Does partner have HKQ and CK?

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saxxxhaxdqcaqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1C-1D!

1S-2H!

 

1C: You play 5cM and 4cD, 1C can sometimes be a douleton...not now.

1D: transfer Walsh, Promises Hearts

1S: 4 card S, forcing. No 3 card H (can hold 3 card H if strong)

2H: 6 card H with 8 to 10 HCP. Partner could have bid 2D on first round to show a 6 card Major with 4 to 7 HCP.

 

You have slem if partner holds ♥KQ and ♣K.

You have no hard agreements about this, but from the general agreements you have with your partner you expect that he will understand following bids:

- 3♦: 4th suit GF

- 3NT: to play

- 3♠: ♥-fit, cue (not sure he will take it like that, but you can bid 3♦ if strong with 5-6 in black suits and no ♥-fit)

- 4♣: ♥-fit, cue

- 4♦: ♥-fit, splinter

- 4♥: to play

==> Do you try to find slem?

[Free]

Why didn't I reverse?

[kgr]

Why didn't I reverse?

1♠ is forcing, 2♠ shows 4 card ♥ and a singleton ♠ and 12-14 or 18-19 HCP

[dicklont]

Would 3♥ be forcing? If it is forcing it would be my choice but i suppose it would be an invite. I would bid 3♦ and hope for 4♣. If partner bids 3♠ or 3NT its not our lucky day and we'll play 4♥.

[Guest Jlall]

Don't even think about this slam, game is not even close to being a lock (though of course I would bid it). Even if partner has KQ of hearts and the CK you need 3-2 hearts. He could have a lot of different holdings, this is a classic example of "don't play partner for the perfect hand." Even if you are able to start some convoluted auction it may tip off the winning lead/defense against 4H, and no auction will give you 5 level safety anyways.

[Winstonm]

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Bob Hamman - in the bidding, if there is one particular card you need me to hold, I ain't got it!

[helene_t]

I was about to answer "yes" until I realized that the question was about slam, not about game.

 

As for Frederick's question: I don't think this hand is good enough for 2♠ if that had been natural, but ok, 1♠ does not deny a maximum.

[han]

Agree with just bidding game, if you splinter (only way to investigate slam) then you'll get to many poor slams.

 

Also agree that this hand is not nearly good enough to jump to 2S (if that had been available).

[jdonn]

Don't even think about this slam, game is not even close to being a lock (though of course I would bid it). Even if partner has KQ of hearts and the CK you need 3-2 hearts. He could have a lot of different holdings, this is a classic example of "don't play partner for the perfect hand." Even if you are able to start some convoluted auction it may tip off the winning lead/defense against 4H, and no auction will give you 5 level safety anyways.

I was going to make almost this exact same post. The problem with something like 4♦ now is partner doesn't know the club king is much more valuable than the spade king. Just give this one up.

[kgr]

tx for the answers.

I did bid 4♥ because I didn't see a way to find out about the perfect hand. I could bid 3♠ cue and RKC after a ♣ cue, but 5♥ could be too high wthout ♥KQ.

(we play mixed cues: A ♣ cue from partner shows the ♣K or can he also cue ♣ with a singleton?)

[han]

tx for the answers.

I did bid 4♥ because I didn't see a way to find out about the perfect hand. I could bid 3♠ cue and RKC after a ♣ cue, but 5♥ could be too high wthout ♥KQ.

(we play mixed cues: A ♣ cue from partner shows the ♣K or can he also cue ♣ with a singleton?)

3S is not a cue.

[kenrexford]

I agree with the maxim to not play partner for the perfect hand. However, I do not agree with the mis-use of that maxim to mean not to ask partner if he has the perfect hand. I especially see no reason to not ask when my calls will have directed the defense anyway. On what possible nuance will the opponents be able to capitalize?

 

If 3♠ is really a cue in support, then I'd bid that. Partner will bid 4♣ when it matters, showing a club card (never cue shortness in partner's suit), which is what I need. Now, I feel relatively safe at the five-level. I assume that partner will not cue without working cards in your approach, meaning three of clubs, spades, and hearts. Note that 3♠ bids around the stiff implicitly, not only because of the fit but also because you have slam interest after a simple 1♠ call. Thus, I'm checking with 4NT to see whether he has two top hearts or one with the spade King. I want two top hearts. If I get that, it is a good slam.

[pclayton]

Slam is possible, but this hand will have communications problems galore. Did my 1♠ call promise an unbalanced hand?

 

I'll bid 4♥ and discuss later what a 4♣ call means, as well as the difference between 4♦ and 4♥.

[jdonn]

Partner will bid 4♣ when it matters, showing a club card (never cue shortness in partner's suit), which is what I need.  Now, I feel relatively safe at the five-level.

That last part is the fatal flaw in your entire argument. You may feel safe, but you're not.

 

Bidding 3♠ also gives the next player a chance to double for what could very well be the killing lead.

[kenrexford]

A spade lead through dummy's spades is a fairly reasonable lead anyway.

 

Further, I just do not get how partner's 4♣ call could create a five-level risk. I cannot have that good of a hand for my cue. Accordingly, partner must have serious interest to bid 4♣. What hand will he have to cooperate in this auction where 5 is in serious jeopardy?

