Try and Try Again?

[Echognome]

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

1♦ - 1♠

2♠ - 3♥

4♠ - ?[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1♦ and over your 1♠ response you hear 2♠. You bid 3♥ and partner jumps to 4♠.

 

Are you going to bid on?

 

If so, what is your call?

[jillybean]

6♠ err, is pard known to psyche? Even with my minimum we should have slam,

[Guest Jlall]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

[jocdelevat]

I pass if pard wanna go to slam he could cue clubs instead of jump to game. I play jump to game as stop.

 

oops I did it again. i didn't see Jlall post and I post my answer.

[han]

oops I did it again. i didn't see Jlall post and I post my answer.

Please continue doing so!

[Echognome]

Always good to be honest how you would bid it and then read other opinions to see if you should change that view.

[kenrexford]

This is a rather strange start to the auction.

 

I have, to restate. ♠KQJxx ♥AKQJ ♦Kx ♣xx

 

I started with a 1♠ response to a 1♦ opening and had that call raised. I then made a forcing 3♥ call, presumably a two-way bid, either a natural game try or a natural start to a slam try.

 

Partner cannot have evaluated his hand up because of heart cards, but he accepted the game try while causing some problems for the slam try by not cuebidding something useful along the way. Why would he do that?

 

Well, we can quickly decide why he is not being cooperative -- he has at most one "internal" card. He cannot have any heart honor, and he has at most the spades Ace. So, he has a reason to accept game but does not want to overstate his enthusiasm because of his meager contribution to the majors.

 

Strangely, we also have the diamond King that we are looking at. So, partner cannot have oustanding diamonds. Sure, he might have AQJx(x) or something, but this looks like hesitant values.

 

So, what is partner thinking? Partner expects that you have some sort of 5-4 hand, probably, meaning only four cards on the side. If you are in the game territory, you probably have something like 7 1/2 to 8 1/2 losers, meaning that you want partner to be able to contribute about five cover cards. What covers can he have?

 

We know that he only has one internal cover card -- the spade Ace. So, he seems to need four external covers. It is hard to imagine him not having, therefore, both minor Aces. That gets him to a 12-count. He probably has a hesitant/contingent/geemaybe value in hearts, like a doubleton. That gets him up to three covers and a smidge. One more Queen does not seem like enough. Another King is a problem, because then he starts to look like a 15-count.

 

Strange.

 

So, we need to figure out the problem. It seems that the problem must be in the form of even shorter hearts, which could be a negative value in his estimation -- a duplication of values. So, I expect a high likelihood of a stiff heart, which turns out to be of no concern to us.

 

The first two suits, then, appear to be ♠Axxx ♥x.

 

Eight more cards. He must have equal or longer diamonds, and he still needs a real good shot at two more covers. It seems fairly likely that partner has something like :

 

♠Axxx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣Kxx

♠Axxx ♥x ♦QJxx ♣AKxx

 

He won't like have a COV (Concentration Of Values) in diamonds, because that would create a COW (Concentration Of Weakness) in clubs, which might be a nice hand opposite 5431 pattern from your hand. So, I'd not expect ♠Axxx ♥x ♦AQJxx ♣xxx. With a hand like that, a really weak mess anyway, he might rebid his diamonds to show how good they are. Plus, I just don't see it.

 

The bottom line is that I think my overabundance of internal values and his acceptance-without-cooperation yields a conclusion that we must have at least 5-level safety.

 

So, what to do about that?

 

You could bid 5♦ to show that card, but I cannot see partner ever valuing up this monstrosity of an apparent lack of help. He will never find any heart cards, no matter how hard he looks, and he will never grow a second spade card. Sure, he will like the 5♦ call if it grows the value of his own suit, and a very trusting partner will find the club control to be huge, but we just have way too much and too strong a feeling that he is stiff in hearts and inconsolable about that.

 

Whereas, therefore, 5♦ might be the technically right bid, I don't think it is the practical bid. I think that the assumption of a club control is very reliable. So, I would probably bid 4NT with most people and trust my analysis. If I get confirmation of three keys, I'm there.

 

If I hear two without, I still feel confident. If partner is missing the diamond Ace and has both black Aces, this seems easy. I cannot lose two clubs, and I cannot imagine losing two diamonds.

