LTTC undiscussed?

[Ant590]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=st9h954dk95caj743]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

edit: [huge typo, I initially put ♠ not ♥, apologies]

1♥ - 2♥

4♣ - ?

 

What would you choose here. You have no agreement about LTTC, and partner requested that you play first round controls (no discussion about bending them with less space).

[dicklont]

Why did I bid 2♠, there is nothing wrong with a normal 1NT, is there?

 

Anyway 4♠ now, I have no cuebids at four level and no reason to go higher.

[Fluffy]

4♠ because I cannot bid 3NT nor 3♠ now.

[kenrexford]

So confused.

 

1. Why raise on 2-card, and not even Kx?

2. Why cuebid at all after a splinter in the wrong suit?

3. Why Aces First?

4. Why would the weak hand even want to use LTTC?

[mtvesuvius]

Why did I raise on 2 small spades?!? Give that I made this horrible bid, 4♠ wtp? I have wasted ♣ values, I have only 2♠ and otherwise I have garbage. Why would I ever want to bid anything else here?

[Codo]

I guess the auction started with 1 ♥ 2 ♥ else this is a non problem.

 

Now I try 4 Heart, I have no first round control, my honours are bad placed...

 

When the auction started with 1 ♠ 2 ♠.. I now bid 6 NT to have a consistent quality in my bids.

[helene_t]

Don't forget to redouble, Roland ;)

[mtvesuvius]

I now bid 6 NT to have a consistent quality in my bids.

LOL

[Ant590]

Sorry everyone - it was 1♥ - 2♥ - 4♣, a massive typo

[mtvesuvius]

Now I bid 4♥, I have no controls, and my clubs are wasted.

[kenrexford]

Well, that's better.

 

OK. Partner bid 4♣, a call that all are assuming to be a shortness bid. He had the option, presumably, of bidding 3♦ or 2♠, or maybe even 2NT, first, before a follow-up cue sequence.

 

Any of these would allow us to cue the club Ace if he cared. By opting the one call that eliminates our ability to cue clubs, he fairly certainly is indicating that he does not care much about that card.

 

I cannot understand the idea of "Aces First" in a sequence like this. Opener has opted to paint a picture. He needs Responder to have his cards in spades, diamonds, and trumps. Allowing Responder one call, that he has the diamond Ace, seems silly here. The diamond King, and perhaps the diamond Queen, are equally important cards, as are spade and trump cards.

 

So, it seems that LTTC should be on. With three covers (three cards including any of the A-K-Q of any of these suits), Responder clearly has enough. With two, or with something approximating two, a "bump" seems called for.

 

All said, this is sort of close to a "bump," actually. I like the doubleton spade, as that might be a cover. The diamond King is clearly a cover. The club Ace might also be a cover, maybe.

 

Give Opener, for example, ♠Axx ♥AKQxxx ♦Axx ♣--. After a trump lead, for example, Opener plays Ace and a spade. A trump continuation is not enough. Opener wins, crosses to the diamond Ace, ruffs a spade, cashes the club Ace to pitch a diamond, pulls trumps, and claims.

 

So, if 4♦ says "I have something interesting," maybe you do have it.

[keylime]

LTTC should never ever be bid by a hand that has already limited themselves in the bidding. Additionally, as a former, rehab'ed LTTC player (hello, my name is Dwayne, and I have a problem...I think every 4D bid when hearts agreed as trumps as a LTTC bid), I would never play this treatment unless a 2/1 had been established.

[foo]

North,None,IMP,

♠T9 ♥954 ♦K95 ♣AJ743

 

1♥ - 2♥

4♣ - ??

 

What would you choose here. You have no agreement about LTTC, and partner requested that you play first round controls (no discussion about bending them with less space).

You have a flat 9 loser hand opposite a presumably 5 loser hand that does not care about your ♣ cards.

 

5/8 of your values are ♣ cards. That's Bad News.

If your goal is to only bid 50+% slams, pard is going to need a huge hand for this to be enough.

 

Bid 4H and be glad you resisted the temptation to push Us to the 5 level.

[HeavyDluxe]

*trying to keep a straight face* Sorry, 4♣ is obviously gerber.

 

Ok, ok... In all seriousness: 4♣ is showing shortness, and trashes my hand. I bid 4♥.

[jdonn]

I have an ace though not in the best suit but still an ace, a working king, and a potentially good doubleton. Against that the trumps are bad. I would bid 4♦ with a partner I can trust to not bid blackwood or something simply because I cuebid, unless he has a good reason. Certainly if partner signs off over that I am done. I would only make this cuebid below game, so for example if partner bid 4♦ and my minors were reversed I would not force to the 5 level. Bad trumps always make the 5 level risky.

 

I enjoy the logic that 5/8 of our strength is wasted in clubs. I guess our hand would be better without the club jack at all, since then only 4/7 of our strength would be wasted, which is less than 5/8!

 

Has the hand been changing since prior comments? Someone said we have no controls? An ace and a king for a simple raise does not look like no controls to me.

