Just for Ken: Another master bid

[Finch]

I'm kind and gentle with my partners, but I debated subjecting mine to this auction at the weekend:

 

Jx

AKQ9xx

Jxx

AK

 

you deal, game all, aggregate (total points), teams KO

 

1H 1S

3NT 4D

4H 5S

?

 

4D = cue for hearts

4H = minimum in context (does not deny club control)

 

What is partner showing? What should you bid?

[Free]

5♠ looks like asking for help to bid grand. I'd just bid 6♥ here... I don't like to make bids such as 5♠ because you make it hard on your partner, and one way or another you usually think completely different about the bid.

[whereagles]

I'll bid 5NT, which in this situation obviously means: "pard what the heck are you doing? what is the fit?"

[mr1303]

I might try 6C, just in case that helps partner at all.

[temp3600]

What would 1H - 2S have been ?

 

Assuming a weak jump-shift, I think pard is showing a strong hand with a self-sufficient spade suit. I'd bid 6C.

[kenrexford]

Assuming we are on the same page, 3NT showed solid trumps. Hence, 4NT as RKCB for hearts is somewhat meaningless. 4D established hearts as trumps, and I signed off. This may look strange, holding double control of clubs, but I already have shown a lot, I suppose.

 

If 4S would normally be Exclusion, then I would have taken 4S as akin to 6KCB, with the clear "obvious" reality that it is really RKCB, hearts as trumps, but spades offering the lesser key cards, a good treatment in this sort of auction. 5S could have this meaning, if 4S is deemed merely a cuebid. Thus, if 4S is a cue, 5S is a grand try, KCB with the minor key cards being those in spades.

 

Barring this, it seems that 5S must, logically, be an empathetic splinter, even at this level. Partner may well have secondaries out the rear end in the minors, and Ace-empty in spades. He is empathetically visualizing that you may hold a stiff spade (fairly often) and is offering a grand if you have that holding. Perhaps he holds something like Axxx-Jx-AKx-QJxx?

 

My personal choice would be the empathetic slam-try splinter, as 4S would be agreed as RKCB, spades as minor keys.

[inquiry]

The typical meaning for a jump to 5M when one suit is unbid is to ask for partner to bid slam with control of the unbid suit (here ♣'s). Partner who is strong enough to bid like this has good spades and ♦'s so can't be worried we are off two quick ♣ tricks given my 3NT jump. So I am willing to forget about this asking for a ♣ control, as I must have one based upon my partners bidding.

 

Further, if partner was just interested in ♠ control, he would have jump directly to 5♠ over 3NT. So he wants something more than a simple fitting ♠ honor from me. Also note, after 3NT and immediate jump to 5♠ is passable, this 5♠ is not. Maybe he wants me to bid grand with a top ♠ honor and to stop short without it. Could partner have solid spades and ♦Ace? No he would have used gerber or super gerber (if not playing gerber or super gerber here, this could be an attempt to bid 7 if you hold ♣ACE).

 

So, if partner had a way to ask for aces, I will bid 6♠ -- no top ♠. If partner didn't have a way to ask for aces, I will bid 6♣ - ♣ ACE.

 

BTW, if partner wanted us to pick between ♦ and ♠ at the 6 level, I think the bid would be 5NT not 5♠. And an immediate jump rebid of 6♦ over your 4♥ would show he had a strong preference for ♦ over ♠s. A jump directly to 6♦ over 3NT would have been to play (but only if you play MAFIA and would bid 4 card ♠ suit in preference to six card ♦ suit).

[kenrexford]

All of this makes sense assuming that the parameters provided are relitigated. 4D was described as a cuebid in support of hearts. That message cannot change to a no-fit, diamond-spade two-suiter because of a weird 5S call, IMO.

[inquiry]

All of this makes sense assuming that the parameters provided are relitigated. 4D was described as a cuebid in support of hearts. That message cannot change to a no-fit, diamond-spade two-suiter because of a weird 5S call, IMO.

Whoops... I stopped reading after the bidding, and never made it to the description of 4♦.. .sigh. .. If 4♦ agrees ♥ then 5♠ is a real brain teaser. Partner could have bid 4NT to ask for keycards, find out about heart queen and ask for specific kings. He shows no interest in asking for keycards and yet he has forced us to slam. My assumption now is he has a void and couldn't figure out how to convey that image, Question is which minor? I want to be in 7 if in ♦ and 6 if in ♣, so I will cooperate and cue-bid 6♣.

