Level? Strain?

[mikeh]

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

 

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

 

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

 

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

 

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

 

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.

Sorry, Han.. I completely disagree.

 

I see no basis for asserting that we will drive to slam with any hand, no matter how good it may seem.

 

Partner has not evinced any slam interest: he bid a forcing 3♥... we really had little choice but to bid 3N with no heart fit, and a club stopper, especially if the club stopper offered some prospect of combining well: say A10x(x).

 

When he bid 4♦, he was still looking for the best game, not enquiring about slam. With AJx J10xxx AJxxx void, I'd expect the same auction... and it is far from clear how he should bid over 3♣ with say KJxxx Axxxxx in the reds.

 

So I cannot accept that 'with the top 20% of hands', consistent with 3N, we should drive to slam.

 

I also have trouble with the middle 35-80% cue bid.

 

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

 

Hence, 5♣ is only slightly stronger than 5♦... it is a MILD try for slam, and, on the given layout, would have got partner unimpressed. Partner would have had no trouble bidding 5♦. Note that even improving opener's hand to Kx in hearts still makes slam a poor contract.

 

I admit that this style will miss slam when opener has Kxx Ax Qxxx AKxx, as an example... but all styles represent compromise.

 

And, as an aside, after 5♣, I think that partner can bid slam even with xx in spades, with AKxxx AKxxx, since we cannot be suggesting a mild slam try without at least 2nd round control in spades.

[Lobowolf]

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

 

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

 

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

 

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

 

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

 

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.

Sorry, Han.. I completely disagree.

 

I see no basis for asserting that we will drive to slam with any hand, no matter how good it may seem.

 

Partner has not evinced any slam interest: he bid a forcing 3♥... we really had little choice but to bid 3N with no heart fit, and a club stopper, especially if the club stopper offered some prospect of combining well: say A10x(x).

 

When he bid 4♦, he was still looking for the best game, not enquiring about slam. With AJx J10xxx AJxxx void, I'd expect the same auction... and it is far from clear how he should bid over 3♣ with say KJxxx Axxxxx in the reds.

 

So I cannot accept that 'with the top 20% of hands', consistent with 3N, we should drive to slam.

 

I also have trouble with the middle 35-80% cue bid.

 

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

 

Hence, 5♣ is only slightly stronger than 5♦... it is a MILD try for slam, and, on the given layout, would have got partner unimpressed. Partner would have had no trouble bidding 5♦. Note that even improving opener's hand to Kx in hearts still makes slam a poor contract.

 

I admit that this style will miss slam when opener has Kxx Ax Qxxx AKxx, as an example... but all styles represent compromise.

 

And, as an aside, after 5♣, I think that partner can bid slam even with xx in spades, with AKxxx AKxxx, since we cannot be suggesting a mild slam try without at least 2nd round control in spades.

I agree with this post. I also think that it also (along with Han's previous post) underscores that at its most fundamental level, the difference between 5♣ and 5♦ is simply one of partnership philosophy/agreement/understanding about what cuebids below the game level mean in this and analogous situations.

[cherdano]

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.

I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

[jdonn]

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

 

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

This echoed my exact thoughts. We have one keycard and very little in partner's suits, and even the Q Q in partner's suits could turn out to pull no weight, this is the latest thread that is shocking to me. This strikes me as the type of hand where an ace or king in a red suit could turn out to be as valuable as all the black honors combined. I would bid 4NT before 5♣. Truthfully 5♣ didn't occur to me until people started bidding it. I mean what's the definition supposed to be, "I don't suck for slam and there is some hand you can have that makes slam where you will pass 5♦"?

[han]

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

 

Good luck with your discussion, it might be a short one.

[MFA]

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.

I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!

We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

 

Do we like our hand?

 

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

[mikeh]

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.

I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!

We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

 

Do we like our hand?

 

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

Wait a second.

 

I can live with a decision to bid 5♦, if your view is that the opening hand is not worth a slam try.

 

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

 

Let's consider the options available.

 

4♥ is a non-forcing preference, conveying no hint of slam interest..to the contrary, it should slow the auction down, being probably 4=2=3=4.

