Ignoring the side major

[awm]

I would have gone with a rule more like:

 

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

 

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

 

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

 

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

[fred]

I would have gone with a rule more like:

 

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

 

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

 

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

 

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

That seems like a reasonable enough rule-set to me. The fact that you can express everything in only 3 relatively simple rules is very good. It might be more effective to make rule 3 "murkier", but at least you won't have any misunderstandings if you do it your way :D

 

So far I can't think of any auctions in which your rules will break down (not that I have tried very hard). If something comes to mind I will let you know.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I would have gone with a rule more like:

 

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

 

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

 

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

 

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

I'm not attacking the end result, because, as I said earlier, I dont see any specific reason to do things one way or the other. However, I'm not sure that this set of rules makes as much sense as phrased as Fred does.

 

Rule #1 is not really a rule. Any cuebid shows a control that partner has denied. The fact that the bid is Last Train is irrelevant. I mean, you are right, but this does not really further the problem situation in any way.

 

Rule #2 also is not really a rule of any significance either, for the same reason. If partner has no slam interest, then you obviously would not make any call other than a signoff unless you have slam interest. What I mean is that this does not further the discussion of what Last Train shows.

 

So far, then, Rules #1 and #2 simply establish a rule that partner is not allowed to bid like a moron. I cannot disagree with that as a rule, even if I violate that general principle quite frequently.

 

So, what about the corollary to Rule #2? Well, that does not really help us either. The rule essentially states that partner, if he has no slam interest, is not supposed to bid slam anyway when partner agrees with that sentiment. In other words, the corollary to the rule that I am not supposed to bid like a moron is that partner will also not bid like a moron. Again, a good rule, often violated, buit not helpful in the actual discussion.

 

How about Rule #3? This is the only relevant rule to apply. The elected decision is for Last Train to be off and the cue to, therefore, be a cue for any suit that might not have been shown. Four of the major would, then, be the denial cue (or, the asking bid).

 

What you seem to have done, then, is to put a whole lot of meaningless fluff out front, stuff that looks impressive but furthers nothing. This merely builds up to a crescendo on a lengthy resolution to just play that the bid that would be Last Train shows the unshown control and is telling whereas the bypass of that call is asking.

 

Great! You want to do it the other way.

 

If you have some particular reason for why one way makes more sense than the other way, I'm interested. I see no particularly compelling benefit to my way, either, except the possible slight benefit that an asking Last Train call might be used when Opener has the control anyway because Opener wants to know whether Responder does or does not have that feature or, perhaps, where Opener would rather answer than ask if Responder has that feature. I don't see much benefit to using a "fake last train" bid with the hand that features just borderline values.

[awm]

My logic is just that I think bidding four of our major should indicate that maybe we should play four of the major, whereas bidding something other than four of our major should show some feature conducive to a possible slam.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it is "normal" for a 4♦ bid to just mark time without showing any control in any suit, or indicating anything about values.... whereas a 4♥ bid is actually quite forward-going and guarantees a control in some other suit.

[kenrexford]

My logic is just that I think bidding four of our major should indicate that maybe we should play four of the major, whereas bidding something other than four of our major should show some feature conducive to a possible slam.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it is "normal" for a 4♦ bid to just mark time without showing any control in any suit, or indicating anything about values.... whereas a 4♥ bid is actually quite forward-going and guarantees a control in some other suit.

Not exactly; not even close really. What I am saying is that a Last Train bid carries "denial" or "ask" tendencies. Some cues show. Some cues deny. Last Train tends to ask/invite, which is IMO on the denial end of the spectrum. Hence, I think denial-ask-invite when I think LTTC.

 

As the situation discussed is one where either agreement works well, I want one that fits my basic thinking best and one that handles the odd situation best. It seems that retention of the denial-ask aspect of LTTC as to the diamond control fits both bills for me.

 

As to how that helps to understand 4♥, consider 2NT (as I play it, as a denial of good trumps). If I bid 2NT, I deny. If I instead bid above 2NT, I show that which 2NT would have denied.

 

How about RKCB. If the relay asks for the trump Queen, but I instead bid 5NT as a specific King ask, I am not specifically "showing" the Queen myself. However, I have it. So, a "bypassed ask" shows.