joshs

If partner signals 2 or 4 clubs after my overtaking with the A♥ and playing the K♣, there is no guess: play ♥. Declarer can have 2 possible hands which matter: AKQxxxxx xx xx x (partner has 4 clubs) or AKQxxxxx x x xxx (partner has 2 clubs). The first case is the dangerous one (8 spades + 3 diamonds on a successful finesse). In the second case, declarer is limited to 10 tricks. As far as the structure of answers after a Gambling 3NT, I'll never go for a complicated convention for a hand which has a very low frequency. As a matter of fact, I do not even play Gambling 3NT in my established partnerships. Huh? 1. Gambling 3N is usually only a 7 card suit, it can be 8, but its not usually 2. Declarer's hand WAS: AKQxxxx x xx xxx so your "there is no guess algorithm" just let declarer make. 3. If declarer's hand was AKQxxxxx x x xxx (your 2'nd hand) then after declarer ruffs and plays all but one trump the position is: Declarer: 1 trump, 1 diamond, 2 clubs Dummy: AQJ of diamonds and a heart Partner Kxx of diamonds and a good heart You some good clubs, but you have no hearts left So when declarer plays his last trumps partner is squeezed. in diamonds and hearts. If partner throws a diamond, declarer throws a heart, takes a diamond hook, and his other diamonds are good. If partner throws the heart, declarer throws a diamond, takes a diamond hook, and dummy is good. Josh

Wow, someone cited the exact same hand as I did. ! ;)

In standard 2/1, bidding the 2/1 suit, then supporting partner shows 3 card support. There are 3 problem auctions: 1S-2m-2H (thats 2 of them) 1S-2H-3D In these auctions, the 4'th suit is only available at the next level so there is a case to be made for 2S in auctions 1 and 2 and 3S in auction 3 to be occasionally made on Hx. If you had real support you would need to rebid them. Example: AQJxx Kxxx Kx xx Kx QJx xxx AKxxx In traditional 2/1 the auction goes: 1S-2C-2H-3D(A Semi-natural punt, denies the ability/orientation to bid 2N)-3N-P 3N depends on diamonds breaking. While it sounds ugly, a better auction is: 1S-2C-2H-2S(possibly only Hx)-2N(diamond stopper)-3C(good clubs, often only 2 spades)-3S (good spades)-4S With 3 spades and decent suit oriented cards (such as the AK of clubs rather than KQJ) responder has to bid 3S over 2N to show a real fit. Now this is very non-traditional, so you better have an agreement on these auctions to bid this way... Also note there is no reason to pervert the 2S bid when a punt is available below 2N: e.g. AQJxx Kx Kxxx xx Kx xxx QJx AKxxx Here it goes comfortably: 1S-2C-2D-2H-2N-3C-3S-4S So in these auctions, 2S should definitely show 3. Josh

I think moscito is currently using: 1N relay, good hand 2C: 5+H 2D, worse than Hx in hearts, no strong 6 card minor 2H: Hx in hearts 3m: strong 6 card suit 2D: 5+S 2H: worse than Hx in spades, no strong 6 card minor 2S: Hx or better 2H: 5+C etc. 2S: limit raise in either minor 2N: both minors, pre-empt 3m: to play I have no idea what you are suppossed to bid with 4423 shape

Calculation continued: With A5: If partner has 6 hearts he knows the position If partner has 5 hearts, he has 3 smaller unseen cards than the Q and declarer has 1, so he knows the position 75% of the time (assuming the manditory falsecard) If partner has 4 hearts, he has 2 smaller cards and so does decalrer, so he knows the position 50% of the time, and should always switch, just as he would if he actually new the position If decalrer has 3 hearts, he should always continue assuming you lead the K from KQ doubleton (since with Axxxxx you would overtake and switch and not give count), so there is still no critical case with him having 3 hearts (and besdies the opening bid was really looney then). Now first algorithm: you assume partner knows the heart count a: 95% like before b. 80% like before c. he continues 75% of the time and swtiches 25% of the time. After he switches you have a 50% chance of guessing what to do. = 87.5% d. 50% like before Total=312.5/4=78.125% Maybe there is something better than a coin flip at the end if the club switch was unreadable? Josh