 

4♠ is a cue and a slam try. Two issues: the first being that we lack the Ace. The second is that we have no followup: maybe responder should bid 4N if concerned about clubs, but even so, bidding both black suits sure looks like a misdescription to me.

 

4N is utterly regressive

 

5♦ is not the slam try some people seem to think it is. While we will usually be bidding 4N with a purely regressive hand, surely we might be bidding 5♦ with many hands on which slam is either hopeless or well against the odds. Unlikely tho it may seem, there will be a lot of hands on which partner will properly fear a club lead against 6♦. There may be good players who would raise to slam with 1=5=5=2 AKxxx AKxxx, but I don't think many top teams become top teams making that sort of leap into the unknown.

 

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

 

Now, as Han so snidely pointed out, this call, if intended to begin a discussion, will lead to a short discussion, because there is no room for responder to contribute.. he is in a go-no go as far as small slam is concerned, altho on a different day, grand might still be possible: Ax AKxxx AKJxx x.

 

Since we get to describe our slam try only once, the key is to decide whether we use this opportunity only when very strongly trying for slam, or whether we use it on most hands with any degree of slam suitability.

 

This is a matter of style. My preference is to make the slam try on hands that have a reasonable degree of suitability. Others seem to want to have a higher standard.

 

I simply don't understand those who want a higher standard AND expect partner to guess to bid slam when we show no interest. The reason for the higher standard is to avoid responder bidding too much when we do make a try... if we stretch to make our try, he will accept too often. We destroy that advantage if we then say that responder can guess to bid slam on dubious hands when we show no interest.

 

I also don't understand the Han's of the world who think, for reasons that escape me, that there exist hands on which opener can drive to slam .... let alone as frequently as 20% of the time... if that is the case, then surely we should be making slam trys with moderate hands, since with great hands, we intend to hang partner anyway.

 

I do understand those who say: we want partner to be able to count on our expression of interest as showing a very good hand.. we accept that we will miss some slams the less rigid cuebidders will reach, but we will avoid enough bad slams, that they reach, so as to show a net profit.

 

I disagree, but not because the high-standard cue bidders are 'wrong', but because both styles, if played appropriately, break even. I like bidding slams, so I prefer to lose imps by reaching a bad slam rather than by missing a good one.

 

And I understand those of both schools who may believe that the given hand isn't good enough to cue.. this is more a question of valuation than method.. I happen to think a little better of this hand than some others.. and I don't claim that I am 'right'.

[TimG]

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

 

....

 

4♠ is a cue and a slam try.

 

....

 

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

I don't mean to be snide, really, but isn't that two tries that are available?

[mikeh]

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

 

....

 

4♠ is a cue and a slam try.

 

....

 

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

I don't mean to be snide, really, but isn't that two tries that are available?

Ok, you got me. I thought that the context made it clear that, on the hand in question, opener has only one slam try available, because the 2nd one made no sense on the hand.. but, I deserve the (snide) shot B)

[MFA]

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.

I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!

We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

 

Do we like our hand?

 

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

Wait a second.

 

I can live with a decision to bid 5♦, if your view is that the opening hand is not worth a slam try.

 

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

I really have no idea which part of my post it is that could lead to such a misunderstanding B).

 

It's the entire reason for not being able to cuebid with a below average, but not completely hopeless hand, that we have so little room.

 

We'll get one chance to speak, better to say what we really feel rather than to transfer the decision with an include-all-hands 5♣ cuebid. Sorry, I don't buy that this is much a question of cuebid style, imo is it really not sensible not to require above average hand strength for 5♣.

[jdonn]

Mike, reasonably you would have to concede, 1552 is not only an unlikely hand for partner after a 3♣ overcall when opener is 3-4 in the black suits, but it's VERY unlikely! I would take a shot in the dark that 2551 is 5x more likely than 1552, and wouldn't even be surprised if 3550 is more likely than 1552.

 

Also, while I agree that han was too generous to say something like 20% of hands could drive to slam over 4♦, there certainly exist such hands. Something like AQx Kx Kxxxx ATx is darn close to guaranteeing a slam (and I don't think it need be quite that perfect).

