Ignoring the side major

[han]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

[Winstonm]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

[cherdano]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

The fragment showing bid is very useful to let partner judge about slam, Han is saying it is the right bid with either hand. He will know whether the club shortness is good or bad, and whether he has fitting honors in the red suits.

I really don't understand your question, isn't it obvious that patterning out will help in slam exploration?

 

The fact that slam is unlikely is not really a good reason either way. If you bid 4♠ over 1♠, you will very likely be in the right contract, this does not mean that it is the right bid.

[benlessard]

Hence, a 2♣ call will, in that scenario, really help his analysis along

I think you are smoking some clubs, its a green plant with little leaves but...

 

To say that partner will be well placed because he know how many clubs hes got in is hand is pretty deep thinking.

 

There is just so many clubs holding that should be good but arent because my club holding is Kxx.

 

Txxx

xxxxx

AQJ

AQ

 

 

Etc...

 

 

One of the main point of 2/1 it to be able to determine source of tricks to reach those 20-low 30 hcp slams. I have no problems to sacrifing 2C to show a balanced hand or whatever type of hands. But youll need a way to show a real clubs suit sooner or later.

 

Its impossible to think that 1M----2C----3C where 2C tend to show 5 clubs and that 3C is a raise VS 1M----2C----3C where 2C could be a lot of things and 3C tend to show 4 is equivalent. You are nowhere near the ball park when you have no idea how many trick the suit can yield.

 

If you bid 2C you are taking the captaincy, youll hope that partner will be able to describe his hand and youll manage to make a decision. To say that 2C will help partner understand the value of his club holding is complete crap.

[kenrexford]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

OK, let's try these proposed hands for actual auctions.

 

Opener: ♠Kxxxx ♥QJx ♦AKxx ♣x

Responder: ♠AQx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx

 

If the auction starts 1♠-2♥-3♥, I am playing this thing in hearts unless I can later make a choice-of-slams bid. So, Responder would cue 3♠ to show one of the top three spades. Opener is not serious, and he does not have a club honor, so he would cue 4♦, showing two of the top three diamonds and cooperative values. Responder knows little about the hand except that a probable club loser exists and that the AK in diamonds (could be as light as KQ) is the only sure route to no diamond losers. So, he does some guessing. With a mere 13-count, opposite non-serious interest, he signs off at 4♥, I would assume. There is no space for even Last Train.

 

What about if the auction starts 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠? Opener now cues 2NT to deny two of the top three spades. Responder is OK with that, so he continues to cue. He cannot cue 3♣ because he lacks two of the top three honors. He cannot cue 3♦ because he has no diamond honor. So, he cues 3♥ because he has a heart control. Back to Opener. As Opener has sufficient controls to continue the pursuit of slam (no holes have developed), and as he does have one of the top three spades, he cues 3♠, letting Responder know that the partnership has all three top spades. Responder, however, is not personally slammish, so he simply cooperates with a 4♣ cue, confirming a club control. Back to Opener. Opener has two of the top three diamonds, which would allow hiom to cue this. He's not quite sure that he has enough to continue on, however. If he feels aggressive, he could cue the diamonds, though. Responder has nothing more, really, to say. So, he signs off at 4♠. Opener respects that.

 

Both auctions get to the same level and stop. Was anything ultimately helped? Not really, because there was nothing to help here. However, at least in my auction one partner has the chance to be aggressive below game, whereas in the alternative auction the aggressive-or-not is a more blind decision.

 

If you add in the horrifying idea that 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ simply establishes a double fit, this is even worse. Now, presumably spades is the new "in focus" suit? All that Opener can do at this point is to bid 3NT (however you play this) or perhaps 4♣, if that is allowed, or 4♦, is 4♣ is not allowed. I have no idea who is supposed to stop this sequence or what strength anything shows.

[han]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

I thought this was highly sarcastic and very clear. The suggestion that we bid 3H to find a 5-3 heart fit is ridiculous.

[kenrexford]

Hence, a 2♣ call will, in that scenario, really help his analysis along

I think you are smoking some clubs, its a green plant with little leaves but...

 

To say that partner will be well placed because he know how many clubs hes got in is hand is pretty deep thinking.

 

There is just so many clubs holding that should be good but arent because my club holding is Kxx.

 

Txxx

xxxxx

AQJ

AQ

 

 

Etc...

 

 

One of the main point of 2/1 it to be able to determine source of tricks to reach those 20-low 30 hcp slams. I have no problems to sacrifing 2C to show a balanced hand or whatever type of hands. But youll need a way to show a real clubs suit sooner or later.

