Bid this one

[kenrexford]

I strongly suspect that you'd have the same auction to 5♠ if responder held Kxxxxx in trump, rather than Axxxxx... responder still doesn't know about the topless trump.

 

Not only does this create a fatal ambiguity, in that I don't really think that responder can bid this way with any safety, but opener CANNOT tell that QJ10xxx is 'extras' when he might, on your explanations, be looking at AJxxxx or KJxxxx... to me, QJ10xxx is NOT a slam suitable trump suit on your auction unless I KNOW that partner has Axxxxx.

 

Thus I think you fell into the almost unavoidable-on-occasion trap of constructing an auction based, subconsciously, on knowing the hands.

 

I truly doubt if this slam can be bid (intelligently) in a non-relay method.

You truly suspect that a slam cannot be bid on these hands without a relay system, and yet I have just provided a 2/1 GF auction to slam. Your reply is that I must have accomplished this goal by looking at the hands because the auction would be identical if Responder had held Kxxxxx instead of Axxxxx, hence falling into a trap. However, you are completely wrong, for a rather simple reason.

 

Responder would not bid 3NT as a Serious 3NT with no Aces. With ♠Kxxxxx ♥K ♦Kx ♣KQxx, having shown:

 

(a.) values in spades sufficient for Opener to conclude that his lack of two top honors is not fatal and

(b.) two top club cards,

 

...he already has put much of his hand on the table. As Opener has denied a diamond control, Kx is not a great holding. Opener now needs something like ♠Axxxx(x) ♥Axxx ♦Q(x)(x) ♣A(x)(x) to have slam make.

 

So, Responder can show his diamond control by not signing off and can show his heart card (which should be the King when Opener cannot have A-K) by bidding 4♥; note that bypassing 4♦, a "must hold" cue, should deny first-round control). Responder has now shown to Opener:

 

♠(something helpful) ♥K(x)(x) ♦(Kx(x) or stiff) ♣HHx(x)(x)

 

Something like that. Something not good enough for a Serious 3NT call.

 

Opener will not move past 4♠ after that call, IMO. If he does, because he has the diamond Queen, heart Ace, club Ace, and Qxxxxx in trumps, he will want to know precisely whether Responder has the spade Ace, right? He will have that problem with RKCB that has been discussed by others, right?

 

Simple! He bids 5♦. The way I play a bid above game in a suit that I cannot have a stiff in, this is 1430 RKCB, but with the minor key cards being the King and Queen of the suit named and not of the trump suit.

 

If Responder holds the same hand but the King instead of the Ace in diamonds, he will show one key card only -- the diamond King. Thus, Opener will know that he does not have the spade Ace. Problem solved.

 

Ah! But then you say -- what if he has a stiff diamond? Then he'd have the spade Ace and a stiff diamond, right?

 

If Responder held a stiff diamond, with enough spades to make the slam, with some cards in clubs and diamonds, he could have simply bid 4♦ directly after the 1♠ opening. Why6 screw around with Aceless cuebidding and cooperative tries and manufactured 2♣ calls when you can speak your peace with one bid? So, of course that's not what he has.

 

Step on in and question my slam bidding again, sir. LOLOL

[mikeh]

Ken, when trying to demolish a criticism of your post, try to read the entire criticism B)

 

An important part of my post was my assertion that opener, who has NOT denied a GOOD spade holding (ie KJ109xx), will not consider QJ10xxx as extras in a trump quality (plus ♦ value/stiff) auction... not only might responder hold Kxxxx, but he might also hold Axxxx and be hoping to catch KJxxx(x) from partner...in other words, responder knows, according to your methods, that opener has either the A or the K or the Q of trump. Opener knows that responder knows this. Then responder asks opener: 'In the context of the hand you have shown, is your trump suit good or indifferent?

 

He also asks, in your style, about the ♦ suit, but the point I tried to make focussed on the trump suit. In the context of having announced slam-co-operative interest, with only one of the top trump honours, and a partner who cannot keycard, the QJ10xxx is a negative holding. Unless, of course, I missed the part of your original post where responder showed 6 trumps :P

 

As you wrote: responder wants to know if opener has the ♠K or a sixth spade'. However, opener can't know that the 6th spade is a substitute for the King.... or was I missing some subtle inference in your auction?

 

I can accept that, for you, Kxxxx(x) is an impossible holding for responder. If you are, however, suggesting that Axxx(x) are both impossible, then I call bullshit :P

[kenrexford]

Ken, when trying to demolish a criticism of your post, try to read the entire criticism :P

Pick that plank out of your eye! You are seeing a flawed splinter in mine. LOL

 

You are missing the entirety of the problem, as I explained it.

 

If Opener was looking for Kxxxx of spades, and the diamond Queen, he had a method for asking for that. He bids 4NT (1430 RKCB), and will get an answer of 5♣. If Responder needs that answer, Opener knows that he would make it. After that answer, Opener can ask for the diamond Queen with a 5♦ call.