I know, I knew the hand before I posted on this thread. I don't see the relevance. Ahh, well then maybe I didn't understand your point. I think there is an algorithm here that cashes out successfully 80% of the time when what you do matters (e.g. partner has 6 hearts OR 4 clubs), and not the 62.5% odds you get when you overtake. Let me first suppose you had the A2 of hearts and not the A5. This is unambigously readable as 2 or 4. If partner has 3 or 5 hearts he continues and there is no problem (assuming no club void). So if partner switches to a club he has 4 or 6 hearts. If you can read the spot card as definitely 2 or 3 clubs, you have no problem. If you can't tell if he is 3 or 4, you have a guess what to play back. Lets see how this algorithm does on the critical lengths: Lets let p andq denote the probability that the club spot is readable as being from 3 or 4. (assuming 3 and low shifts) when partner has 3 or 4 respectively. First lets assume that p=q (I don't think they are equal) When partner has a doubleton and shifts there is only ambiguity when he has the two lowest outstanding spots (1 of ten possibilities) (e.g. 90% of the time the shift is readable as NOT from 4, the other 10% of the time you have to guess) a. 6H 2C : 95% b. 6H 3C : = 1-(1-p)/2 c. 5H 4C : 100% d. 4H 4C : = 1-(1-p)/2 If these 4 cases are equally likely then the algorithm works : 97.5-(1-p)/4 % of the time. if P=0 then its 72.5%, and p is higher than 0 (lowest club card is always readable as being from 3). I suspect that p will be more than 20% (more if declarer occasionally forgets to false card), which gives you 77.5%. With the A5 (second lowest available spot) partner will not know the heart count 100% of the time, so this will diminish your probability of success, but not by that much. The overtake, cash a club, and then guess if the answer is even algorithm works: 250/4=62.5% of the critical cases The over take and return one algorithm works 50% of the time. Since I am at it lets work out p and q. partner leads the 3'rds 4'th or 5'th lowest spot. If its the 5'th, its always readable. if its the 4'th, and declarer always plays a higher card if he has one. Its never readable if its the 3'rd then its never readable. so 3 card holdings, ranked with 1 highest and 5 lowest card: 123 124 125 134 135 145 234 235 245 345 =readable 6/10 times 4 card holdings: 1234 1235 1245 1345 2345 =readable 0/5 times hence p=.6 and q=0 so the actual calculation gives: a. 6H 2C : 95% b. 6H 3C : = 1-(1-p)/2=80% c. 5H 4C : 100% d. 4H 4C : = 1-(1-q)/2=50% So the algorithm (low at trick 1, etc.) gives: 325/4=81.25% probability of success for the critical cases if you held the A2. Being tierd at this point, I will attempt to work out the odds with A5 later... Josh

This hand resulted in a big swing, however, I wouldn't say that it "cost the match"... I'm certainly not interested in assigning blame on the hand (The slam is pretty close to 50-50 so its hard to claim that there is any "blame") The main reason that I posted this hand is that I felt it raised a few interesting questions regarding about BBO Advanced: 1. What should opener rebid after a Jacoby 2NT? Many of his replies seem problematic. 2. Assuming that partner does rebid 3♦, what does a jump to 4♥ show? Is this a picture jump or fast arrival or what? 3. Would anyone chose a 3♠ cue? For what its worth, both tables started with a Jacoby 2NT type response, followed by 3♦. I chose to rebid 4♥ (hoping it was a picture jump) and there we sat. The Egyptian international at the other table chose to bid 3♠ and arrived at 6♥. Some comments: In jacoby if you had a good hand and were interested in slam you would: a. cue bid something b. bid 3H waiting, to give partner a chance to cue-bid something Even if you played serious 3N (which I think is inferior to non-serious 3N for many reasons), you should be playing "serious 3H" here. (Or non-serious 3H for the non-serious 3N players). 3N should be: I have wastage, can't cue-bid spades, but my hand didn't totally go to hell after you showed diamond shortage. 4H should be: my hand totally went to hell. I am sort of proposing that 3N show extra values, but wastage, and 4H show no extra values and wastage. (Personally, I never liked standard jacoby, but thats what we are often stuck with). Now over 1H-2N-3S, you no longer have the trump bid as a waiting bid, so then 3N should be serious or non-serious or natural as you normally play it.