[kenrexford]

LTTC should never ever be bid by a hand that has already limited themselves in the bidding.

A simple raise has a fairly wide range. This is especially wide when a shortness bid is made.

[blackshoe]

*trying to keep a straight face* Sorry, 4♣ is obviously gerber.

 

Ok, ok... In all seriousness: 4♣ is showing shortness, and trashes my hand. I bid 4♥.

4♣ is always Gerber.

 

1♣-4♣ Gerber

1♣-2♣-4♣ Gerber

4♣ Gerber

etc.

 

 

B) :lol: :lol:

[mtvesuvius]

*trying to keep a straight face*  Sorry, 4♣ is obviously gerber. 

 

Ok, ok... In all seriousness:  4♣ is showing shortness, and trashes my hand.  I bid 4♥.

4♣ is always Gerber.

 

1♣-4♣ Gerber

1♣-2♣-4♣ Gerber

4♣ Gerber

etc.

 

 

B) :lol: :lol:

Don't forget the 4♣ openings, and (3x) - 4♣ is ofc Gerber too :lol::lol:

[Phil]

North,None,IMP,

♠T9 ♥954 ♦K95 ♣AJ743

 

1♥ - 2♥

4♣ - ??

 

What would you choose here. You have no agreement about LTTC, and partner requested that you play first round controls (no discussion about bending them with less space).

You have a flat 9 loser hand opposite a presumably 5 loser hand that does not care about your ♣ cards.

 

5/8 of your values are ♣ cards. That's Bad News.

If your goal is to only bid 50+% slams, pard is going to need a huge hand for this to be enough.

 

Bid 4H and be glad you resisted the temptation to push Us to the 5 level.

Since when does a five loser hand like:

 

Axx

AKQxxx

Qxx

x

 

start making slam tries opposite a single raise. Is 2♥ inverted or something?

 

Pard rates to have a much better hand; something more like:

 

Axx

AKJxxxx

Ax

x

 

Whatever pard interprets 4♦ as, I'm happy. Yes, I think LTTC should apply in this sequence, if only to keep things consistent with other Last Train auctions.

[jdonn]

Whatever pard interprets 4♦ as, I'm happy. Yes, I think LTTC should apply in this sequence, if only to keep things consistent with other Last Train auctions.

I agree this is a perfect LTTC hand. We want to say we have some interest, but don't want to go beyond game. When I answered I was answering with 4♦ being a cuebid.

[foo]

Since when does a five loser hand like:

 

Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x

 

start making slam tries opposite a single raise. Is 2♥ inverted or something?

 

Pard rates to have a much better hand; something more like:

 

Axx_AKJxxxx_Ax_x

 

Whatever pard interprets 4♦ as, I'm happy. Yes, I think LTTC should apply in this sequence, if only to keep things consistent with other Last Train auctions.

*shrug*

 

I'd make a slam try with either of your examples. We rate to have 5 level safety with either hand.

 

If Responder has few wasted values in ♣'s, both of your example opening's could easily belong in slam.

[Phil]

"Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x"

 

2nd hand snipped (not sniped)

 

I'd make a slam try with either of your examples. We rate to have 5 level safety with either hand.

 

If Responder has few wasted values in ♣'s, both of your example opening's could easily belong in slam.

A few raises with no "wastage in clubs"

 

KQx xxx Kxxx xxx

 

Kxx xxxx xxx Axx

 

Qxx Jxxx AJx xxx

 

I wouldn't want to insure my favorite contract opposite any of these.

 

Making a slam try with the quoted hand is pretty silly. It's easier to construct hands that go down in 4♥ instead of making 5.

 

I will concede that xxx xxx AKxxx xx give us a good play for slam, but this is a very specific hand.

[foo]

Heh. I note your "bad" responder examples are 4333's. I suspect we both know why...

 

The only one of which I'd make a direct raise on playing 2/1 is KQx_xxx_Kxxx_xxx (9 losers)

 

With either Kxx_xxxx_xxx_Axx, or Qxx_Jxxx_AJx_xxx I'd bid 1N first and then either raise ♥'s or pass (1H-1N;2H-??)

(In general, I do not like directly raising Opener with a minimum and 10+ losers)

[Phil]

Heh

 

Kxxxx xxxx Ax xx

 

Qxxxx Jxx KJx xx

 

Kxxxx xxx AJx xx

 

Do these fit into your single raise structure?

 

Did the OP mention "constructive raises" (which the 1st and 3rd clearly fall into by the way).

 

I could go on, but I can see that you are the same poster you were three months ago when I bagged this.

[Fluffy]

congrats Roland, you guessed the bidding without looking at it!. (and the 6NT bid was hilarious as well :))

 

About what to do after splinter, it is wasy to imagine hands where slam makes when partner has singleton ♣, however, if he happens to have void we have no 5 level safety probably.

 

Awful trumps, a slow ruffing value that might not fit opposite doubleton, and a possible third round diamond loser, I am bidding only 4♥, but with as little as an extra trump I would cue.