: for me, doesn’t promise more than 5.

As it is, I bid 2S, showing, again in the style I prefer, modest extras over a minimum. Then, over a probable 2N, I can bid 3D, showing short clubs, usually 4=5=3=1 but having promised some extras already.

Whether we reach slam is unclear: any pretence at objectivity disappears once we know the hands
Obviously 6D by west is an excellent contract, since we need to ruff only one club, and none with a club lead, and can make on all 3-2 trumps and some 4-1 breaks as well, so I think it’s comfortably over 70%.

[AL78]

The East hand is big when West can respond at the two level in a suit they hold Qxx. I would bid 2♠ on the second round, which is a game force if you are not playing 2/1.

[LBengtsson]

AL78, on 2021-February-26, 03:34, said:

The East hand is big when West can respond at the two level in a suit they hold Qxx. I would bid 2♠ on the second round, which is a game force if you are not playing 2/1.

in agreement. partner could had 6♦4♠ hand, because at MPs you'd want to be ♠ slam.

[jillybean]

I'm quite surprised by the unanimous decision not to support diamonds. I am a very strong believer in showing support where we have a fit.

This was a recent hand from the local club where I had some people asking about the bidding afterwards.
At 8 tables it was played in NT by West, 5 played in 4♥ in the East, One in 6♥, we played in 6♦

---

I am thinking about slam as soon as I pick up this hand, and when partner makes a gf 2♦ bid we are on our way. I think it is crucial to show support with support, on this hand yes, we could have missed a 4-4 ♠ fit and be in the lesser slam but se la vie. I don't see how we can ever convince partner we have support for their suit after we have taken another bid then later shown preference for theirs.

Perhaps my decision to go on after 3nt is influenced by the knowledge that partner tends to bid game rather than cue bid in these sequences. Bidding keycard with a void is ill advised (I know some may have stronger opinions) but there is no other way forward and that's where I'm headed.

I look forward to hearing your opinions of my "Support with Support" approach.

[mycroft]

A86 Q97 KJ65 AQ2. Because 2♦ is GF, you'll have lots of time to show secondary support for diamonds, after you've shown a more useful feature of your hand - and so has partner. Sure, on this hand 3♦ gets the same 3♥, but partner isn't going to read your hand the same that he would if you had bid 2♥, or decided to overbid your hand a bit, relying on some fit existing, and had rebid 2♠.

I am a prime believer of "support with support", but we don't know we have an 8-card fit, and anyway, that's a rule primarily aimed at competition. When I bid diamonds later, if partner hasn't lit up on my suit/s, he'll know it's 3 and will know what to do.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2021-February-26, 12:38, said:

I am a prime believer of "support with support", but we don't know we have an 8-card fit, and anyway, that's a rule primarily aimed at competition. When I bid diamonds later, if partner hasn't lit up on my suit/s, he'll know it's 3 and will know what to do.

We know we have an 8+ card ♦ fit. 2♦ is at minimum 5

[mikeh]

Support with support is one of the most important principles an advancing player should adopt, but (as with virtually all such sayings) the situation can be more nuanced than can be captured in any three word mantra.

Let’s assume the 2D response was game forcing and promised at least 5 diamonds....if it promised only 4 or more, then setting diamonds as trump (subject to responder raising hearts) is far too risky.

Because we’re in a gf auction, we can make use of the bidding space so created to describe our hand to partner as best we can. One very important aspect of our hand is our source of tricks in both majors. Another is our club shortage.

If we bid 3D, we have taken up a lot of bidding space without telling partner much at all about our hand.

On the other hand, if we bid 2S, we have not yet shown diamonds, but we haven’t yet denied 3 card support. We can and should try to imagine how the auction will go over 2S.

Partner will often bid 2N. Indeed, that’s clearly the correct call on her hand. There’s no point bidding clubs. We can only hold a 4=4 club fit if opener is 4=5=0=4 and he’ll bid 3C over 2N with that.

Over 2N, 3D by opener is not a preference. It is 3 card support, thus describing 12 of his 13 cards. Compare that with the information provided by an immediate 3D raise.

Btw, some good players would treat 1H 2D 2S 3C as responder denying a club stopper and expressing doubt as to strain. But assume responder will bid a natural 3C, presumably because she is 5-5 or better. Now 3D is a mere preference and now the immediate raise might have been better, but the auction is far from over, and we can pull 3N, say, to 4D.

The reality is that responder will rarely rebid 3C, so bidding 2S then 3D over the far more common 2N rebid is far better than raising diamonds immediately

If responder bids 3H, that shows 3+ support, so we’re not playing in diamonds anyway.

If responder bids 3S, that shows 4, and we’re not playing in diamonds

If responder jumps to 3N, which would be a minimum gf with at least 2 club stoppers, it’s not clear we want to be in slam.