 

Its impossible to think that 1M----2C----3C where 2C tend to show 5 clubs and that 3C is a raise VS 1M----2C----3C where 2C could be a lot of things and 3C tend to show 4 is equivalent. You are nowhere near the ball park when you have no idea how many trick the suit can yield.

 

If you bid 2C you are taking the captaincy, youll hope that partner will be able to describe his hand and youll manage to make a decision. To say that 2C will help partner understand the value of his club holding is complete crap.

I don't get it.

 

First of all, you cite Txxx and xxxxx as club holdings that "should be good." What?!? I hate those club holdings. I really hate thm when the auction goes 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠-3NT(serious because of these sexy club holdings LOL)-NOT 4♣ (denying two of the top three clubs).

 

Then you cite AQJ and AQ tight as club holdings that "should be good," which they are, but then you claim that they are not. Huh? Sure, they turn out to not be producing a boatload of club tricks from partner's hand. But, most often, Opener will not be raising with doubletons. The corrollary to bidding 2♣ with short suits is that Opener's 2♦ is either real or balancd with a diamond control. Very often, therefore, whn it matters, trumps will be set at a low enough level for Opener to express his great club holding and for Responder to dash his enthusiasm.

 

This is one of the key ideas behind showing controls. When you show controls, you do not have as much requirement to show suits. If, for example, we each know that clubs are strong at the top, then either of us, with club length, will venture forth. If no one actually has club length, then no one moves forward.

 

So, when Opener does have club length, he will know to move. When Opener has club honors, he will describe so that Responder, if having club length, can venture forth.

 

You might not believe that it actually works because you cannot imagine agreeing to play in this sort of tenuous situation. Having played with this sort of tenuosity, if that is a word, I find that it does, and quite well.

[awm]

Let's change Ken Rexford's hands slightly while keeping his cuebid style:

 

♠KJxxx ♥KQx ♦AKxx ♣x

♠AQx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx

 

Starting with a heart response, we see 1♠-2♥-3♥. Now responder cuebids 3♠ to show one of the top three spades. Opener has serious slam interest and bids 3NT to show it. Responder now cuebids 4♣ showing one of the top honors there. Opener cuebids 4♦ and hears 4♠ from partner guaranteeing a second top spade (responder knows there is a nice unrevealed double fit and that opener has extras, so it would be wimpy to bid 4♥). At this point opener knows that responder holds ♠AQ and the ♣A or ♣K, plus almost surely the trump ace (responder needs the points to justify the 2/1 bid, and shouldn't really bid past 4♥ holding a five-card heart suit lacking all three of the top honors). Opener bids RKC and a good slam is reached.

 

Starting with the club response, we see 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠. Now opener bids 2NT to deny two of the top three spades. Responder is okay with this and cuebids 3♥ to show the heart ace and deny holding two of the top three clubs or holding a diamond control. Opener now cuebids 3♠ to show the spade king. Responder cuebids 4♣ as a non-serious try with a top club. Opener has two top diamonds and extra values, and can conceivably RKC at this point. The problem is that responder's bidding is entirely consistent with ♠AQx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣KJxx, opposite which slam has no play. So opener probably cuebids 4♦ to leave the decision to responder. At this point responder has essentially shown all the cards in his hand (although presumably it is possible he has only one of the top spades) so there's really nothing he can cuebid. He knows opener has extras, but opener's bidding is entirely consistent with a hand like ♠KJxxx ♥Kxx ♦AKQx ♣x, opposite which slam has no play.

 

Okay, maybe "no play" was an overstatement. In principle you can try the club finesse, and if it wins you can discard a heart. Then with careful management of entries it should be possible to make (unless hearts are 4-1 and opponents lead it and get a ruff). So suffice it to say slam is less than 50%.

[benlessard]

You might not believe that it actually works because you cannot imagine agreeing to play in this sort of tenuous situation. Having played with this sort of tenuosity, if that is a word, I find that it does, and quite well.

I have no problem with your methot and i prefer to play a relay of some kind of relay either 1Nt or 2C as artificial than needing a good hand with 5 clubs to use the premium spot of 2C. Just i think the post is a "standard approach" so opener will be expecting a suit.

 

I believe that winning slam bidding is 50% about establishing suit and 25% about ruff and 25% about seeing if the hand mesh well (balanced vs balanced). Bidding fake suit and cuebidding Ken style start by seeing if the hand mesh well and if a long suit that meshed well is providing tricks i have no problem with that.