 

So, Opener knows that Responder had a perfectly good method to ask about the holding that includes both the spade Kxxxx and the Qx(x) of diamonds.

 

When Opener, therefore, bids 5♠, that cannot be what he needs. He needs something lesser.

 

Kxxxxx is not lesser. Qxxxxx is lesser. Qxxxx is already shown.

 

Thus, the question is not whether Responder holds Axxx or Axxxx or Axxxxx, or even AKx, the question is what Responder needs from Opener, contextually. Now, Opener might be able to surmise that this is, in fact, the holding, as nothing else justifies this question. But, that's not even necessary. The point is that Opener's Qxxxxx, with the diamond Queen, is contextually strong because possession of the diamond Queen plus the sixth trump is the strongest holding about which Responder has no alternative way to ask.

 

Next....? :P

[mike777]

This does not seem impossible.

 

1s=2nt(bergen)

3nt!=4s

5c?=5d

5h=6s

 

3nt=good hand 6spades

5c? very strange for partner to sign off in 4s over my 3nt bid. hmmm He must be worried about something that kcard or his starting to cuebid cannot solve. Perhaps my starting the cuebidding can help?

[kenrexford]

BTW -- as a side note. The claim was that this slam cannot be bid without a relay system.

 

I have noted five posts describing something that looks like a relay system. The first two, from Hrothgar and Scoob, seem to pursue info about the diamond Queen not at all. Three of the approaches seem to enable finding this slam, but with auctions that seem to force commitment to the five-level, either because of judgment decisions or by force of system. Without knowing the possible responses to the relays, I cannot determine whether the five-level is forced no matter what or whether any unfortunate answer to a relay would propel the auction too high, or whether initial action that propelled into the five-level was done by a conveniently aggressive position being taken.

 

However, what I can see is that the "natural" approach, albeit with my tweakings, allows this slam to be bid whether Responder is aggressive and willing to enter into the five-level (with the diamond Queen discussed) or if Responder is conservative (and known to be so stylistically by Opener).

 

I will admit, however, that the natural approach requires both partners to be very attuned to the nuances of the auction, and especially to the nuances of the auction as tailored by alternative auctions not elected. That's quite a task for most folks.

[Robert]

Hi foo

 

You stated SA or 2/1 and used Jacoby 2NT. 2NT in SA shows 13-15 balanced and is not a forcing raise.

 

Your jump to 5S to ask for good trumps 'without' a diamond control is bad bridge.

If the spade and diamond kings are exchanged your 'custom' methods fail.

 

You now claim to only use 2NT! when you have 'significant extras.'

AKxxxx K xx KQxx is a four loser hand in support of a five card 1S opening.

Just what significant extras do you require to bid 2NT!?

 

You now also claim to avoid bidding 2/1 without a five card suit. If you cannot bid 2NT! without significant extras and also cannot bid a 2/1 without a five card suit, you will now 'create' an exception to cover another 'promise' that you again failed to keep?

 

Your 'custom' methods also promised four card support for an unbid major "unless you hold three card support" after one of your TO doubles.

 

No other player came up with your 'mature' bidding concept. Jlall was the leading American Junior for last(?) year. His methods did not cope with this hand. Do you really suggest that no one on this forum is a good bidder?

 

I did manage to place second overall in the Australian Bridge Magazine bidding contest for all of last year.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Impact]

BTW -- as a side note.  The claim was that this slam cannot be bid without a relay system.

 

I have noted five posts describing something that looks like a relay system.  The first two, from Hrothgar and Scoob, seem to pursue info about the diamond Queen not at all.  Three of the approaches seem to enable finding this slam, but with auctions that seem to force commitment to the five-level, either because of judgment decisions or by force of system.  Without knowing the possible responses to the relays, I cannot determine whether the five-level is forced no matter what or whether any unfortunate answer to a relay would propel the auction too high, or whether initial action that propelled into the five-level was done by a conveniently aggressive position being taken....

Ken,

 

If you review my post earlier you will note that I knew when opener bid 3H that he held precisely 6-4-2-1 and when he then responded 4C that he held 4 controls (counting A=2 K=1). htat means you know you are missing the SK & 1A (which cannot be SA since you know you hold 12S between the 2 hands.

 

At that point, since relayer's own controls ensure that opener must hold 2A it does not matter which sidesuit A he holds in the sense that the slam cannot be worse than 50% (if they lead a D through the K and opener holds neither the A nor the Q).

 

However, there is a reasonable argument for continuing the relay sequence both because it may be cold and because you might get enough information to bid 6NT if playing pairs.

 

In this instance, the information is neutral and insufficient to place the contract in 6NT as you know you are missing the 13thS (the K) but do not know whether opener holds singleton CA (inwhich case his shown D top Honour is the Q)or effectively DA.