[Finch]

If 4S would normally be Exclusion, then I would have taken 4S as akin to 6HCB, with the clear "obvious" reality that it is really RKCB, hearts as trumps, but spades offering the lesser key cards, a good treatment in this sort of auction. 5S could have this meaning, if 4S is deemed merely a cuebid. Thus, if 4S is a cue, 5S is a grand try, KCB with the minor key cards being those in spades.

 

Barring this....

It's weird. I understand most of the individual words (though not 6HCB) yet have very, very little idea what you are talking about.

 

If it helps, we don't play exclusion (what never? well, almost never...), nor does this partnership ever play anything other than 4NT as any sort of Blackwood.

 

Anyway, if it helps:

- partner could have bid 4NT RKCB over 4H and then (in our methods) asked about the KQ of spades below 6H

 

- I don't know what MAFIA is supposed to mean either, but this is a 2/1 FG partnership. With lots of diamonds partner would have had to jump to 5D or 6D over 3NT. (In the corresponding auction 1D - 1S - 3NT we would play 4C as natural, but here there is no way to agree hearts in a forcing manner, which we consider to be more important.)

 

- I don't know what super gerber is, but I'm pretty certain we don't play it. We don't play gerber.

 

p.s. what does 'relitigated' mean? The only meaning I can think of is to engage in legal proceedings again.

[hotShot]

Assuming 4♦ agreed to play ♥, than partner obviously wants to play at least 6♥ and go for the grand if i hold ....... ?

 

Since 4♥ does not deny ♣ control, i think partner wants us to know that his ♠ are a source for tricks, and if i have first round control of ♣, we can make 7.

[cherdano]

Since 4♥ does not deny ♣ control, i think partner wants us to know that his ♠ are a source for tricks, and if i have first round control of ♣, we can make 7.

No way. Frances could easily find out about 1st round ♣ control starting with a 4S cue.

 

I think this bid must be asking about spade help. Since it can't be asking about ♠K or Q, it must either ask for ♠J or shortness. Neither can be found out via cue-bidding, I assume. The first would be a hand like AKQTx xxx AQx xx, the latter Axxxxx Jxx AK xx. However, with the latter hand, I think partner would more likely try to find out about ♠K(Q) with our established methods instead of trying a partner torture bid.

 

Hence I "cue" my ♠J by bidding 6♠ :)

[mikeh]

5♠ shows possession of a twisted sense of humour: I would want to see if my partner had been replaced by de Sade.

 

As for what its bridge meaning is or should be:

 

Q109xx Jx AKQ QJx is the best I could come up with, and that requires that your keycard methods do not allow you to distinguish between your actual hand and Kx AKQxxxx Jx Ax as an example.

 

Partner can assume that you hold at least a black K and a black A. I am uncomfortable that you might hold Ax♠ Kx♣, but you are more likely to hold the ♣A and, indeed, the ♠A as well. He has enough entries that he feels that you can establish the ♠ if you need to avoid a ♣ hook.

 

I toyed with the idea that 5♠ showed a great ♠ suit, and the ♦ control and ♥ fit already promised, but I could not understand why no 4♠ bid, which surely forces you to own up to a ♣ control .... AKJxxx Jx xxx xx

 

In closing: 5♠ is probably the type of call that you should avoid, but that you should say to partner, after the hand (and the session): I was thinking of 5♠ on this board: would that have described my hand for you?

[mikeh]

Since 4♥ does not deny ♣ control, i think partner wants us to know that his ♠ are a source for tricks, and if i have first round control of ♣, we can make 7.

No way. Frances could easily find out about 1st round ♣ control starting with a 4S cue.

 

I think this bid must be asking about spade help. Since it can't be asking about ♠K or Q, it must either ask for ♠J or shortness. Neither can be found out via cue-bidding, I assume. The first would be a hand like AKQTx xxx AQx xx, the latter Axxxxx Jxx AK xx. However, with the latter hand, I think partner would more likely try to find out about ♠K(Q) with our established methods instead of trying a partner torture bid.

 

Hence I "cue" my ♠J by bidding 6♠ :)

If you are going to cue your ♠J, then surely the most economical route is to cue 6♣....on the way. Then when you cue 6♠ next, partner can safely bid the grand... whereas over 6♠ directly, does he know about the ♣A?

 

BTW, I sympathize with your reasoning, but there is no way that I would picture partner with your example hand, and no way I am ever bidding 6♠ :(

[kenrexford]

If the partnership has a method to ask about the KQ of spades after a heart-focused KCB, then 4S cannot be KCB with a switch in the minor key card focus. 4S must logically, in the parameters of the system, be a simple cue?