If you overtake and play a heart he will know you have a doubleton and will always do the right thing if there is something to be done. Well if thats your defense, declarer makes 6... (Partner has 6 hearts) I think the point of the problem here, is to come up with a plan that gives you the highest probability of cashing 3 tricks. Good carding methods might also help.

Yes if he has 6 he will always switch no matter what my count card was, but if he switches you don't know he has 6. He would also switch with 4 if he can read your count card. Its just a bit interesting how the defensive inferences vary with the size of your second heart. Josh

Actually, the usual method over gambling 3N (which is suppossed to only be a minor) is to play: 4C pass or correct 4D do you have a singleton: 4H heart singleton, 4S spade singleton, 4N no, 5C (diamond singleton), 5D (club singleton) 4M natural 4N do you have an 8'th card? 5C pass or correct

To everyone who overtook the heart and played the club K, partner will play the 2 showing 2 or 4, and you are guessing now. I think overtaking at trick 1 is very wrong! But please feel free to elucidate me on your cashout carding methods... Note: If you had been dealt the A2 doubleton, both players would know the heart count at trick 2 if you follow with the 2 since partner will continue with 3 or 5 and switch with 4 or 6. So if he switches to a club, he will lead 3/low and you hopefully will be able to read that card. With the A5 (the second lowest outstanding spot) partner will probably be able to read the count, but its not foolproof. But I am interested to hear about other carding methods for these situations. Josh

In standard 2/1 this auction (2/1 GF. 1S-P-2C-P-2D-P-2S-P-2NT), 2N is natural showing either: a. 5242 OR b. 5341 (With this shape you can also bid 3H. The decision depends on your possible desire to play 3N from your side, and your desire to slow down the auction) I personally think it should also show some values in the 4'th suit. 2N tends to slow down the auction and hint that its more important where partner's concnetration of values are than where partner's controls are. If opener just wanted partner to cue bid he can re-raise to 3S instead of bidding 2N. Note: Even if your partnership plays serious or non-serious 3N, this convention should be off if either player has ever bid NT previously. Also Note: Just because you bid 2N doesn't mean you should pass 3N. A hand like: AKxxx Ax xxxx Qx should bid 2N but pull 3N to 4S. This sequence should show some short suit values but a hand unsuitable for 3N. Josh

Pass. Go Plus, young man. Yes partner might have some sort of 22(54) max that will make 4H a good contract, but I wouldn't play for that. Partner might well have shown a 14-16 NT (or whatever NT range that fit into) if he was that shape, and strength with major suit cards. If most of his cards is in the minors, 4H is not a favorite. If he has extra shape, one of your major suit K's is not working, so 5C will be tough to make. Take the money and run.

In general, a gambling 3N bid is not suppossed to contain a void, but it wasn't supposed to contain a major suit either, so who knows... :ph34r:

You hold: 932 A5 T65 AKJ43 Auction your side slient: LHO: 3N (Gambling solid minor, no outside A or K) RHO: 5C( pass or correct) LHO: 5S (Suprise, I guess 3N showed any solid suit....) All Pass Partner leads the heart Q (rusinow, showing the K or shortage) Dummy comes down with: T 8742 AQJ32 T75 You play upside down count and attitude. Plan the defense. Josh

Well your goals do vary with form of scoring and Vul and seat: For instance, white vs white at mps: your goal is to play any plausable spot. Playing in your second best strain is fine. In most other situations, I think its important to: a. find your best strain b. have some hope of bidding distributional major suit games, but its not the most important thing c. obstruct the opponents INV auctions d. put the NT bidder on lead Because of d, things like the woolsey 2D bid, or x-fers are much better in the direct seat than in the balancing seat. But in the balancing seat it is much more important to find your best strain than it is in direct seat (no obstructive value if you come in in the balancing seat), hence the obstuctive value you might get from a don't 2H (majors) is lost in 3'rd seat and you are much better off playing 2C for majors there. Anyway, the two treatments that I am most fond of vs a strong NT are woolsey, and Lynn Deas's don't woolsey hybrid: Woolsey: 2C Majors (then 2D asks preference) 2D 1 major (this sides the major well in direct seat, and its much easier to compete when partner has 1 of 2 suits than if he has 1 of 4) 2M 5M, 4+in some m x a minor, some play this guarantee's a 4 card major on the side, some don't Note: In years of experience playing this method the sequence: 1N-x-P-2D(asking for a 4 card major) is very rare whether you guarantee a 4 card major or not. Deas's Dont: 2m 4+in that suit, 5+ in some major (stays low like don't, but tells you that the major is longer) 2H Majors 2S Spades x 4M and 5+ in a minor OR 6+D or 6+H or 6+C and a very good hand (rare) or both majors and a great hand (very rare) You initially treat it like the woolsey x except over 1N-x-P-2D(asking for the major) a. pass with diamonds b. Bid 3H with 6 hearts since partner should be at least 4-3 in the majors for the 2D bid The main advantage of Deas's method is that it is GCC :) Josh