 

Just like i said in my previous post if you have no tools or no agreement about bidding a short 2C the advantage of getting a hand where you believe a short 2C in standard is the correct bid the advantage will be marginal. However if your system is built around it then NP.

[mikeh]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

I thought this was highly sarcastic and very clear. The suggestion that we bid 3H to find a 5-3 heart fit is ridiculous.

I got the point of the sarcasm, but I thought the sarcasm itself missed one of the points made (not, of course, the 5-3 heart fit).

 

In addition to starting a constructive auction with a misdescription (I am assuming that the systemic bid with this shape is 2♥.. if the system requires 2♣, then it would usually be a relay method of some kind, and I would not be objecting), 2♣ suffers from two potentially harmful flaws.

 

One is that the partnership can never play in a 5-3 heart fit. This could be problematic.. give opener 5=3=2=3 shape with xxx in clubs.. say Kxxxx KQx AQ xxx.. a full value 14. On a club lead against 4♠ you can actually be set on some normal layouts, while 4♥ is cold for 11 tricks on all normal breaks.

 

The other is that we cannot play our 9 (or 10) card heart fit from the hand with Kxx in clubs.. imagine reaching 6♥ opposite KJxxx KQJx AK xx, and losing.. and explaining that you had no way to reach hearts by responder after a 1♠ opening.

 

Of course, these are low frequency situations, and we can flip this around by giving opener Kx(x) in diamonds and a club control. But we are the ones looking at the vulnerable club holding, and we are the ones who know that maybe there might be some advantage to playing the contract from our side IF there is a heart fit.. too bad that we intentionally choose a method that makes that impossible. i am still unclear on the gain we derive from 2♣.. the gain that justifies the seizing of captaincy and the loss of hearts on a 5-3 and the risk of not only wrong-siding 5-4 heart fits but also the impossibility of collaborative bidding if we have one.

[kenrexford]

Let's change Ken Rexford's hands slightly while keeping his cuebid style:

 

♠KJxxx ♥KQx ♦AKxx ♣x

♠AQx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx

 

Starting with a heart response, we see 1♠-2♥-3♥. Now responder cuebids 3♠ to show one of the top three spades. Opener has serious slam interest and bids 3NT to show it. Responder now cuebids 4♣ showing one of the top honors there. Opener cuebids 4♦ and hears 4♠ from partner guaranteeing a second top spade (responder knows there is a nice unrevealed double fit and that opener has extras, so it would be wimpy to bid 4♥). At this point opener knows that responder holds ♠AQ and the ♣A or ♣K, plus almost surely the trump ace (responder needs the points to justify the 2/1 bid, and shouldn't really bid past 4♥ holding a five-card heart suit lacking all three of the top honors). Opener bids RKC and a good slam is reached.

 

Starting with the club response, we see 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠. Now opener bids 2NT to deny two of the top three spades. Responder is okay with this and cuebids 3♥ to show the heart ace and deny holding two of the top three clubs or holding a diamond control. Opener now cuebids 3♠ to show the spade king. Responder cuebids 4♣ as a non-serious try with a top club. Opener has two top diamonds and extra values, and can conceivably RKC at this point. The problem is that responder's bidding is entirely consistent with ♠AQx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣KJxx, opposite which slam has no play. So opener probably cuebids 4♦ to leave the decision to responder. At this point responder has essentially shown all the cards in his hand (although presumably it is possible he has only one of the top spades) so there's really nothing he can cuebid. He knows opener has extras, but opener's bidding is entirely consistent with a hand like ♠KJxxx ♥Kxx ♦AKQx ♣x, opposite which slam has no play.

 

Okay, maybe "no play" was an overstatement. In principle you can try the club finesse, and if it wins you can discard a heart. Then with careful management of entries it should be possible to make (unless hearts are 4-1 and opponents lead it and get a ruff). So suffice it to say slam is less than 50%.

Actually, the description of the sequences that would result are slightly off.

 

With the proposed hands, let's assume a start of 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥. Responder will, as noted, cue 3♠, showing one of the top three spades. Opener will also, as you suggest, bid serious 3NT, as that spade card does wonders for his hand. Responder will cue 4♣, but this will not necessarily show one of the top two clubs -- technically a club stiff or void is also plausible. Opener may want to cue 4♦, but that is not a cue of a diamond control. Rather, it is LTTC and implies the need for a diamond control. As a result, Responder would not cue 4♠, because he does not have a diamond control. Furthermore, 4♠ would not even be a cuebid -- it would be RKCB of a variety where the spades King and Queen are shown instead of the heart King and Queen. As Responder just has a minimum here, he would sign off. So, Opener actually is forced to decide what to do on the mere basis of a useless club control. This is a bad sequence for us.