Picture xxx xx KJxxx AKQ. However, we can always pull 3N to 4D, which is a real raise, not a preference.

Also picture how responder is to bid with that hand if we raise 2D to 3D immediately.

Support with support applies most often to a choice when we have values only for one call (unless partner shows extra values next call).

Say partner overcalls 1H after a 1m opening, and Rho passes. We have KQxxx Qxx xx xxx

We don’t have the values for 1S then hoping to raise hearts. We support with support, and bid 2H.

When we have the luxury of extra values ourselves and the additional luxury of already being in a forcing auction, we can and should, when possible, plan our auction to be as efficient as possible. Perhaps most importantly, we should understand that constructive bidding is a dialogue or conversation (there are exceptions, where one bidder assumes captaincy), and that partner is an equal participant, who can be relied upon to listen to the auction. Here, hearts then spades then diamonds gives partner a lot of information. Let her make decisions based on that information.

[mycroft]

jillybean, on 2021-February-26, 12:49, said:

We know we have an 8+ card ♦ fit. 2♦ is at minimum 5

You saw my hand. If that hand is not bid 2♦ in your system, that's something nonstandard that you really should be telling people about sometime before the gotcha moment, preferably in the OP. I would suggest that includes your opponents, when appropriate.

My guess as to your shock that 3♦ was not approved of comes from this - none of the other posters were considering raising a 5 card suit either. Except MikeH, he mentioned it in his first response.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2021-February-26, 13:50, said:

You saw my hand. If that hand is not bid 2♦ in your system, that's something nonstandard that you really should be telling people about sometime before the gotcha moment, preferably in the OP. I would suggest that includes your opponents, when appropriate.

My guess as to your shock that 3♦ was not approved of comes from this - none of the other posters were considering raising a 5 card suit either. Except MikeH, he mentioned it in his first response.

Hi Mycroft:

I assumed that 2D promised 5, since otherwise JillyBean would not, I think, consider raising it. Also, I think that 2d promising 5 has become a very popular treatment. Were I to encounter an expert partnership who began 1M 2D, I would assume a 5 card suit and would be surprised (but not shocked) were responder to lay down a 4 card holding.

Neither of my current expert partners nor I would alert the 2D response and I would be disturbed to learn that the ACBL required us to do so.

I do agree that, because this approach is not universal, it would be useful for JB to have included in the OP both that 2D showed 5+ and that 2D created a gf. However, that's because probably my biggest pet peeve, in forum posts about hands (play or defence) is a failure to provide the full information that the player, faced in real life with the problem, would have had. All too often posters seem to think that either everyone plays the way they do, so knows it all already, or that some of the information may be irrelevant. That latter assumption is often wrong: one of the factors that separates players of differing skill level is the degree to which players use some or all of the available information. I think that most players have no idea of how much information, often in the form of inferences including secondary and tertiary, is available on most hands.

I recall a very famous player many decades ago who said (and I paraphrase due to the passage of time and imperfect memory) that if the average player could listen in on the thoughts of an expert, he'd be amazed at how many things the expert was thinking about.

[mycroft]

I do not think it's Alertable. In fact, I'm almost certain (NRBH) that it isn't.

It is unusual enough that I would mention it at the end of the auction were I playing it (and have, the one time I did), and I definitely would mention it if I was asking someone to comment on an auction we had.

I was perhaps a little excessively sarcastic in my comment. Jillybean, I apologize. I'm a little on edge about players who think everyone plays the way they do, or at least, the negative inferences to their unusual calls are obvious (because they are, after hundreds of hours playing the system). This goes everywhere from "it's an overcall" to One True Bidding System-itis endemic in the ACBL to the authors' reaction to the Martian 1C "obviously it's forcing, it's unlimited. why would anyone think we should mention that?" I probably went off the edge since she could have just said 'oh that hand bids 2♣, our 1M-2♦ promises 5. I should have mentioned that.' but instead cut out the hand when it was in fact my answer to "why is nobody raising diamonds?"

[jillybean]

I'm obviously missing something here, maybe in my absence from forums I've picked up more bad habits.

1M - 2♦ is "natural", game forcing, a minimum of 5, often 6, I would not think of alerting it. Now I want to know how others play it.
OTOH, 1M - 2♣ for us is artificial. Game forcing, clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2
We alert it and if asked, explain exactly as above.

(Confession - if playing against a pair who when asked about their alerted bid, respond "we play Landy",
I will sometimes describe the above, or another treatment against this same pair as "we play Biggles")

[AL78]

jillybean, on 2021-February-26, 15:46, said:

I'm obviously missing something here, maybe in my absence from forums I've picked up more bad habits.

1M - 2♦ is "natural", game forcing, a minimum of 5, often 6, I would not think of alerting it. Now I want to know how others play it.
OTOH, 1M - 2♣ for us is artificial. Game forcing, clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2
We alert it and if asked, explain exactly as above.