 

The argument others are putting forth really seems compelling. Partner is left with the final decision over 5♣, bid slam or don't. So it seems obviously inferior to NOT split the hands approximately 50-50 between bidding 5♣ and 5♦. If you are bidding 5♣ on 70% of hands and 5♦ on 30% of hands (just between hands that bid one of those two things) then you are being quite inefficient.

[Cascade]

Mike, reasonably you would have to concede, 1552 is not only an unlikely hand for partner after a 3♣ overcall when opener is 3-4 in the black suits, but it's VERY unlikely! I would take a shot in the dark that 2551 is 5x more likely than 1552, and wouldn't even be surprised if 3550 is more likely than 1552.

Here are some simulation numbers:

 

0553 0.7%

1552 18.7%

2551 49.5%

3550 31.1%

 

The assumption was the balanced hand was 3=2=4=4 and an opponent had 6 or 7 clubs.

[jdonn]

Fair enough, I guess I was 1 out of 2 hehe. One more time with just 7 clubs, for comparison? Surely the longer is more likely when we have the AK and when we clearly have a lot of strength. Also I notice you didn't let partner be longer than 5-5.

 

I would suggest as a further bridge argument that partner is a lot more likely to pass 3NT with 1552 or 0553 than with short clubs, although I wouldn't bother trying to incorporate that into a sim.

[kenrexford]

I'd like to add to my original assessment, in a manner that may not be typical of me.

 

My original thought was, "5♦."

 

I now think, "5♦...duh!"

[benlessard]

And if he is 1=5=5=2, he is NEVER bidding over 5D, even with x AKJxx AKJxx xx, since he can see how they rate to beat him in clubs

 

Not bidding slam with this is completly dumb.

 

First of all opener can bid 4Nt as natural to show heavy wastage in black suits

'

2ndly you assume defense will always lead clubs. Its not because "you" always have controls in the opps suit when you bid slam that you can assume everybody is doing the same. On this hand 5D doesnt say you dont have the S controls and responder might gamble into slam, 5D just say that youre hand isnt suitable for slam. And it still need some balls to lead the unbid suit when partner sit over the Nt biddier.

 

3rdly with ♥Qx and ♦xxxx + S well stopped we will bid 4H and not 5D.

 

For me

 

xx

akxxx

akxxx

x

 

or

 

x

akxxx

akxxx

xx

 

are both 6D bids.

 

of course partner can have a terrible hand and 6 isnt there. But its more likely hes got a hand not strong enough to make a cue but that still make 6D.

 

With this auction

 

1Nt----(2S)------3H------(P)

3Nt---------------4D

???

 

a split

 

4H 15%

4S cue 10%

4Nt natural 20%

5C 20%

5D 20 %

slam 15%

 

is imo reasonnable.

 

So you cannot say that 5D is dead minimum and the worst hand possible and that 5C is a non garbage raise that doesnt show extras. You cannot bid 5C with all 4D 2H hands some of them (40% maybe) are just to weak to cue. I believe this hand and many other fall into this category.

 

imo is it really not sensible not to require above average hand strength for 5C

BINGO

[Lobowolf]

The critical point in the auction comes when opener, without a stopper in front of the club bidder, chooses whether to go down in 4NT or 6♦.

[benlessard]

Ive misread the auction ive thought opps overcalled 2S and not 3C. The way i play is that cue bidding in opps suit show the ace since its likely partner got a stiff.I was throwed off by the clubs cue-bid.

 

I must admit that its a different problem now.

 

If i would make a cue now its surely 4S and not 5C. Im not sure if the hand is strong enough for a cue but for me its way more attractive and less compromising to make a 4S cue over a 3C bid than to make a 5C cue over a 2S overcall.

 

Partner with

 

X

AKxxx

AKxxx

xx

 

Will bid 4Nt over 4S. And slam will be reached.

 

With

 

XX

AKxxx

AKxxx

x

 

he will bid 5C to say hes not sure and again slam will be reached.

 

Maybe im on still on acid for this hand but i still dont understand why people cue bid clubs instead of 4S ? Does they expect 4S to show the A ? Over a 2S overcall a 4S cue wasnt available but over 3C overcall 4S is at least an alternative.