 

Let's assume, instead, the 2♣ response. You are right that the sequence would continue as noted to reach the point of a 2♠ call setting trumps. Opener would, in fact, cuebid 2NT to deny good trumps, Responder would bid 3♥ for the reasons you mentioned, and Opener would cue 3♠ for the reasons you mentioned. Responder would cuebid 3♣ for the reasons you mentioned, showing non-serious interest. As you mentioned, at this point Opener feels comfortable forcing the five-level because he has such great strength. However, your concern for Opener is that Responder actually has the hand you proposed, where there is no trick source in hearts. In that event, the five-level is not completely safe, which creates a problem.

 

However, the five-level is, in fact, safer in this sequence than it would be in the alternative sequence. So, Opener can cuebid his diamonds, as you suggested, and hear the sign-off suggestion. Now, however, Opener could venture further via a further cuebid of 5♣. Why?

 

Normally, 5♣ would be, in this sequence, a call that asks woith the secondary honors covered in clubs not spades, as described above. However, as Responder has already denied two of the top three but must have the Ace or King, that call would be meaningless if that was the definition. Exclusion also has been ruled out. Hence, this is a cue.

 

However, that 5♣ option is out because Opener has not denied a club card himself; hence the 5♣ call would not show the club stiff but rather a club honor (asking for re-evaluation). So, that is out.

 

What about 5♦? That is possible, in the sense that Responder has already denied a diamond card (such that this cannot be that asking business and Exclusion is obviously out). Although this implies solid diamonds (A-K-Q), "faking it" with the Ace-King makes sense, because your real point is to deny AQ or KQ. That might get Responder to bid 5♥ as Last Train himself.

 

What about 5♥? Show what you have not shown and see if partner likes this feature?

 

What Opener thinks he wants, however, is not the fifth heart. He thinks he wants the club Ace instead of the King and either a doubleton diamond or a long heart feature. So, I think he ends up bidding 5♦, myself.

 

After all of this analysis, however, I would agree that bidding 2♥ instead of 2♣ does have its merits when Opener does happen to have KQx in hearts. Obviously, any specific decision works wonders when Opener has the perfect hand to handle that specific call. There is a problem, however, with that sort of analysis. You can pose a specific hand for Opener where all is great after a 2♥ call, but then I could counter with a specific hand where all is great after a 2♣ call. Where does that, exactly, get us?

 

Remember, BTW, that the two hands I analyzed earlier, that you call "Ken Rexford's hands," were not hands that I proposed. They were Winston's Hands.

[Winstonm]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

The fragment showing bid is very useful to let partner judge about slam, Han is saying it is the right bid with either hand. He will know whether the club shortness is good or bad, and whether he has fitting honors in the red suits.

I really don't understand your question, isn't it obvious that patterning out will help in slam exploration?

 

The fact that slam is unlikely is not really a good reason either way. If you bid 4♠ over 1♠, you will very likely be in the right contract, this does not mean that it is the right bid.

Thanks, Cherdano,

 

I don't play this style so I was getting somewhat lost in translation. I still don't quite get the patterning out benefit if..say...the fragment is Jxx. Sure, shortness showing can be good but it is not the end all of bidding. There is a big difference if the short bid shows shortness + cards in all other suits or whether it simply indicates a shortness. Also, patterning, if required, doesn't distinguish between singleton A, K and x - (I believe most splinter bidders avoid A or K as singletion and find another bid - not possible if patterning is forced)

 

I can certainly grasp that patterning out can help in the shape quest for slam, but if the bid can be made on KQx, Kxx, Qxx, Jxx, and xxx then the secondary fit aspect of the bid becomes less defined.

 

So that's why I had a legitimate question about patterning out. Would opener in this hand pattern out with Kxxxx, Qxx, AKxx, x?

 

I don't think you do, but I could be wrong. If you do not, then there is no way I see to reach the superior contract of 4H from responder's side if you start with 2C.

And my thinking is the reaching the best game should take priority over nebulous slam investigation.

 

I"m not claiming I am right. That's just what I do. Anyway, thanks for the answer.