Fred, Do you have any insight into the source of the bad results for the 10-12 NT? As part of a big club system, I have been getting very good results from our 10- bad 13 NT 1/2 NV. Its not just the auctions starting with 1N its the negative inferences that come from pass (i.e. p-(3S) to me with Kxx Ax AQxx Kxxx and I can comfortably pass). The weaknesses: 3N is played from the weaker side (slight disadvantage). If they end up in game, and I had 10-11 its easier to place the points than in standard, but not much easier than if I had opened a precision 1D bid. The strengths: the 1N bid has a tighter range than an overcall does. Consequently we are at an advantage in determing the correct strain an level. White vs white, especially at mps, supressing both sides fits and playing in NT is usually a good score. Having pass be limited to 0-9 helps your bidding in 3/4 seats.

5C, advance save. I don't think I am making it but its really hard for them to x me. Josh

Hmm. Over 4D I would bid 5D and prey we are not missing a slam (in one of the minors), but there will be a lot of handling on this hand. With your actual hand I would have xed then bid 3H to show a strong flexible hand (I think your suit quality is wrong for 4D). Partner would certainly insist on at least 5C on that sequence. Actually, with the 7 club hand I would bid 5C over the x not 2N.

As alway, I'd like to make an argument in favor of more precision: MOSCITO is a bidding system. MOSCITO can be contrasted with Precision, Viking Club, Acol, yada, yada, yada.. Symmetric Relay is relay structure. Symmetric Relay can be contrasted with nummeric, Ice relay, Albarran, .... Denial cue bidding is an auction termination mechanism. Denial Cue Bidding can be contrasted with RKCB, CABS, etc... To some extent, these structures can be mixed and matched. In theory, there's nothing to prevent me from playing MOSCITO using Ice Relay. (It would confuse people, but it wouldn't impact the core of the system). For what its worth, I don't think that these hands demonstract that MOSCITO is "better" than a Symmetric Relay based precision style. Any bididng system has its cracks... Hands that fall into them won't necessarily be handled well. I don't find it surprising that hands which are intended to demonstrate problems for one scheme are handled easily by a different bidding systems which uses different demaractions between positives/semi-positives/neagatives. I disagree. Symmetric Relay is a strong club bidding system first published in 1980 by Walter Jones and Roy Kerr. It was the relay structure that people remembered, but it was presented as a complete system. The opening structure of "Symmetric" is something like: 1♣ = 16+ any shape 1♦ = 11-15 2suited (1♥ or 1NT as relay) 1♥/♠ = 11-15 5+ (1NT as relay) 1NT = 12-15 balanced (2♣ as relay) 2♣/♦ = 11-15 6+ When I refer to Moscito I mean the latest Paul Marston variant: 1♣ = 15+ any shape 1♦ = 9-14 4+♥ 1♥ = 9-14 4+♠ 1♠ = 9-14 4+♦ 1NT = 12-14 balanced 2♣ = 9-14 6+♣ There is a big difference when you don't open 1♣. There is also an important difference in the responses to 1♣. In Symmetric you respond 1♦ with 0 or 1 control. All the rest is positive with 2+ controls. In Moscito you respond 1♠ with 0-2 QPs, 1♦ with 6+ QPs and most of the other responses are semi-positives with 3-5 QPs. The Moscito approach is superior (IMHO) because of the use of queen points to differentiate the 3 ranges after the big club opening. In the given examples it is exactly the ability to differentiate a positive from a semi-positive that allows you to get to the right contract, not the relay structure and not the denial cuebidding. Ofcourse you can use this in your symmetric system as well, but this has a bigger impact on your system as you might think. First you must sacrifice some symmetry, second you must decide whether you stick with the AK-ask or switch to the AKQ-ask and change your denial cuebidding accordingly, third you must ask yourself if it still makes sense to ask for min/max when using AKQ. And there is also the possibility to have it all and relayer decides which to use... Steven Facenating. Now Moscito has been around for 15 years, but Paul Marsden just switched to the 1S double negative and the 1D full positive about 2 years ago (someone correct me if its older than that). So what system was he playing for the first 13 years?? I think there is some confusion about the "overall structure of a bidding system" vs "the implimentation of certain components of the system". There are also, various inversions that are possible in symmetric relay that do not effect the symmetric nature of the system: a. re-ordering of the suits b. switching HML shortage to LMH c. Switching the meaning of the 2H reverser to be "higher ranking suit is longer" d. Making direct responses of 2S and higher 1 suited, and bid 2C then 2H or higher with both minors and a direct 2H as 3 suited etc. Essentially these just are a different lexagraphic order to the hand patterns. If you already play symmetric relay, you would not have to learn a new system to do these inversions. I could sit down and play with 2 minutes explanation as to the inversions.... Josh