 

On a purely empirical basis the auction should be concluded by bidding 6S since you know it is really "50% at worst" when opener showed 4 controls, but because each of the relay systems can show off - we all did!!

 

regards

[foo]

Hi foo

 

You stated SA or 2/1 and used Jacoby 2NT.  2NT in SA shows 13-15 balanced and is not a forcing raise.

 

Your jump to 5S to ask for good trumps 'without' a diamond control is bad bridge.

If the spade and diamond kings are exchanged your 'custom' methods fail.

 

You now claim to only use 2NT! when you have 'significant extras.' 

AKxxxx  K  xx  KQxx is a four loser hand in support of a five card 1S opening.

Just what significant extras do you require to bid 2NT!?

 

You now also claim to avoid bidding 2/1 without a five card suit.  If you cannot bid 2NT! without significant extras and also cannot bid a 2/1 without a five card suit, you will now 'create' an exception to cover another 'promise' that you again failed to keep?

 

Your 'custom' methods also promised four card support for an unbid major "unless you hold three card support" after one of your TO doubles.

 

No other player came up with your 'mature' bidding concept.  Jlall was the leading American Junior for last(?) year.  His methods did not cope with this hand.  Do you really suggest that no one on this forum is a good bidder?

 

I did manage to place second overall in the Australian Bridge Magazine bidding contest for all of last year. 

 

Regards,

Robert

please read posts more carefully before replying.

 

I personally strain not to make 2/1's w/o a 5+ card suit or =very= significant extras. My pd's know this and I prefer using J2N here where some might not rather than misleading pd about an inference they can usually count on.

 

As you can see, you have misread something.

 

I never claimed "to only use J2N when I have significant extras." I said

Since J2N shows a GF raise w/ 4+ trumps and a hand not appropriate for a splinter or a 2/1, IMHO it's a reasonable representation of N's hand.

Others might disagree, that's fine.

 

J2N is a valuable convention in SA or 2/1 GF; and one usually adopted fairly quickly by partnerships playing either system.

The "natural" use of 1M-2N showing 12-14 or 13-15 is not a treatment most SA or 2/1 GF pairs play.

 

Many fine players, this site's founder Fred Gitelman amongst them, believe that a 2/1 should show 5+ cards in that suit whenever at all possible.

See the excellent articles "Improving 2/1 GF" in the library of this site.

 

As for "breaking promises", I've extensively answered this point in the thread "Simple enough". Bidding is not a rigid process. As Dorothy Hayden Truscott has said "Sometimes you will be forced to lie. When that happens, tell the least lie you can."

That a T/O X'er should do everything possible to have 4 cards in the unbid majors is basic Bridge. That you will sometimes be endplayed into having to make calls that are not perfect representations of your hand is also basic Bridge.

I suspect someone with such a good bidding record knows this (congratulations on your fine performance BTW)

 

Lastly, please do not put words in my mouth or attempt to insult others claiming the insult is from me. There are many fine players in these forums and I have not made any statements equivalent to the insult you just tried to attribute to me about =any= of them. Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. It is immature to try and make it so.

 

If you actually want to discuss Bridge, I'm happy to converse. If you are simply looking to be confrontational, please don't waste my or any other board member's time.

Again, congratulations on your performance in Australian Bridge Magazine.

 

Cheers.

[kenrexford]

Ken,

 

If you review my post earlier you will note that...

Your auction was the one that most impressed me, actually. Some concepts that you did not mentioned seemed implicit in the auction, and I liked it.

 

The point that I was trying to make, however, was in response to a criticism of my "natural" approach as being inferior to the relay approach. I believe that I have established an auction that should in theory occur and that will enable the precise location of Aces and of the diamond Queen to be known, as well as handling from either side (depending upon whether the partnership is conservative or aggressive) the problem in the trump suit.

[Echognome]

South dealer

 

1S 1NT relay

2H= exactly 4H 2S=relay

3H= 6-4-2-1 3S=relay

4C= 4 cont (A=2) 4D= relay (concerned that lead through DK etc)

4H= no SAK 4S= relay

5D= HA but not Q. D top 6S I count 12 tricks whether D Q OR A

 

regards

By the way, this is obviously a very similar auction to my own, except for the continuation from 3♥. I think we both agree that once shape is known, we use 3NT to play. The question is what to do with the intervening bids.

 

Some of the various calls I know of are:

Min/Max ask (with zoom to controls for a max)

Control ask (or slam/queen point ask)

Keycard ask for a given suit

Termination bid

 

I choose to use any space I can below 3NT for a min/max ask. This is obviously more important when you have a long minor as then you can play in 3NT opposite a minimum and seek slam opposite a max hand. (Note that in my partnerships we define a max as having 4+ controls and maximum values.) Furthermore, even making the min/max ask is a mild slam try (since you didn't just use a termination bid).