 

That being the case, I cannot understand any interpretation of 5S except empathetic splinter. The one hand partner may have difficulty handling is where he holds an appropriate acceptance of a grand slam invite if you could have splintered, assuming that you have the right hand contextually. Obviously, few would agree with 1H-P-1S-P-3S being a self-splinter, but one could imagine wanting to do this if it were insanely available. The practical solution to this problem is usually a 3NT call. Hearing 4D from partner does little to enable re-assessment of the value, or lack thereof, of a stiff spade.

 

Weird bids should be used to solve weird problems. When all other reasonable problems have been resolved through other techniques, that which remains must be the focus of the weird call, I'd say. Among alternative issues, the stiff from Opener seems to be the most plausible, for several reasons. First, as already articulated, this is a problem that has little resolution and which arises in a frequent number of contextually plausible hands. Second, unusual jumps usually show shortness, but they might suggest "thinking" about shortness. Third, all other plausible alternatives seem stretched. Fourth, and finally, I personally have a default to empathetic splinters as priority when all other major options have been erased.

 

This being the case, what next? Partner cannot KNOW that your clubs are as solid as AK. Hence, I'd cue 6C, as a clarifying acceptance of the grand try. This would tend to show AK in clubs, as opposed to just the club Ace and a fitting diamond Ace or King.

 

It is all rather obvious. :(

 

To cover a few confusions from the prior post:

 

6HCB was a typo. Should be 6KCB.

 

"Relitigate" means to hash out a resolved issue again.

[hotShot]

If 5♠ is an "empathetic splinter", what on earth would his 1♠ have been?

[kenrexford]

First, I need to clarify. I just looked back and realized that I hold a doubleton spade in this example. Thus, I'd actually sign off at 6H. I'd only cooperatively cue 6C witha stiff spade.

 

Now, as to the question about what 1S was if 5S is an "empathetic splinter." The definition of an "empathetic splinter" probably will answer this.

 

An "empathetic splinter" is a bid which says, "If you would have liked to make a splinter in this suit, but could not (because of space, alternative meanings, etc.), I have an acceptance of that hypothetical splinter." It is, in a sense, a specific shortness ask.

 

In this situation, Opener might have wanted to splinter in spades. Suppose, for example, Opener held the slightly different J-AKQ9xx-Jxx-AKx. 3NT might still be partner's call, right? Partner might have liked a 1H opening, followed by a splinter of 3S after a 1NT response, but your 1S call got in the way.

 

Responder might have, however, "acceptance" values. Something fitting like Axxx-Jx-AKx-QJxx, where 13 tricks are easily available. However, showing great side values is difficult at this level. You "need" a stiff spade, not so much as a control, but rather as a means of knowing partner's location of values. If partner, instead, held Kx-AKQ9xx-QJx-Axx, a better HCP hand, the grand is weaker because the fit is worse. Why? Secondary minor cards are valued better if Opener's honor values are NOT in spades, especially if Opener has a stiff.

 

The empathetic splinter might not be necessary on this hand, perhaps, as a small doubleton "fits" as well. However, opposite something like Axxxx, the stiff offers a real possibility of a ruff-out spade trick. Hence, partner may sense the need for that layout.

 

If Opener held something like xx-AKQ9xx-Qxx-AK, then Opener might opt to accept that grand try (conditionally), by cuebidding 6C, because, despite the lack of a stiff spade, the higher diamond honor, opposite body from Responder, may just be enough. The AK tight in clubs suggests an "establishable" stiff, meaning a holding where Opener has a visualized "stiff" in spades that will materialize on a likely club pitch. This gets a tad esoteric, but still is legitimate.

 

Empathetic splinters can come up in many other auctions, with the same principles applying. A simple example might be a jump in a cuebid by a 1NT opener. For instance, after 1NT-P-2H-X, it seems legitimate to jump to 4H with something like AKJxx-xxx-AQx-Kx, if that holding would be opened 1NT in your system. This 4H call cannot be shortness. Instead, it must show unexpected spade length, with no wasted values in hearts (what you would need to accept a splinter), and a maximum. What else would this show?

 

So, the answer is that Responder's 1S call was probably based upon Axxx(x)(x).

[hotShot]

Thank you Ken!

 

But i think bridge is much easier, if you bid your cards and not partners.

[han]

I didn't know what the right answer was before reading the responses, and now I still don't know. Please tell me Frances!

 

In the meantime, I will guess that partner has great spades, the diamond ace, 3 small hearts and nothing else. I'm bidding 7H :(.

[inquiry]

I didn't know what the right answer was before reading the responses, and now I still don't know. Please tell me Frances!