Playing Moscito with AKQ-ask, none of the example hands pose a problem. But it is not the AKQ-ask itself that makes the difference. It is because the AKQ point count is used to determine the difference between a positive or semi-positive response. In the first and last example responder will show a semi-positive which keeps you from getting too high. In the second and third example responder will show a positive in Moscito. From these examples one might conclude that Moscito is better than Symmetric Relay in bidding slams! And I thought the real benefit of Moscito was when you don't open 1♣... OTOH if responder always has to clarify his range, that is a flaw in your system. It is better to use the step as control ask (responder should always show his controls even with minimal strength) and the step+1 as a weak relay (responder shows a mininum or runs on with a maximum). This will solve your problems in the last two examples, provided you apply the optimalization suggested by Echognome in this thread (start showing queens from the nth suit onwards where n is the number of control CARDS you have). Responder will show 3 controls with 3NT. Now 4♣ starts the denial cuebidding. Since responder has 2 control cards (K of spades and A of hearts) he starts showing queens from his second suit onwards and bids 4NT in the third example(showing K of spades, ace of hearts and queen of diamonds) and 4♠ in the forth example (not Q diamond). Unfortunately this will not solve your problems in the first two examples, unless you have an agreement to show a maximum with 3 controls and more than 6 AKQ points (AK and 2Qs or KKK and 1Q at least). Then you can show a non-minimal hand on the second example and get to 6C. Steven Well first of all moscito uses symmetric relay. The main features of moscito: Light Forcing club opening, with symmetric relay continuations (Residues are shown in reverse lexagraphic order which is backwords from normal, but it doesn't really matter) Immediate Semi-Positives and double Neg (This is new in moscito) x-fer openings, with flexible symmetric relay continuations (majors are shown in natural order, as is 4M-6m ) Agreesive 4 card majors (can be balanced) with agressive 3 card raises (Paul likes mps more than I do). In any case, you are misssing the point: If you require only 15 for the strong club and more like 10 for a positive response (so that a min positive has 5 SP instead of 4) then merely move a Q from openers hand to responders hand in my example, and you have the same problem. Every system will have a an awkward range to deal with, so its a question of minimizing the awkwardness. Josh p.s. There are many interesting paradoxes in relay methods. I used to play that there was no final relay (ok maybe 7H). E.G. If partner bid 7C, 7D was still a relay. We soon discovered that at about the 5H/5S level we often couldn't afford to make one more ask, since a negative response might prevent us from signing off in 6m. So ironically, we found that having no relays above 5N actually helped us find grands on average, since it let us relay one more time safely. (Of course when our suit is spades, we are better off using 6 level relays, but there is no way of setting trumps in DCB methods...) But this observation was merely "on average". Just the other day I was playing the old method (you can keep relaying at the 6 level) and that enabled partner to find a key J and bid a grand. (We had a spade fit). Some methodfs are better for some hands and other are better for others...