[Winstonm]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

I thought this was highly sarcastic and very clear. The suggestion that we bid 3H to find a 5-3 heart fit is ridiculous.

Please refer to the post from me to Cherdano.

 

I don't believe I have ever said that your style is bad or silly or unplayable. If memory serves (daunting task), I simply said that I believed this style placed too much emphasis on captaincy.

 

That is still my view. But it may be that I grew up in a time frame when bidding was not nearly so accurate - if you read old Terrence Reese you know his disdain for most modern blabbermouth bidding styles. :)

 

Of course, I agree with an earlier poster who said one of the big advantages of 2/1 is trick-source bids, and I do not like the idea of sacrificing 2C or 2D as a real suit unless the payoff is substantial.

 

In my mind, your method is playable but no real advantage over others that include a better major-suit raise structure.

[Winstonm]

I believe that winning slam bidding is 50% about establishing suit and 25% about ruff and 25% about seeing if the hand mesh well

 

My grasp of bidding principles is that reaching the best game should take precedence over trying for slam, and that reaching small slam should take precedence over grand slam bidding. I do not think anyone is arguing that this method couldn't be somewhat effective as a slam try tool - the question is at what cost. I don't see it being worth the trade.

 

With the proposed hands, let's assume a start of 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥. Responder will, as noted, cue 3♠, showing one of the top three spades.

 

I think, Ken, you assure a style that is not universal? For me - although I admit I may be way behind times - there is never a required cue-bidding situation, that even when using a seperating bid of 3N that the weaker hands use judgement and would only cue bid if their hand was slam-worthy, but minimal.

 

In other words, in what you gave the auction could be 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H.

[han]

Without thinking too much I'm going to toss out Kxxxx, QJx, AKxx, x and use the given hand as responder: AQx, Axxxx, xx, Kxx

 

I am having trouble understanding how: 1S-2C-2D-2S improves the auction. I have trouble understanding where we go from here. I cannot grasp the value of being forced to bid 3H now in case parten has 5 and didn't bid them

 

That's right, that's why we were all bidding the heart fragment on the earlier 14-count, just in case partner had 5 hearts that he didn't think were worth playing in unless we had 4 of them!

If this is sarcasm, please be more clear. Are you saying the other posted hand was better and thus 3H was correct because it was a better hand or are you really saying that making the fragment shape-showing bid is always right?

 

What are you saying?

I thought this was highly sarcastic and very clear. The suggestion that we bid 3H to find a 5-3 heart fit is ridiculous.

I got the point of the sarcasm, but I thought the sarcasm itself missed one of the points made (not, of course, the 5-3 heart fit).

 

In addition to starting a constructive auction with a misdescription (I am assuming that the systemic bid with this shape is 2♥.. if the system requires 2♣, then it would usually be a relay method of some kind, and I would not be objecting), 2♣ suffers from two potentially harmful flaws.

 

One is that the partnership can never play in a 5-3 heart fit. This could be problematic.. give opener 5=3=2=3 shape with xxx in clubs.. say Kxxxx KQx AQ xxx.. a full value 14. On a club lead against 4♠ you can actually be set on some normal layouts, while 4♥ is cold for 11 tricks on all normal breaks.

 

The other is that we cannot play our 9 (or 10) card heart fit from the hand with Kxx in clubs.. imagine reaching 6♥ opposite KJxxx KQJx AK xx, and losing.. and explaining that you had no way to reach hearts by responder after a 1♠ opening.

 

Of course, these are low frequency situations, and we can flip this around by giving opener Kx(x) in diamonds and a club control. But we are the ones looking at the vulnerable club holding, and we are the ones who know that maybe there might be some advantage to playing the contract from our side IF there is a heart fit.. too bad that we intentionally choose a method that makes that impossible. i am still unclear on the gain we derive from 2♣.. the gain that justifies the seizing of captaincy and the loss of hearts on a 5-3 and the risk of not only wrong-siding 5-4 heart fits but also the impossibility of collaborative bidding if we have one.

I of course agree that if 4H on a 5-3 fit (or 6H on a 5-3 fit) is the best contract then 2C will do badly.

[awm]

It may be worth making the point to Ken that LTTC should not be used in auctions where the potential LTTC bidder has already used serious 3NT.

 

On the auction in question:

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠-3NT-4♣

 

Opener has already shown extras. It should be implicit that if all suits are controlled we have at least five-level safety. There isn't really a hand where opener, after making a serious try with 3NT, now wants to give up on slam completely. So in this auction 4♦ should be a cuebid.