 

If partner has the diamond Ace, I feel, again, strong that he has the club King at least. I'll hope that it is protected by the Queen, by the Jack and my brilliant guessing, or by the position behind the Ace because of my good living.

 

If he shows one (♠Axxx ♥x ♦QJxx ♣KQJx???), I'm out.

 

I think that 5♦ is still the technically right bid, in case partner has ♠Axxx ♥x ♦AQJxx ♣QJx and cannot stand it. But, it seems that the likelihood of that holding is outweighed by the likelihood that most partners would decline a 5♦ slam try on the many more likely hands that fit well for slam, because of his terrible major contribution and would not make be able to stomacha 5♥ last train call with a stiff heart.

[jillybean]

I considered cue bidding but then thought Im going to 6 over any response, so why not bid it. If pard wouldnt cue over 3♥ Im not likely to hear 6♣ am I?

Fast reply, Im obviously missing something :D

[skjaeran]

Partner could very well have something like Axxx x AQJxx QJx.

 

Thus, plasting slam isn't an issue to me. A club lead stands out on the auction.

 

I'll just cuebid 5♦, and toss the ball to partner. If partner rebids 5♠ I'll pass.

[vuroth]

Is cue-bidding on second round controls standard enough that I should expect a pickup partner to be doing it?

 

If 5♦ is cue, what does partner respond with a club stop? Can partner be missing 2 aces, but still have the K♣? If partner holds Axxxx Jx AQ KTx are we just unlucky if we go 6♠-1? (Or is that still too weak for partner to hold?)

 

If cues only show first round controls, do we have to stop at 4♠? At matchpoints, would it be worth trying blackwood/keycard despite the clubs, or is it possibly going to drive partner to 7 when we shouldn't be there?

 

Sheesh, did I ask enough questions?

 

V

[han]

Is cue-bidding on second round controls standard enough that I should expect a pickup partner to be doing it?

That depends on your pick-up partner. For these questions I think it is better if you assume that your partner is a very good player. Try to figure out what the best bid is rather than what the optimal bid would be if you were playing with a weak partner.

 

If 5♦ is cue, what does partner respond with a club stop?  Can partner be missing 2 aces, but still have the K♣?  If partner holds Axxxx Jx AQ KTx are we just unlucky if we go 6♠-1?  (Or is that still too weak for partner to hold?)

 

Partner did not cue over 3H and still you try for slam. I think that this is a situation where partner has to cooperate with a club control (not stopper, QJ10 is a stopper but not a control).

 

If partner holds the hand you gave then there are two heart jacks. Also, partner opened 1D, not 1S. It is possible that you get to a decent slam and go down, such is bridge.

 

If cues only show first round controls, do we have to stop at 4♠?  At matchpoints, would it be worth trying blackwood/keycard despite the clubs, or is it possibly going to drive partner to 7 when we shouldn't be there?

 

If your methods don't allow you to investigate slam here then that is a problem, maybe a blast to 6S would be your best bet.

 

While a grand slam is possible, I wouldn't be worried about that before I knew whether we had a small slam. At this point getting to a grand is not a priority. If we had KQ109x AKQJ Kxx x then we could try keycards in the hope that we could find partner with Axxx xxx AQxx Ax or something like that. But again, I think that grand slam bidding is not what you should be worrying about.

 

Sheesh, did I ask enough questions?

 

What's enough... they were excellent questions.

[Cascade]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

[Cascade]

This is very very awkward.

 

The 5♦ cue might get us to slam off two bullets when partner has something like:

 

♠ xxxx

♥ x

♦ QJxxx

♣ AKQ

 

or

 

♠ xxxx

♥ x

♦ AQJxx

♣ KQx

 

Although perhaps with only one key-card we should bid slam with those hands.

 

I can see that someone is going to have to guess well here. And 5♦ just passes the buck to partner.

[Guest Jlall]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

People on these forums always talk about "cuebiddng" frequently over game try auctions, but I think doing that is way too likely to give something away the 90 % of the time partner has a game try rather than a slam try, and I do not see the problem with partner, who has a slam try, biddng over a jump to game, which shows extras.

