All News

A “Maybe” Slam.

When opener shows a minimum hand and the responder is in the “maybe slam” zone, it is good to keep the bidding as low as you can to see if a slam move is warranted. Today’s deal raises questions in this area which partnerships might like to check out:

 

In the sequence above, 2 is treated as at least a 1-round force. This saves South having to make a space-consuming 3 force. After all, it would be rare when North  would want to pass out 2.

We asked our Panel to comment on the sequence, on what 2 showed and if North had to jump to 3 to show 3 card spade support (or indeed bid 3 over 3 from South) what would they bid next?

There are various views. Assuming that 2 is forcing, Wayne produces a good sequence:

Wayne Burrows “3: fourth suit establishing a game force. Then 4 on the next round should show a hand better than a 4 this round. If 2 unequivocally showed three spades, there should be no problems with that approach. 

With something like Kxx xx Kx AKxxxx producing a very comfortable slam most of the time, I think we are worth the stronger route.”

 

Wayne also suggests that 2 need not be forcing if you play 2 after partner's 2 as an artificial force (or maybe even 2NT, a Polish approach). Andy agrees with Wayne that 2 should create a game-force: 

Andy Braithwaite “3: Firstly, I do not play 2 as forcing so would have to bid an artificial 2 to create a game force. When partner bids 2, I can raise to 3 to invite cue bids.

If I bid 2 (over 2)  it must be a game force so partner can bid 2 knowing it cannot be passed.

 

However, if we hear 3 over 2, we can make one last try for slam with 4 which should emphasise the lack of a diamond control.”

 

The concept of whether you can cue a shortage in a suit bid previously by your partner (it could give a very different impression as to the strength of their suit if you have a singleton as opposed to the king), is discussed by some Panellists:

 

Pam Livingston “3:  I am interested in slam.  If the bid of 2 absolutely guarantees 3 spades, then we are in cue bid mode because we have established a fit.  I am showing first or second round control in hearts and denying control in diamonds. While I do have control in clubs, it is not wise to show shortage as a control this early in the auction because it is partner's suit.”

Leon Meier “4: (over 3 from North): In this sequence I would play that 2 is a doubleton and 3 shows 3. I disagree with the sentiment that you shouldn't cue a singleton in partner's suit, generally.”  

4^th suit over 2 seems the popular choice though that is not available when you have to jump to 3 to show three-card support. That is when the debate as to whether you can cue your club shortage is really relevant.

 

Bruce Anderson “3: I have a strong hand and partner has 3 card spade support, so I am making a move rather than signing off in 4, notwithstanding I do not fit clubs. My bid must be forcing and have slam interest.(3 would be invitational, with partner assessing their hand knowing I have spades and hearts).

 If partner does have gold, say, AK and A , I should hear 4, over which I will bid 4, pin pointing my weakness in diamonds. With the above hand, partner should then just bid the slam.

As far as the earlier bidding is concerned, basic Acol considers a change of suit by responder as forcing, but it would be a good idea to check that out with partner.”

 

However, Stephen is happy just to bid game. He suggests it is unlikely North has 3-card spade support:

Stephen Blackstock “4: For many, 2 is completely non-forcing, so 3 is necessary instead. Furthermore, any jump to 3 by North over 2 would be based on strength (i.e., invitational), not as showing any specific spade length unrelated to values, as you suggest. Here, it is unlikely that North has three card support, as unless the hand is very skewed, 2 would then be much preferable to 2. As it went, it is even possible that North has 1246 shape with weak clubs - obviously preference on a singleton is uncomfortable but you have to do your best with the cards dealt.

As it stands, North has a minimum with limited tolerance for spades. Even if a slam try is warranted (not in my judgement), what might that be? 3 followed by 4 perhaps, but that rates to give such a misleading picture we may end in the swamp. So 4 now is what is left.”

 

Would North really bid 2 over 1 with AKJxxx and three small spades? Another unafraid of cueing a shortage in partner’s opening suit is:

 

Peter Newell “3: I think 2 could have 3 card spade support and a poor hand. Over 2, I'll bid 3 on the assumption that 3 is not forcing. I don't like it much but given I didn't bid 2 over 2, clearly it's not much of a suit, and it keeps the bidding low allowing us to explore more. 

Over 3 bid by North,  in some ways to me that's easier as 4 must be a cue bid for spades as we are almost certainly going to be playing in spades.”

 

Making 2 a one round force seems a good concept:

Kris Wooles “3: I agree with the auction to this point. I would consider a jump to 3  a blunt instrument and takes up valuable bidding space for our side in an uncontested auction (i.e., pre-empting ourselves). 

I would treat 2 as forcing to 2. I would not necessarily jump to 3 with a 3 card suit. At this stage the strength of South’s hand is not known to North so I would only bid 3 if my hand was suitably fitting and warranting the jump. 

 

It is possible that partner might have the right cards for a slam so in the spirit of moving forward slowly, I would now bid 3 which is clearly forcing and asking partner to show me more (or not).”

 

So, there is choice in how responder’s bid in this sequence can be treated and perhaps also whether 2 from North shows 2 or 3 spades. Most of the Panel tried for slam but slam would only be good if North had one of the top two diamonds. To find that out, you must make a slam try and at the same time denying a diamond control. If partner were to bid 3NT to your 3 4^th suit bid, you should be well on your way to small slam. This time, the trump finesse was for all 13 tricks.

 

More for our JIN Club members tomorrow.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items