 

The value of LTTC is in an auction where the serious 3NT has never been bid, for example:

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠-4♣

 

Now opener has denied extras. Responder has two responsibilities: to tell opener whether he has sufficient extras to continue trying for slam opposite a minimum opening bid, and if so to continue the control-showing auction. For this reason it is useful to play that 4♥ simply denies the values for slam, whereas 4♦ confirms the values for slam but does not show a diamond control (LTTC). If 4♦ absolutely showed a control then responder would be forced to either bid an uninformative 4♥ (opener will not know whether to bid on with a diamond control) or to bypass 4♥ on hands with no diamond control simply to show extra values.

[kenrexford]

It may be worth making the point to Ken that LTTC should not be used in auctions where the potential LTTC bidder has already used serious 3NT.

 

On the auction in question:

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠-3NT-4♣

 

Opener has already shown extras. It should be implicit that if all suits are controlled we have at least five-level safety. There isn't really a hand where opener, after making a serious try with 3NT, now wants to give up on slam completely. So in this auction 4♦ should be a cuebid.

 

The value of LTTC is in an auction where the serious 3NT has never been bid, for example:

 

1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠-4♣

 

Now opener has denied extras. Responder has two responsibilities: to tell opener whether he has sufficient extras to continue trying for slam opposite a minimum opening bid, and if so to continue the control-showing auction. For this reason it is useful to play that 4♥ simply denies the values for slam, whereas 4♦ confirms the values for slam but does not show a diamond control (LTTC). If 4♦ absolutely showed a control then responder would be forced to either bid an uninformative 4♥ (opener will not know whether to bid on with a diamond control) or to bypass 4♥ on hands with no diamond control simply to show extra values.

LOL! ROFLOL!!!

 

I actually take the completely opposite position. I advocate that the only person who can bid a LTTC bid (when serious 3NT was available) is the person who has showjn or is showing serious interest. In other words, if spades are trumps, then 4♥ is LTTC by a person who bid serious 3NT but a real cuebid by his partner. Similarly, a 4♥ bid would be a real cuebid by a person who made a courtesy 4♣ cue instead of serious 3NT but LTTC by his partner.

 

But, if "LTTC" is simply a quantitative bid to help us reach a 32-point slam, then you are dead right!

 

But, I agree with the proposed value of making this point to me. I did get a good laugh! Tell me another one, please! :lol:

 

Actually, the more I think this through, I believe we are almost on the same page. I do agree that LTTC should not be used by half of the partnership. Maybe I laughed too soon. Sorry. :P

[fred]

It may be worth making the point to Ken that LTTC should not be used in auctions where the potential LTTC bidder has already used serious 3NT.

Disagree.

 

Consider this auction:

 

1S 2H

2S 3S

3N 4D

4H

 

Where 3NT is "Serious 3NT".

 

For me, 4H is LTTC and means "I have the club control that you denied". Opener, the Serious 3NT bidder, is obligated to bid LTTC in this auction whenever he has a club control (unless he wants to bid RKCB or something - the point is that 4S would be a statement that a club control was missing).

 

No doubt there are other ways you could attempt to handle this and maybe your statement would be correct in some of these scenarios, but the way Rodwell originally defined Serious 3NT and LTTC you are definitely wrong.

 

If anyone cares, I held the 3550 hand in Boston. I bid 2H at the table, but it occurred to me at the time (as well as now) that 2D might be a better call. That being said, I tend not to make "weird bids" unless I feel more strongly than "might be a better call".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[han]

I actually don't know the companion hand (I believe 6S makes?). What was your auction Fred?

[fred]

I actually don't know the companion hand (I believe 6S makes?). What was your auction Fred?

Actually my partner got sick in the middle of the session and had to leave to so I played this board with a very able substitute (Jeff Aker from NYC) and we had no time for discussion of methods.

 

Over my 2H, he rebid 2S and I splintered with 4C. He bid RKCB and I was not sure (neither was Jeff as it turned out) what the "standard" response was for showing 3 keycards and a void. I thought 6C so I bid that. He thought I was showing 2 with a void. Anyways, it didn't really matter - he bid 6S and of course I passed.

 

I think his hand was something like:

 

KQJxxx

Jx

x

Axxx

 

The heart finesse worked, Jeff timed the play well and made 7.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebsae.com

[Fluffy]

Over my 2H, he rebid 2S and I splintered with 4C. He bid RKCB and I was not sure (neither was Jeff as it turned out) what the "standard" response was for showing 3 keycards and a void. I thought 6C so I bid that.