 

This forces me to ask controls at the 4-level, but I find the tradeoff worthwhile on the game hands. On the given hand, it's possible that we might desire a maximum to seek slam, but given that any two bullets will give play for slam, I felt that the control ask was more useful.

 

May systems use the 4♦ as the termination bid. I prefer that 4♥-->5♦ are the termination bids, whereas any intervening bids are keycard. Here there is only one intervening bid (4♦) so I can only keycard in opener's longest suit. If there are more intervening bids, I have more options.

 

Your choices are obviously what is suited to your partnership, but it may (or may not) be something you have really thought about.

[kenrexford]

South dealer

 

[bids]

By the way, this is obviously a very similar auction to my own, except for the continuation from 3♥...

Yes, I thought your auction was very nice also. My only "issue" with your auction was my lack of knowledge, namely as to whether or not any unexpected calls might exist that would propel too high. I assumed not, or you would have said so.

[Echognome]

South dealer

 

[bids]

By the way, this is obviously a very similar auction to my own, except for the continuation from 3♥...

Yes, I thought your auction was very nice also. My only "issue" with your auction was my lack of knowledge, namely as to whether or not any unexpected calls might exist that would propel too high. I assumed not, or you would have said so.

Thanks. I think that relay is great in bidding contests, but it's obviously different at the table when there is competition in the bidding on most deals, especially when you are playing a strong club with relay.

 

Personally, I think 6♠ is warranted after the 4♠ call showing 4 controls.

 

You hold Axxxxx K Kx KQxx and you know that partner is 6=4=2=1 with an opening hand (mind you it could be a very nice 10 count) and holds two bullets. Your play for slam has to be good and unless you are going to try to reach 6NT (which as you can see is not biddable even after the relays) I think 6♠ is a fair shot. Furthermore, it's probably best to bash at this point in case a diamond lead is the killing lead. Suppose partner held QJTxxx Axxx xx A, then on a non-diamond lead you could discard both diamonds on the clubs for 13. So best not to place the values at all.

[Impact]

South dealer

 

1S                            1NT relay

2H= exactly 4H            2S=relay

3H= 6-4-2-1                3S=relay

4C= 4 cont (A=2)          4D= relay (concerned that lead through DK etc)

4H= no SAK                  4S= relay

5D= HA but not Q. D top  6S I count 12 tricks whether D Q OR A

 

regards

By the way, this is obviously a very similar auction to my own, except for the continuation from 3♥. I think we both agree that once shape is known, we use 3NT to play. The question is what to do with the intervening bids.

 

Some of the various calls I know of are:

Min/Max ask (with zoom to controls for a max)

Control ask (or slam/queen point ask)

Keycard ask for a given suit

Termination bid

 

I choose to use any space I can below 3NT for a min/max ask. This is obviously more important when you have a long minor as then you can play in 3NT opposite a minimum and seek slam opposite a max hand. (Note that in my partnerships we define a max as having 4+ controls and maximum values.) Furthermore, even making the min/max ask is a mild slam try (since you didn't just use a termination bid).

 

This forces me to ask controls at the 4-level, but I find the tradeoff worthwhile on the game hands. On the given hand, it's possible that we might desire a maximum to seek slam, but given that any two bullets will give play for slam, I felt that the control ask was more useful.

 

May systems use the 4♦ as the termination bid. I prefer that 4♥-->5♦ are the termination bids, whereas any intervening bids are keycard. Here there is only one intervening bid (4♦) so I can only keycard in opener's longest suit. If there are more intervening bids, I have more options.

 

Your choices are obviously what is suited to your partnership, but it may (or may not) be something you have really thought about.

 

I used endsignal and KCA when I played Regres in 79/80 but prefer to use straight controls with distributional hands. One of the main reasons is that KCA forces premature selection of trump suit -and is often more restrictive in the information shown. (I do use asking bids as relay breaks below game after GF established but they come up rarely).

 

I solve the dilemma (to use AKQ points as opposed to controls or HCP) by varying slightly what we play depending on the distribution shown:

 

By contrast with hands which have only 1 singleton, or no more than 2 doubletons (ie flat, 5332, 6322, 6331, 5422, 5431) first step shows "extras" while others deny (then since I have asked 3NT even if next step after ask is still a relay!! exception to general rule since if you were willing to go past 3NT opposite a minimum, how can you not be happy to go past 3NT with extras???).

 

As I noted - at the table the correct bid is 6S over the 4C response for the reason you gave - and as I explained,the rest was just showing off that in this case we knew the contract was good!

 

Off to Stage 2 Of Tream Trials this week from Sunday: first time in about 15 years that Bob & I have taken time off (our respective professions and matrimonial commitments!) to play ...

 

regards,