One from the Riverside Sectional Swiss: Answers

IMPs, both red, short matches. You hold

 Kxx AJxxx Kxx xx

The bidding goes

Partner	You
1	1
3	3 (do you?)
3	?

a) do you bid 3? If not, what?
b) what now?

(a) was a bust. Everyone bid 3. I think it's a close call, personally; bidding 4 will get the hand off your chest, and diamonds is very likely to be a good strain. But everyone bid 3:

DAVIDC

3 is clear.

LEN

I suppose. I guess 4 would show something like  xx AJxxx Q10xx xx, and this certainly worked out well, finding out about the hearts so low. [Yes, that looks like a normal 4 bid—good diamonds, tricks, not necessarily so much hand. --Jeff]

ROBB

I do.

DAVIDW

I agree with 3.

BARRY

Yes, 3 is truly surpassingly obvious, and anything else would be a grave mistake.

MIKE

I emphatically agree with 3.

MARSHALL

I think I would have bid 3, but upon reconsideration, I like 4 better; then I'm through (no further aggressive action).

Thereafter, everyone diverged. Turns out the main reason for that is that folks don't agree on what's going on. Some think that 3 promises three-card support. Some think honor-doubleton is plenty.

DAVIDC

I don't believe that 3 guaranteed a third heart. I would bid 3 with  Qx Kx AQJ10x AKxx.

DAVIDW

Partner's number of hearts is uncertain, though, because he could have, say,  xx KQx AQxx AKJx, where hearts is the right strain, or  xx Kx AQJxx AKQx, where diamonds is best.

The rest don't say, but most show examples with three hearts. On a related note, what would 4 have shown here? Some think it's sure to be 4-card support, a hand "too good to splinter," but some think otherwise. DavidW expressly states that he thinks 4 by partner is normal with three good hearts. He finds a raise or opens 2 with four hearts.

DAVIDW

My preference at that point would be 4, not 3...

Many of the panel think that 3 now sets hearts as trumps. Those who think that 3 promises three think they are in a low level cue-bidding auction. Their auctions are going to be pretty good. More of the panel, however, thinks 3 is either a choice of games, the A, a probe for the right strain, "a wiggle," or "a noise." In other words, there's about even less agreement on what 3 means as there is on how many hearts partner has shown so far.

ROBB

3 is unquestionably a cuebid.

BARRY

I think 3 sets hearts.

MARSHALL

I think I would bid 3 now, just to show something extra.

DAVIDC

3, 4th suit at the three level.

ED

...a noise (e.g., 3)

CHRIS

I'm worried about the ambiguity of possible continuations.

If you are sure that 3 promises three and 3 is a cue bid in support of hearts, it's easy. But otherwise, you have a problem.

Valuation is an issue. Most drive to slam, but some will settle in game. Partner said (and it seems reasonable) that he'd've bid 4 over 3, so I asked what folks would do after that.

DAVIDC

3 by partner creates an ambiguity. I still don't know whether I am going to want to play s, s or NT. So, I bid 3, which as 4th suit at the three level is my hope that partner can do better than I can. Partner bids 4 saying that they had better than average s for this auction. I think 4 can be passed on this auction so I don't want to do that. 4NT [would be] a bad bid on my part because I am much better off describing my hand to him than I am asking for keys. 4 should now be a cue in support of s. That may do it. Now partner can bid 4NT, I bid 5 and they should be able to count 13 tricks. (If they are unsure about the K, they can bid 5. They shouldn't be at this point.)

BARRY

I guess I bid 3. Yes, partner will expect first round control, but I think I have to make slammish noise and I'm sure Blackwood will sort it out. 4 would reset diamonds as trump. I think 3 sets hearts and I bid only 4 over 4.

CHRIS

This is a slam drive. The only question is which slam?

 x KQx AJxxx AKQx belongs in 6.
 x Kxx AQJxx AKQx belongs in 6.

I'll just keep life simple with 5NT. Partner should read this as a choice between diamonds and hearts. IMO, my holdings in the red suits are completely typical for this auction. With a diamonds vs. notrump decision, I'd bid 4 instead to let partner know that hearts are out of the picture, then bid 5NT later.