Not a critic in any way, I know you were not a regular partnership, so it is dangerous to assume anything.

 

On this sequence, partner had all the 4 level avaible, yet he went straight for 4NT, to me this has to mean he has ♣A and doesn't care about your void, with ♣xxx he would/should go around with a red cue to let you rebid 5♣.

 

Wonder if this makes any sense for you.

[gnasher]

In my experience there are at least three different "standard" ways to show a void opposite RKCB. Without agreement I just disregard the void and answer the question I was actually asked.

 

With agreement, I play Inclusion Keycard, where an immediate raise of 4♣ to 5♣ is RKCB, but the respondent is asked to treat a club void as an ace. 4NT is standard RKCB, denying interest in a void.

[awm]

It may be worth making the point to Ken that LTTC should not be used in auctions where the potential LTTC bidder has already used serious 3NT.

Disagree.

 

Consider this auction:

 

1S 2H

2S 3S

3N 4D

4H

 

Where 3NT is "Serious 3NT".

 

For me, 4H is LTTC and means "I have the club control that you denied". Opener, the Serious 3NT bidder, is obligated to bid LTTC in this auction whenever he has a club control (unless he wants to bid RKCB or something - the point is that 4S would be a statement that a club control was missing).

 

No doubt there are other ways you could attempt to handle this and maybe your statement would be correct in some of these scenarios, but the way Rodwell originally defined Serious 3NT and LTTC you are definitely wrong.

 

If anyone cares, I held the 3550 hand in Boston. I bid 2H at the table, but it occurred to me at the time (as well as now) that 2D might be a better call. That being said, I tend not to make "weird bids" unless I feel more strongly than "might be a better call".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Maybe I didn't make this point very well.

 

The idea I was trying to convey, was that LTTC is generally useful in a sequence where bidding four of the major absolutely denies slam interest. This can come up for two reasons:

 

(1) We simply do not have the values to reasonably look for slam.

(2) We are known to have two top losers in some suit.

 

In these situations, partner is expected to virtually always pass 4M. So it is useful to have a call below 4M which says "I am still interested in slam, so I don't want to bid 4M."

 

The auction in question, it had already been clearly indicated that there were sufficient values to look for slam. And no cuebid had ever been bypassed, so there was no indication that we have a suit uncontrolled. Again the auction was:

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♥ - 3♠

3NT - 4♣

 

By agreement, the 3♠ bid was a cue rather than two-suit agreement (I know this is not Fred's preferred meaning, it's not mine either, but that was the agreement).

 

In this auction, how can 4♥ absolutely deny slam interest? Opener has shown extras by bidding serious 3NT. Responder has shown controls in two suits and has not denied any controls. The goal here should be to avoid the five-level if we don't have a diamond control.

 

If 4♦ here is "last train" what does it show? My impression was that LTTC was supposed to:

 

(1) Guarantee any control that partner had denied in the bidding.

(2) Show extra values for slam, if neither partner has already shown such extras.

 

But in this auction, there is no control that partner has denied in the bidding, and opener has already shown extra values. So 4♦ should be a cuebid.

 

In principle I think that LTTC is a nice agreement, but it requires discussion of when it applies and when it does not. A blanket agreement that "4M-1 is always LTTC regardless of the auction" will frequently waste a bid that would be more useful as a natural cuebid.

[fred]

If 4♦ here is "last train" what does it show?

That is a good question (which I will try answer in a minute), but I think your life will be easier if you either don't play LTTC at all or if you play that 1-under is always LTTC and then worry about what it shows/means in specific auctions.

 

Another alternative is to decide that LTTC doesn't apply in certain classes of auctions (like the rule you propose - the 3NT bidder can never bid LTTC), but I don't think you will get very far with that approach. Your proposed rule, for example, is not a good one to have if the auction goes as I suggested in my previous post in this thread.

 

As to what LTTC should mean in this particular auction, let's start with the obvious:

 

1) RKCB will not provide you with the information you need

2) If all you cared about was a diamond control, you would bid something else (5H would do the trick for me)

 

There are a few reasons 1) may be the case:

 

1a) Perhaps you have a void

1b) Perhaps your hand is great but your trumps are Qxxxx or similar

1c) Perhaps you won't be able to count the # of tricks/losers even if you know how many keycards partner has

1d) Perhaps there exists at least one response to RKCB that will cause a problem for you (maybe partner will bid 5D, one keycard will be missing, and you will have to guess whether or not partner has the Queen of trump). Yes I know, if you play 4S as RKCB you won't have this problem

 

So, if you play LTTC in this auction, it would be reasonable (to me at least) to think that partner has one of these problems (and perhaps some other problems that I cannot think of off the top of my head) when he bids LTTC.

