Does partner have HKQ and CK?

[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.

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

Yes, so you could say you only get to the ones where opener has a stronger hand than this and responder has the slightly weaker ones (ie Qx KJTxxx xxx Kx). You have seemingly arbitrarily decided that you will get to this one and miss other ones, that is my problem.

[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.

Yes, so you could say you only get to the ones where opener has a stronger hand than this and responder has the slightly weaker ones (ie Qx KJTxxx xxx Kx). You have seemingly arbitrarily decided that you will get to this one and miss other ones, that is my problem.

You do not have this problem if you add in the possibility of Last Train and a 4♦ splinter. Your assumption seems to be that Opener only has one slam try available -- a 3♠ cue. Hardly.

 

1. Opener could bid 4♣. Because Responder could bid 4♦ LTTC, 4♣ has a range.

 

2. Opener could cue 3♠. If Responder cues 4♣, Opener could re-cue 4♦ as a Last Train call. This gives 3♠ a range.

 

3. Opener could Splinter 4♦. This should be tight.

 

For that matter, if Serious 3NT is in use, you can get even more definition. 3♠ enables a 3NT cue for the bomb hand, allowing 4♣ and Last Train, or 4♦. 4♣, bypassing 3NT, with a 4♦ Last Train. 4♦, bypassing 3NT.

 

I even think that a jump to 3NT probably should have a meaning as well, meaning a heart slam try meaning, but let's forget that for a second.

 

The above leaves us with the following:

 

1. Bid 3♠ and decline any further offers

2. Bid 3♠ and decline any offers that bypass 3NT

3. Bid 3♠ and decline a 4♦ call that bypasses 3NT

4. Bid 3♠ and decline a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT

5. Bid 3♠ and Last Train a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT

6. Bid 3♠ and accept a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT

7. Bid 3♠ and accept a 4♦ call that bypasses 3NT

8. Bid 3♠ and accept any call that bypasses 3NT

9. Bid 3♠ and accept a serious 3NT

10. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♣ after a serious 3NT, but decline 4♦ LTTC

11. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♣ after a serious 3NT, and accept a 4♦ LTTC

12. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♦ after a serious 3NT

13. Bid 3♠ and then decline a serious 3NT

14. Bid 4♣ and decline a 4♦ LTTC

15. Bid 4♣ and accept a 4♦ LTTC

16. Bid 4♦

[17. Bid 3NT and decline any further offers]

[18. Bid 3NT and Last Train a 4♣ call]

[19. Bid 3NT and accept a 4♦ call]

[20. Bid 3NT and accept a 4♣ call]

 

With 16, and possibly 20, ways to describe slam interest with a mere 1♠ rebid opposite an 8-10 count, I doubt that you'd have much problem in the way of covering everything. I'm not sure to what degree the proposed system (in the question) will allow for this much nuance, but the core question, whether to ask, seems easy -- yes. If you cannot ask well, then perhaps improve the system. If your techniques will not give you the right answers, then asking is meaningless. But, if you can get the information that you need, ask.

[Raivis]

3♠ enables cue bidding.

If partner shows ♣K cue bid, tray to slam; otherwise stops in 4♥.