It seems like the only alternative bid is 3. Perhaps that is the best choice in theory (partner may raise to 4 showing a void, and we are in potential grand slam territory), but I'm worried about the ambiguity of possible continuations. As a famed Israeli internationalist is reputed to have said, "I came here to win the tournament, not the bidding contest."

DAVIDW

I think the way to sort this out is to bid 3. Then:

If he bids 3NT, I will play 6NT.

If he bids 4, I will KCB and if his answer permits, show that we have all the key cards and let him choose between 6 and 7 (if he has  A KQx AQJxx Axxx). [How? He bids 5, showing four. How do you know about the Q? If you bid 5, does that promise all the key cards or might you be looking for the safer slam between 6 and 6NT? --Jeff]

If he bids 4 (suggesting he doesn't know what trumps should be), I will bid 5NT to let him pick the slam.

[If he bids 4,] 5NT is a better call than 6, and it tortures him more (payback for some of the other problems!). He ought not to take that as GSF, since I could have bid 4NT to elicit that info. With two suits supported, picking the more solid one is often an issue resolvable via 5NT.

ED

This hand looks too good to me to make a noise (e.g., 3) and then be willing to settle for 4. A typical minimum such as  x KQx AQxxx AKxx offers a good play for slam. I'd bid 4 kickback with my hand. If that is not available, I'd probably bid 3 and then later change my system to play kickback. This hand is a good illustration of where kickback gains (you can play 5 rather than 5NT when opener has two KC and the Q). [Ed then bids 5 over partner's 4 continuation.]

[Kickback is not without its disadvantages. I've seen lots and lots of mixups with it. No, more mixups than that. --Jeff]

LEN

Some typical hand like  x KQx AQxxx AQxx (add a few jacks to be sure it's a jump shift if you like) and slam is pretty good. I bid Blackwood; 4 is available.

MIKE

Many difficulties, as 3 followed by 4 over 3NT is going to show the A, while 4 now isn't forcing on general principles. It would be nice if 4NT had an obvious meaning, but all three are possible and any one of them would be useful if I knew partner knew what it meant. Ultimately, I think I'm going to drive to slam on this hand unless I get repeated sign offs, so I'll start with 3 then over 3NT, 4. Now if partner bids 4NT, I'll give up, otherwise I'll try 6.

ROBB

I bid 3. My K isn't pulling its weight, and I find it hard to think that slam could be better than iffy. But pard could have  x KQx AQJxx AKxx, for example, and I have to give him a chance. The question is whether 4 is cooperative or just a stronger preference. But 3 is unquestionably a cuebid, since partner has to be short and it can't be a NT probe. If pard bids 4 and now I bid 4, he will know I am showing a card. If pard can't bid 4, I will check out.

[Over 4] 4. As I said, if pard can't bid 4, I will check out. In my style, partner basically denied the A. I am not saying my style is best, but that was what my bidding was predicated upon.

MARSHALL

I think I would bid 3 now, just to show something extra. At matchpoints, 4, wich is probably where we belong if we don't get to slam. The trouble is that I would bid the same way without the king of diamonds, and partner may think I have the A. If partner has  x Kx AQJxxx AKJx we will miss a good slam.

MIKE

[4] probably means he is 0-3-6-4. I still think diamonds are going to play better — I don't want to ruff spades with high trumps. I guess I have to decide whether I've done enough and bid 4 or 5 or jump to 6. I think most constructs make 6 a good bet... I'd guess to bid that. I'm afraid if I bid 5 now, partner will play me for the A instead of one of my working honors and pass.

VOTES

Action Votes 3 then 4 2 3 then 4 1 3 then 5 1 3 then 5 1 3 then 5NT 1 3 then 6 2 Blackwood 1 5NT 1

I decided calling this a consensus was a bit of a misbid. Despite folks' mostly bidding 3, few were on the same page either so far or thereafter.

WINNING ACTION

get to 7NT. Partner had  A KQx AQJxxx Axx. The only auction I see that gets to a grand is Ed's:
1-1;
3-3;
3-3;
4-5;
5-6;
7NT
Opener knows responder has five decent hearts, the K, and the K. That's 14 tops.