Whether the last hand is a semi-positive or not depends on: a. how light your 1C opening starts b. how agressively you force to game over it In Moscito (you sound like a moscito player) 1C starts at a 4432 15 count (Bergen 23), and this responding hand is just a good semi-positive. In TOSR, 1C starts about the same point, but we force to game with a balanced 9 count opposite it. In my non-transfer opening strong club system, 1C starts at a balanced 16 (we downgrade some 4333's but not many) or a 15 with a good 5 card suit or with shape (bergen 24's and good bergen 23's) and this hand is a minimum positive. In what adam et all play, 1C starts at a balanced 17 or an unbalanced 16, and they would force to game without the club J. Anyway, there are advatages and disadvantages to a direct run on to SP. Since they start at 4 for a positive when 1C is of the heavier variety, you are using up many steps to show the sp's for mediocre hands. For instance this 11 count: xx Axx Qxx Axxxx has 7 sp's so when opener with AQ KQxxx xxx KQJ relays with 3H the 4D relay response precludes playing 4H so you are past your safety level. The optimization problem is: Determine a method that can determine if slam is a good bet at or below 4C as often as possible (and 3N or below is even better if 3N is a possible contract). And if you can't figure that out in time, have some way where you can stop at 4M or 5m if partner is minimum for previous bidding and not if he is max. Only rarely do you want to have to play 5M or 5N. (I have played 5N twice this year on 16's opposite 16's without a fit) And yes, these hands are easier in the most recent version of moscito, since opener will limit himself (it doesn't matter who makes the quantitative bid, but many auctions need a quantitative bid...).... The problem's with moscito occur in the part score auctions. Josh

dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ kxx ♥ aqx ♦ akx ♣ ajxx ♠ ajxxx ♥ x ♦ jxx ♣ kxxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Well in my usual methods the auction goes after 3D: 3H(Are you max or min?)-3S(Min)-4S(I am still interested in slam, are you really min?)-P(Yes I am really min) [hv=d=w&v=b&w=skxxhaqxdakxcajxx&e=sajxxxhxdjxxckxxx here you want to be in 4♠. if you start with 3♥ (control ask) partner will bid 3♠ (min); if you follow up with 4♣ (really control ask) then partner shows three and you can no longer stop at the four-level. keycard will be 4♣ or above and will of course bypass 4♠. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ kxx ♥ aqx ♦ akx ♣ ajxx ♠ axxxx ♥ x ♦ qxx ♣ kqxx here the goal is to reach 6♣, which is excellent, especially with west declaring. this is relatively easy to reach as long as you don't sign off too early... but note that this hand will not be distinguished from the first hand until you're well past 4♠. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ aqxx ♥ kx ♦ akxxx ♣ ax ♠ kxxxx ♥ axx ♦ qxx ♣ xx here 7♠ has reasonable chances. again this is quite reachable, but consider what happens if you start with 3♥. partner bids 3♠ (minimum), then 4♥ (three controls), then 5♦ (a top spade, a top heart, no top diamond), then 5♠ (no spade queen)... and you are easily at the six level before you can distinguish this hand from the hand below. if you start with 4♣ (rkc in spade) then you get 4♠ (two no queen), then 4nt would ask for the heart king, 5♣ for the diamond king, 5♦ for the club king, 5♥ for the heart queen... and again you'll be at the six level before you know about the diamond queen. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ aqxx ♥ kx ♦ akxxx ♣ ax ♠ kjxxx ♥ axx ♦ xxx ♣ jx here no slam has real play, though 5♠ should almost always make. note that this hand will make all the same bids as the hand above it until you are past 5♠! ------- admittedly these are made-up examples. next time i practice relaying with someone i'll try to grab some more "random" hands. however, my feeling is that this issue arises fairly often. the main problem is when one of: (1) you're not sure of the proper trump suit, because a 5-3 or 5-4 fit is likely to be "safest" but your only possible slam is in a 4-4 fit in another suit. if you relay for controls it is hard to find out about the important queens, but if you bid keycard you must commit to a trump suit too early. (2) the key card for a making slam is a queen outside the trump suit, which covers a critical loser in declarer's hand. (3) you really want a "quantitative" invite to slam in a suit, but the "max" partner needs to accept is not so strong that partner would pull a signoff attempt. another nice thing about akq points is that it reduces the frequency of game forcing "negative" responses. assuming you require 2 controls for a positive, there are hands like k+q+q+q that are quite good but have to start with a negative. you can still construct such hands if you require 4+ akq points for a positive, but there are fewer of them (i.e. k+q+j+j+j+j or q+q+q+j+j+j). dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ kxx ♥ aqx ♦ akx ♣ ajxx ♠ ajxxx ♥ x ♦ jxx ♣ kxxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 3H(Are you max or min?)-3S(Min)-4S(I am still interested in slam, are you really min?)-5C(I have extras, but only 1 keycard)-6C-P (We can also bid 5N over 5C there to ask responder to bid the cheapist suit where he has an undisclosed honor card, and starts a choice of slam auction) [hv=d=w&v=b&w=skxxhaqxdakxcajxx&e=sajxxxhxdjxxckxxx here you want to be in 4♠. if you start with 3♥ (control ask) partner will bid 3♠ (min); if you follow up with 4♣ (really control ask) then partner shows three and you can no longer stop at the four-level. keycard will be 4♣ or above and will of course bypass 4♠. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ kxx ♥ aqx ♦ akx ♣ ajxx ♠ axxxx ♥ x ♦ qxx ♣ kqxx here the goal is to reach 6♣, which is excellent, especially with west declaring. this is relatively easy to reach as long as you don't sign off too early... but note that this hand will not be distinguished from the first hand until you're well past 4♠. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ aqxx ♥ kx ♦ akxxx ♣ ax ♠ kxxxx ♥ axx ♦ qxx ♣ xx here 7♠ has reasonable chances. again this is quite reachable, but consider what happens if you start with 3♥. partner bids 3♠ (minimum), then 4♥ (three controls), then 5♦ (a top spade, a top heart, no top diamond), then 5♠ (no spade queen)... and you are easily at the six level before you can distinguish this hand from the hand below. if you start with 4♣ (rkc in spade) then you get 4♠ (two no queen), then 4nt would ask for the heart king, 5♣ for the diamond king, 5♦ for the club king, 5♥ for the heart queen... and again you'll be at the six level before you know about the diamond queen. dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ aqxx ♥ kx ♦ akxxx ♣ ax ♠ kjxxx ♥ axx ♦ xxx ♣ jx here no slam has real play, though 5♠ should almost always make. note that this hand will make all the same bids as the hand above it until you are past 5♠! ------- admittedly these are made-up examples. next time i practice relaying with someone i'll try to grab some more "random" hands. however, my feeling is that this issue arises fairly often. the main problem is when one of: (1) you're not sure of the proper trump suit, because a 5-3 or 5-4 fit is likely to be "safest" but your only possible slam is in a 4-4 fit in another suit. if you relay for controls it is hard to find out about the important queens, but if you bid keycard you must commit to a trump suit too early. (2) the key card for a making slam is a queen outside the trump suit, which covers a critical loser in declarer's hand. (3) you really want a "quantitative" invite to slam in a suit, but the "max" partner needs to accept is not so strong that partner would pull a signoff attempt. another nice thing about akq points is that it reduces the frequency of game forcing "negative" responses. assuming you require 2 controls for a positive, there are hands like k+q+q+q that are quite good but have to start with a negative. you can still construct such hands if you require 4+ akq points for a positive, but there are fewer of them (i.e. k+q+j+j+j+j or q+q+q+j+j+j). dealer: west vul: both scoring: imp ♠ kxx ♥ aqx ♦ akx ♣ ajxx ♠ ajxxx ♥ x ♦ jxx ♣ kxxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Here we have 2 relatively balanced hands, and the question is 6 or 7, and responder is relatively weak (few features to show). This is the situation where AKQ methods are much much better than controls. Josh

Well I remain unconvinced, maybe you can give some examples? Now I agree that if the only slam try in your arsenal was to relay for controls or for AKQ points, then AKQ points will be better. Just as if in standard you were allowed to only use rkc or a quantative slam try, quantatative would be better.