 

In the meantime, I will guess that partner has great spades, the diamond ace, 3 small hearts and nothing else. I'm bidding 7H :(.

That hand just requires 4NT.... after 4♦ agreeing ♥ and count the tricks..... using followup specific king ask if 5 solid spades, 6+ solid hearts and two side aces ins't enough for you to count to 13 tricks (maybe you want a safe 15 tricks?). Nor does missing ♠K or Q make a lot of sense either, as you can use specific asking bid to discover that. This has to be a minor suit void.

[Finch]

In closing: 5♠ is probably the type of call that you should avoid, but that you should say to partner, after the hand (and the session): I was thinking of 5♠ on this board: would that have described my hand for you?

Quite. I didn't bid 5♠ at the table. At the table I raised 3NT to 6NT which I thought was going to be the best slam : the state of the match (a huge amount up) and form of scoring (aggregate) meant that we were not going to bid any grand slams.

 

In fact, I had a 5 part problem: I didn't know whether it was right to play in spades or NT at the 6 level, or hearts, spades or NT at the 7-level.

 

A team-mate suggested the 4D-followed-by-5S route saying it was 'obvious' it must mean the hand I had: namely extremely good spades, happy to play a slam, looking for the best denomination:

 

AKQ10xx

10x

Kx

10xx

 

As you can see, 6S is the best spot. 6NT made (it would have gone off on a low diamond lead away from the ace, but no-one would find that on our auction).

 

If you, as opener, had held x AKQxxx Qxx AKx then 6NT is right. I couldn't quite construct a hand where 6H was the best spot, but it's easy to write down hands where 7H just needs hearts 3-2 (though in general they wouldn't sign off over 4D).

 

(At the other table they played in 4H+3 after opening an Acol 2H.)

[Impact]

1) in response toMikeH who posited a S suit headed by QT, surely the bid over 4H was 5H- or 5D if that was clearly another cue...;

 

2) Notwithstanding the apparent agreement of H by 4D under the methods, it is not clear what alternatives responder possessed with a GF ss in S - and perforce he may have been forced to make a cue intending to convert H to S....

 

3) Whatever it is that partner wants - you have it: full control of C and useful S, so you must help, and I think 6C is the obvious bid (but query whether 5NT is the "master" bid but at this stage you presumably place partner with the DA - whereas if the actual hand was contemplated maybe you had to consider the possibility that your -opener's hand could have had the DA instead of CK, but then presumably you would not rebid 4H with that hand either over 4D?)

 

4) seeing the actual hand Frances held highlights a potential disadvantage to the standard structure- wrongsiding the contract, which can amount to luck in almost any system....

[cherdano]

Well at least my 6♠ "cue" bid would have worked out...

[kenrexford]

I am still not sure of the methods, but I seem to be hearing that 4S would be a cuebid. Assuming this, 4D established a heart fit, which you have, and showed a second-round or better diamond control, which you have. After 4H, 4S would show serious slam interest, obviously, with two top spades, right? This cannot logically be passable.

 

This course allows, in many auctions (e.g., a club cuebid from partner), a rebid of 5S spades at this point, to show solid spades as well. All your honors would be on the table.

 

Could partner then bid 5NT as a choice-of-slams bid?

 

In practice, however, your Kx in diamonds seems to scream for right-siding the contract. I see the problem -- 3NT wrong-sided notrumps. So, you are real concerned about trying to get to 6S, or in finding a diamond Queen (or Ace). If this is the problem, and a practical solution is sought, perhaps the best course is not to muddy the waters by agreeing hearts.

 

Your partner has shown long hearts, and you have shown one suit. So, after 3NT, why not just jump to 5NT, choice? This seems to scream that you want to play a slam but have a problem suggesting spades as better (a Kx). Partner, with a fitting hand, can bid 6S.

 

The problem I see with the late 5S call to suggest strain is that you abandoned this alternative early at 4D. You should not have the ability to show the same hand with two different auctions. 4D established agreement. An immediate 5NT does not. Thus, I'd suggest 5NT directly as the solution.

 

As an aside, on the comment about bidding your hand and not partner's (from hotshot), the empathetic splinter describes one's hand. It shows concentrated values outside of the suit. How is that bidding partner's hand??? Just like any other call, you are describing your hand and asking partner if that information helps him.

[whereagles]

Come to think of it.. there is a guideline for situations like this: if an undiscussed bid comes up, it is NATURAL (e.g. it's bridge!). In this context, where the fit is known, if it's natural it should show good spades and a willingness to play 7.

 

But of course pards have a way to come up with something else than the expected :D