 

Note that 1a) through 1d) all contain diamond controls so, if you want to consider LTTC here to mean "a cuebid in diamonds", you won't be far wrong. More accurate would be to say it means "a cuebid in diamonds but a hand that is unsuitable for taking control".

 

Note also that if reasons 1a or 1d are present, you plan to keep bidding even if partner cannot bid any more than 4H. The same may or may not be true if reasons 1b or 1c are present.

 

So in this sense LTTC also means "please bid more than 4H if you like your hand".

 

Serious 3NT, though a strong statement, does not narrowly limit opener's hand especially when Serious 3NT is bid by a person who has opened the bidding at the 1-level in "standard" or has made a "standard" 2/1 or FSF bid. That being the case, I think there should still be scope for quantitative/do-you-like-your-hand type bidding after Serious 3NT has been bid.

 

LTTC can be a useful tool in this regard (as in 1c above).

 

Agree with you completely that it would be foolish to play LTTC except with a regular partner with whom you have had a lot of discussion.

 

Not sure where you got the idea that I like to play 1S-2H-3H-3S as support-showing. For as long as I can remember, I have used this sequence as a cuebid of a high honor in spades (typically at least a doubleton, but I suppose a singleton Ace or King would also be OK).

 

Quite possible my memory is bad or wrong. Not sure it matters so please don't bother trying to find an quote from me that contradicts what I think I remember :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Actually, this has developed into an interesting discussion (admittedly, "interesting" means "I'm not so confident now with my position" LOL).

 

Let's play out the sequence under discussion:

 

1♠-2♥

3♥-3♠(cue)

3NT(serious)-4♣

?

 

If we are operating under the principle that 4♦ is LTTC, then the question raised is what the difference is between 4♦ and 4♥, as a 4♣ cue cannot have denied anything and, hence, Opener cannot be signing off.

 

One of these two sequences should, in theory, show a diamond control, whereas the other should, in theory, deny the diamond control.

 

LTTC has as a primary default a meaning of an inability to commit to RKCB for some reason (or to commit to some other similar sequence). That could be values-based, or it could be control-based. However, as a general "feel," the existence of a serious 3NT call suggests, similar to what AWM is saying, that the focus should be primarily on control.

 

Hence, when I do what Fred suggests (know that 4♦ is LTTC and then figure out what each means), I view 4♦ in the "control need" light, meaning a diamond-control denial bid. By process of elimination, then, 4♥ would be the call with a diamond control but insufficient values to commit.

 

Or, in other words:

 

If the club control did it for me, I will bid RKCB (or some other gadget)

If I still need a diamond control, I will bid 4♦ LTTC

If I have no control needs at this point, but need "more stuff," I bid 4♥.

 

I don't see any particular reason why the alternative is illogical, though. It seems equally plausible to switch the meanings of 4♦ and 4♥, such that 4♥ expresses the sole "I need a diamond control" and 4♦ as "I just need more stuff but diamonds are OK." It just does not fit with how I would view this sequence.

 

I mean, in a way, both 4♦ AND 4♥ are "last train" bids. Their meaning could be either way (either one could be "LTTC for a Diamond Control" and the other "LTTC with a Diamond Control"). Granted, usually you bid what you have (bid diamonds means I have diamonds). However, in most other auctions, this is not actually the case. Very often, LTTC shows the implied control but not the bid control. In other words, imagine the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥-4♣. In that sequence, Responder has denied a spade control. Hence, Opener's 4♦ shows the missing spade control but essentially asks about the diamond control, even though he just bid diamonds. That "paradox" seems to recur a lot. As a result, when the auction is one like we are discussing, my tendency to try to have consistency suggests the application of the "paradoxical" approach where 4♦ asks and 4♥ assures.

 

I mean, a 4♦ call does not actually "ask" for the diamond control. It is just Last Train. Hence, Lackwood. But, in auctions where overall strength is not really in issue, then it is a pure ask. As 4♥ alleviates the need for the "general strength" question, then 4♦ seems more pure as the control question option.

 

I suppose, in the end, my analysis way back when was off, in that Opener would have the option, therefore, of a simple 4♥ call, in the end, as the "strength ask" option.