[skjaeran]

A spade lead through dummy's spades is a fairly reasonable lead anyway.

 

Further, I just do not get how partner's 4♣ call could create a five-level risk. I cannot have that good of a hand for my cue. Accordingly, partner must have serious interest to bid 4♣. What hand will he have to cooperate in this auction where 5 is in serious jeopardy?

Qx KJTxxx xxx Kx

How do you play this after ♦A and another diamond?

[kenrexford]

The same way as the other folks in 4♥. Ruff the diamond, cash the heart Ace, cross to the club King, cash the heart King (hoping for the heart to drop). If the heart Queen survives, cross to the club Ace (hopefully that survives) and play a third top club, ditching the third diamond.

 

This line succeeds (at the 5-level) when the heart Queen is stiff or doubleton. If succeeds when the heart Queen is third, with 2+ clubs. It survives against Qxxx of hearts in front of the KJ10 also, when that person has at least three clubs.

 

Hopefully partner will not cue 4♣ with the spade Queen as his third key value. But, then I'll just play it well. :rolleyes:

[skjaeran]

Yeah Ken, I know how we'd all play. :P

It was a rhetoric question, but an example to show that you might not have 5-leves sequrity. B)

[kenrexford]

Well, yeah. But, partner should not cooperate with that hand.

 

Think this one through a bit. Partner has limited his hand to 8-10 opposite a 1♣...1♠ Opener. This is not a slam auction unless we are running a "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" game. This must mean, in other words, a club-heart run with the pointeds controlled.

 

So, Responder needs critical cards. This should be missing club and heart cards. Nothing else works.

 

Opener must be supplying the diamond stiff, to have any justification for this auction. The 3♠ cue merely confirms that Opener has that Ace. If Responder wants to suggest slam with the same hand but the spade King, we might be a tad high. I think the only real acceptance hand is the perfect hand.

[Guest Jlall]

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

[cherdano]

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Bob Hamman - in the bidding, if there is one particular card you need me to hold, I ain't got it!

I can't imagine Hamman ever said that. Trying to find out whether partner has one golden card for slam is often possible at a safe level.

The quote I remember is "Don't play me for the perfect hand,...", and this hand is a very good example to show why.

[Winstonm]

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Bob Hamman - in the bidding, if there is one particular card you need me to hold, I ain't got it!

I can't imagine Hamman ever said that. Trying to find out whether partner has one golden card for slam is often possible at a safe level.

The quote I remember is "Don't play me for the perfect hand,...", and this hand is a very good example to show why.

Could be a paraphrase or it could be my memory is simply faulty. :P

[kenrexford]

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

Sure, we may well miss these slams. I'd rather get to some of them, though.

 

The point is not what I could could -- the point is what PARTNER should have to move. I don't think he should make a cooperative cue with only two useful cards. I conceded that he might misconstrue the spade King as a useful card, which is a borderline hand. But, KJ10xxx with a side club King and the spade Queen is just not all that exciting.

 

If I happen to have one of these power hands, with double honor support in hearts, then I might splinter.

 

If you must show slam interest with the provided hand, then I can accept that. But then you must have Opener allowed to bid 4♦ Last Train.

 

If you are concerned about whether I am double dummy bidding a lot, follow me and my partner around a little. You might learn something about slam bidding. I won't even charge. :P rotflol!!!

[cherdano]

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

Sure, we may well miss these slams. I'd rather get to some of them, though.

 

The point is not what I could could -- the point is what PARTNER should have to move. I don't think he should make a cooperative cue with only two useful cards. I conceded that he might misconstrue the spade King as a useful card, which is a borderline hand. But, KJ10xxx with a side club King and the spade Queen is just not all that exciting.

Uhm. KJT of trumps, K in partner's suit, and Q in partner's side suit sounds pretty exciting to me, given that I have limited my hand to 8-10 hcp.

[kenrexford]

Quit looking at the actual cards!

 

The question is "From what source are our tricks coming?"

 

This is a classic scenario for analysis akin to why I use 3NT as serious for the LSGT second suit and empathetic splinters. You want to have a running suit, a trump suit, and both side controls, as your trick sources.

 

When it's 5431 opposite 3433, for example, you are expecting five from the long suit, 4+1 from the 4-4 fit, and two more, which makes A-K powerful in the 3-3 holding.

 

When it's 5332 opposite 3532, five from each 5-card suit, and two Aces.

 

This is the equivalent of 5332 opposite 3532, with an extra card of length in each sde suit, an Ace, and a stiff instead of an Ace. Slow queens, even if "well placed," cannot do the trick.

 

I'll grant that this sounds like it could be a 6-4 run potential. Six hearts, four spades, diamond control, and club A-K. This would require AKJx-AQ-x-Axxxxx, which is too much. So, it cannot be that.

 

The question, then, is not whether the spade Queen, or King for that matter, might in fact be a missing card. The question is whether that card helps the play of the hand at all. It does not, so it is not valuable, contextually.

 

BTW -- more on the "double dummy" analysis. How can this be "double dummy" anyway? We don't know what Responder did have. Evaluating calls based upon what Responder might have, and what he would do with hypothetical holdings, is not double dummy. It's how you bid.