Everyone else gets to some small slam.

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

note that I'm not admitting what I bid at the table, but I can say for certain that in this partnership I had no idea what 3 would have meant. I didn't know if partner could have two or three hearts, either. Given that this is obviously a situation in which there is no common agreement about what anything means, and knowing that we weren't on solid ground, anything I did was a crapshoot. My solution made sure that nothing really goofy happened. I'll leave it at that.

Can you get to the laydown grand intelligently? Ed's auction will get you there vs. the actual hand, but what will happen if opener only has two hearts? Might we play 6 vs.  xx Kx AQJxxx AKQ? Maybe opener will try 6 and we can pass. Or is that a grand slam try in hearts? Given that we don't know what our early bids mean, to feel confident that we know what our later ones specify to a great deal of precision is expecting a lot.

Can we stop short of slam when it's bad? I don't see how. The two who chose a non-forcing 4 assumed that 3 had set hearts as trump. Robb stopped because he thought partner had denied the A; he was in the throes of a misunderstanding. As, most likely, would we all be.

So all but two simply drove to slam. That's probably the right valuation; most of the time, slam will have play. The important issue, then, is getting to the right slam. Then maybe Chris' 5NT is best; if we can't come up with an intelligent way to stay out of slam when it is bad, and we can't find a grand with confidence, then why not simply focus on strain at the six-level right now? After all, 3 will simply muddy the waters, and if we are going to guess to bid a slam and not have an intelligent auction on the way, this might get us the best result possibly achievable with confidence.

I was surprised during early discussion of the problem how many different opinions there are about a fairly simple sequence. Looks like this is one for partnership discussion.

Personally, I think 3 should not promise three. What else can opener bid with  xx Kx AQJxx AKQx? He can't go past 3NT when that's the most likely game, and is partner really going to rebid his hearts with, say,  Qxx QJ10xx Kxx xx? I suspect that those who say that 3 promises three would bid 3 anyway with this hand.

I think 3 doesn't confirm anything; it expresses doubt about strain. For the moment, the most important issue is getting to 3NT. If that's not one of the games responder has in mind, he'll bid the cheapest strain he thinks playable on the next round. Whether or not this is mainstream, I cannot say, but I think it's the most valuable meaning of 3. We need some bid to avoid committing when we don't have enough information, and 3 is it.

As would DavidW, I'd've bid 4 with partner's actual hand. With direct support, I try to show it immediately, so with the putative  x KQxx AKJxx AKx hand, "too strong to splinter," I'd just splinter anyway. My partners will have Last Train available, so if we have a slam, we'll have a shot at getting there, and I won't have to bid past game to find partner's Yarborough and go down at the 5-level. Besides, I'm tired of coming up with elaborate prepared sequences and having partner cross me up. I have a partner who happily passes 3 on this auction from time to time; perpetrating the jump shift with a huge splinter is insanity playing with him. Even more normal partners sometimes raise clubs or jump to 4, making our prepared sequence as clear as mud.

Fortunately, much of the time, I'll have two splinters available, e.g. 1-1; 3 or 4. I like to play that 3 is either game invitational or a monster hand, and 4 is just a normal game force. Then if partner signs off over 3, I bid game and didn't feel any reason to bid to the 5-level. With a true monster, I can make yet another slam try. If partner accepts the game invite, the five-level should be safe. Note that this approach is pretty much appeal-proof. If I bid on over partner's slow sign-off, I can't have anything resembling a marginal game force. Those who play that 4 shows a void diamond have to miss a game sometimes when partner slowly judges to play a partscore.

After 1-1, I only have one spade splinter, and it looks like a good place to use Frivolous 3NT, but my rules say 3NT is natural. After all, I could have had  KQJ10 Jxxx xx Qxx. 4 is probably fine, but 3NT looks completely laydown. Perhaps adding Frivolous 3NT over spade splinters even when we have only a 4-4 fit makes sense. For now, I play that 4 there is Last Train, not a real cue. Yeah, 3NT as Last Train seems more effective.

Overall, this hand is a minefield for any but the most solid partnerships. It's probably a minefield for most of them, too.