 

Not to mention I don't think a hand like Axxx xx Axxx Axx is good enough to cuebid, or even as good as some hands posted in this thread offered as constructions for partner's 4S bid.

[Cascade]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

People on these forums always talk about "cuebiddng" frequently over game try auctions, but I think doing that is way too likely to give something away the 90 % of the time partner has a game try rather than a slam try, and I do not see the problem with partner, who has a slam try, biddng over a jump to game, which shows extras.

 

Not to mention I don't think a hand like Axxx xx Axxx Axx is good enough to cuebid, or even as good as some hands posted in this thread offered as constructions for partner's 4S bid.

So we know partner's 3♥ bid is ambiguous about strength - game try or slam try and with a hand seriously good if he has a slam try we take away all of the space to investigate below game.

 

That doesn't seem very cooperative to me.

[vuroth]

Is cue-bidding on second round controls standard enough that I should expect a pickup partner to be doing it?

That depends on your pick-up partner. For these questions I think it is better if you assume that your partner is a very good player. Try to figure out what the best bid is rather than what the optimal bid would be if you were playing with a weak partner.

In other words, they SHOULD? Fair enough. Maybe I should, too.

 

It is possible that you get to a decent slam and go down, such is bridge.

 

Yeah, I figured that was the answer. Very fair.

 

Thanks.

 

V

[kenrexford]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

People on these forums always talk about "cuebiddng" frequently over game try auctions, but I think doing that is way too likely to give something away the 90 % of the time partner has a game try rather than a slam try, and I do not see the problem with partner, who has a slam try, biddng over a jump to game, which shows extras.

 

Not to mention I don't think a hand like Axxx xx Axxx Axx is good enough to cuebid, or even as good as some hands posted in this thread offered as constructions for partner's 4S bid.

I can understand the debate as to whether it makes sense or not to cuebid if the slam try is rare, such as an auction like 1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥, although I happen to come down on the side of cuebidding there also.

 

What I don't get, though, is not cooperating in this sequence. From my memory, it seems that 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥ is wildly more often a slam move sequence than a game try sequence. Maybe a 10:1 favorite to be a slam try sequence rather than 1:10 as you suggest.

[Cascade]

What I don't get, though, is not cooperating in this sequence. From my memory, it seems that 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥ is wildly more often a slam move sequence than a game try sequence. Maybe a 10:1 favorite to be a slam try sequence rather than 1:10 as you suggest.

You'll need to do more to convince me of that.

[helene_t]

I think we must bid 5♦ now. Obviously 4♠ does not promise a club control, but p cannot have felt obliged to cue since we can see that he must have control in at least one minor, so he cannot have denied a club control either. And if we don't believe in cuebidding because it just gives info to opps, then we should have bid 6 directly over 2♠.

 

Except if opps think that 3♥ was a lead-inhibiting bid so they lead a heart. :)

[Echognome]

I think we must bid 5♦ now. Obviously 4♠ does not promise a club control, but p cannot have felt obliged to cue since we can see that he must have control in at least one minor, so he cannot have denied a club control either. And if we don't believe in cuebidding because it just gives info to opps, then we should have bid 6 directly over 2♠.

 

Except if opps think that 3♥ was a lead-inhibiting bid so they lead a heart. :)

Although there's one thing different here in that if partner cuebids, she is describing dummy's hand rather than declarer's.

 

 

The actual hands were:

 

AT9x xx AKTx Qxx

 

KQJxx AKQJ Qx xx

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♠ - 3♥

4♠ - 5♦

5♠ - AP

 

Yes I lied about the hand, because I was more interested in making the point not to keycard on every good hand. I didn't want people caught up on another issue of what to do my actual hand if you were going to make another try (5♦, 5♥, 5♠?) as much as if we are going to make a forward move, it should not be keycard.

[kenrexford]

Well, the change of the hand is more substantial than it seems.

 

If Opener cannot have AK in diamonds, he seems to me to have a MUCH higher likelihood of a club control for this sequence. As he can and did have AK-A and a doubleton heart, then his likelihood of lacking a club control increases.

 

Many of us felt that 5♦ may be the technically correct call but not so much the practical call given the likely hands for Opener. The switch seems to me to substantially change this.