(Confession - if playing against a pair who when asked about their alerted bid, respond "we play Landy",
I will sometimes describe the above, or another treatment against this same pair as "we play Biggles")

On this forum, there are people posting from many different countries which have different standard systems. For example, in the UK, Acol is the most common system played at club level and a 2 over 1 minor response only promises four cards minimum and a good 9+ HCP. In the U.S, they play a game forcing 2 over 1 which I am not familiar with and I don't know whether a 2 over 1 always shows a five plus card suit. If someone in the UK is playing that 2 over 1 promises at least five cards whatever the suit, they would have to reveal it to their opponents (probably through an alert and/or stating it before play). I play 5CM with my partner in the UK and in an auction like 1♥ (P) 2♦, the 2♦ shows 4+ diamonds.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2021-February-26, 15:46, said:

I'm obviously missing something here, maybe in my absence from forums I've picked up more bad habits.

1M - 2♦ is "natural", game forcing, a minimum of 5, often 6, I would not think of alerting it. Now I want to know how others play it.
OTOH, 1M - 2♣ for us is artificial. Game forcing, clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2
We alert it and if asked, explain exactly as above.

I play both agreements much like you do (2♣ for us could also be fit). But I alert both.

As others have said, 1M - 2♦ could be 4+card naturally, the agreement to play it as 5+card is (IMO) wise, but still non-standard in some places. Few (if any?) RAs would have you alert that agreement, or the 2/1 game force for that matter, although my RA does say "alert if in doubt" and I do have doubt (i.e. certainty that mycroft has a right to know both that it is GF and that it is 5+cards) here.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-February-26, 12:52, said:

When we have the luxury of extra values ourselves and the additional luxury of already being in a forcing auction, we can and should, when possible, plan our auction to be as efficient as possible. Perhaps most importantly, we should understand that constructive bidding is a dialogue or conversation (there are exceptions, where one bidder assumes captaincy), and that partner is an equal participant, who can be relied upon to listen to the auction. Here, hearts then spades then diamonds gives partner a lot of information. Let her make decisions based on that information.

This, and your entire reply make perfect sense, thank you. I wonder if I am trying to mastermind the auction to cater for what I perceive as partners shortcomings. I will bid this hand again with a partner who does not know the hand, & report back.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2021-February-26, 16:25, said:

I wonder if I am trying to mastermind the auction to cater for what I perceive as partners shortcomings. I will bid this hand again with a partner who does not know the hand, & report back.

And if you really did want to mastermind the auction, remember that you have 4♣ and 4♦ available over 2♦, whatever they mean to you.

[nige1]

JillyBean's diamond slam.
+++++++++++++++++++
Adjusted to eliminate NS hands and make West dealer. IMO
- a 2♣ response to 1♠ can show as few as 3 cards e.g. ♠ xxx ♥ AKxx ♦ Axx ♣ Qxx
- A 2♦ response to 1♥, however, usually shows 5+ cards (as JillyBean says). For example ...
... ... A 2♣ response would make more sense with ♠ Axx ♥ xx ♦ KJxx ♣ AQxx
... ... Some woud bid 3N with Mycroft's ♠ A86 ♥ Q97 ♦ KJ65 ♣ AQ2
... ... Others would reply 2♣ or make some artificial 3-card raise.
- A 2♠ rebid (showing extras) is more descriptive and less committal than a 3♦ raise (as MikeH says).
- Especially as a 2♦ response might include 4 ♠s e.g. ♠ Axxx ♥ x ♦ AKJxxx ♣ xx
- TylerE's auction (above) seems sensible.

---

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-February-26, 16:25, said:

This, and your entire reply make perfect sense, thank you. I wonder if I am trying to mastermind the auction to cater for what I perceive as partners shortcomings. I will bid this hand again with a partner who does not know the hand, & report back.

Whether one caters to partner’s perceived shortcomings is a difficult issue.

My view, fwiw, is that it depends on why you’re playing with this partner, and your hopes for the future (2 closely related topics in most cases).

If you hope this partner to become a regular partner, with whom you want a strong partnership (rather than playing because you like the partner despite his or her weaknesses), then don’t mastermind.

Instead, make the ‘right’ bid and, when partner goes wrong, discuss it after the game and away from the table. Your partner will not merely fail to improve, if you mastermind, but may get worse because you’ve become an unreliable partner.

Also, if there is a very strong player locally, whose views you respect, invite him or her to be part of these discussions occasionally. Most good players like being asked for their views.

Otoh, if this is an occasional partnership where you just want to score well, or if this were a certain type of pro-client partnership, masterminding may be ok. Some clients want their partner to mastermind. I don’t play pro, but I have friends who do.