 

But, despite that, I think the overall point was a good one, even if the slight variation changed things. You actually ended up with a more interesting problem, because we ended up discussing a close-call scenario and the reasons for selecting between 4NT and 5♦ from theory, judgment, and practicality perspectives.

[kenrexford]

What I don't get, though, is not cooperating in this sequence.  From my memory, it seems that 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥ is wildly more often a slam move sequence than a game try sequence.  Maybe a 10:1 favorite to be a slam try sequence rather than 1:10 as you suggest.

You'll need to do more to convince me of that.

Um.

 

I'm swinging a pendant before your eyes. Watch it closely. While watching the pendant, think about a cool breeze on a summer's eve, swallows buzzing about the chimney. Sleep. Sleeeeep.

[cherdano]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

People on these forums always talk about "cuebiddng" frequently over game try auctions, but I think doing that is way too likely to give something away the 90 % of the time partner has a game try rather than a slam try, and I do not see the problem with partner, who has a slam try, biddng over a jump to game, which shows extras.

 

Not to mention I don't think a hand like Axxx xx Axxx Axx is good enough to cuebid, or even as good as some hands posted in this thread offered as constructions for partner's 4S bid.

I can understand the debate as to whether it makes sense or not to cuebid if the slam try is rare, such as an auction like 1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥, although I happen to come down on the side of cuebidding there also.

 

What I don't get, though, is not cooperating in this sequence. From my memory, it seems that 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥ is wildly more often a slam move sequence than a game try sequence. Maybe a 10:1 favorite to be a slam try sequence rather than 1:10 as you suggest.

Ken, I think this is exactly why so many on this forum disagree with you so often. For most of us, most sequences are not slam tries. "Game before slam", "Strain over level" etc.

[kenrexford]

5D, good lesson for B/I is not to bid keycard when you have xx in an unbid suit, cuebiddng is better.

 

I cannot see passing this one, and definitely think 7 is in the picture and plan on trying for it.

I don't think grand is possible. I want partner to do something different than 4♠ with three bullets over 3♥.

People on these forums always talk about "cuebiddng" frequently over game try auctions, but I think doing that is way too likely to give something away the 90 % of the time partner has a game try rather than a slam try, and I do not see the problem with partner, who has a slam try, biddng over a jump to game, which shows extras.

 

Not to mention I don't think a hand like Axxx xx Axxx Axx is good enough to cuebid, or even as good as some hands posted in this thread offered as constructions for partner's 4S bid.

I can understand the debate as to whether it makes sense or not to cuebid if the slam try is rare, such as an auction like 1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥, although I happen to come down on the side of cuebidding there also.

 

What I don't get, though, is not cooperating in this sequence. From my memory, it seems that 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-3♥ is wildly more often a slam move sequence than a game try sequence. Maybe a 10:1 favorite to be a slam try sequence rather than 1:10 as you suggest.

Ken, I think this is exactly why so many on this forum disagree with you so often. For most of us, most sequences are not slam tries. "Game before slam", "Strain over level" etc.

Although I hear what you are saying, I doubt that anyone would agree with how you have implicitly phrased this.

 

Although most people use game-before-slam thinking, I cannot imagine that anyone would classify 2♠ as simply a game try and not possibly a slam try. This 2♠ call is clearly and unambguously a call that cannot be deciphered yet as to whether Responder's intentions are game-only or slam.

 

Of all of the "might just be a game try" sequences, however, this one is the one that seems most likely to be a slam try. The opponents are silent. Responder is unlimited as to HCP.

 

I'd be real curious as to how often this sequence actually is the start of a game try rather than a slam try. My bet would be that it is at least 51% ST, although my guess is that it is closer to 80-90% slam try. I know that the likelihood is 90% for me, because I'd quantitative bash a 2NT invite with most GT hands.

 

As an interesting aside, I find it curious that folks will not cooperate with calls like this, claiming a concern over disclosure and perhaps thinking that I am not so concerned. In practice, however, my thinking is VERY bash oriented as to game tries, and I avoid this type of GT unless I have a very good reason, opting the extremely non-disclosing 2NT or 3♥ the vast majority of the time.

[han]

I think that 3♥ is very often a search for the right strain, slightly less often a gametry and least often (but still fairly often) a slam try.