A hand

[JLOL]

imps

 

xxx QJxxx Jx J9x

 

Starting with pard, unopposed:

 

1C 1H

3S 4H

4S ?

 

3S=splinter

[Fluffy]

I think partner's got

 

♠-

♥Kxxx

♦Axx

♣AKQxxx

 

Its easy to see 2 losers if opponents ain't blind.

 

Partner can have more, but ♣Q might also be missing if he's got another diamond honnor. The only in the middle route: 5♣ is highly missdescriptive so I am singing off in 5♥.

[ninja89]

In the style I play, all bids by opener (after 1x-1M-GF splinter-4M) show a void in the splinter; I don't open at the one level with a hand which would force to the 5-level opposite a fit without a void on the side, or if I did, I would have initially bid 1m-1H-4m. I think it's fair to treat partner's hand as being genuinely three-suited. For instance, with Fluffy's example hand, if I decided to move over 4M, I would bid 5C, at least ensuring ♥AQxx and out gets to slam.

 

♠-

♥ATxx

♦AKxx

♣AQTxx

 

This is on one out of two finesses (edit: admittedly with some handling issues), and partner could have more. Definitely accepting some blame if it's wrong, but I bid 6H.

[655321]

5♥.

 

At the table I would have bid 5♥ without thinking too much because I have rubbish (indeed, the walri would be offended by the 1♥ response.)

 

Partner obviously has a very strong hand with a spade void, but what is he looking for? Is he making one more try just in case? Or does he have the minor suits locked up and, with Axxx or Kxxx of trumps, wants to be in slam if trumps for one loser?

 

What would 5♥ mean instead of 4♠ - does one of these bids ask for trump quality only?

 

Because I don't know the answer to any of these questions, I fall back on making the weakest bid because my hand is so bad.

[ceeb]

4NT. Maybe not at the table with an unfamiliar partner, but at least as a paper answer it seems about right. Encouraging, no minor suit card or control -- so trumps.

[ninja89]

Ah yes, I forgot about 4NT. I'll go with ceeb in that case, with 6H close second.

[andy_h]

Partner has a spade void and is now inviting slam on his own. I'm guessing 5♥ over my 4♥ would have been asking for trump quality and would have been made typically with ATxx or KTxx so it seems certain he has AKxx support. If he has 0436 with ♥AK ♣AK combo there's a chance he might've bid 4♣ over our 1♥.

 

So typically his hand could be - AKxx AQx AQxxxx or - AKxx AQxx AKxxx or - ATxx AKxx AKxxx (even 5lvl could be dangerous if that). I think if we have Kxxx in our hearts (or better) we should not have another key card like ♣K but we can have 2 kings if our trump suit was Jxxx or worse. I think if our doubleton was in clubs it would be more attractive to bid slam, so I will probably just sign off.

[gnasher]

So typically his hand could be - AKxx AQx AQxxxx or - AKxx AQxx AKxxx or - ATxx AKxx AKxxx (even 5lvl could be dangerous if that).

The first half of your post had almost persuaded me that we should be signing off, but those examples suggest otherwise. On the first two, slam is good; on the third it's not hopeless. However, I don't think he can have the third hand.

 

I think if we have Kxxx in our hearts (or better) we should not have another key card like ♣K but we can have 2 kings if our trump suit was Jxxx or worse.

I think a hand that good ought to have bid a non-serious 3NT, if available. So should ♥Kxxxx and ♣Qx, which is what your third example needs to make slam reasonable.

 

If you play serious 3NT, you should add this hand to the list of reasons to change your methods.

[whereagles]

I'll bid 5♥, on grounds that if my hand is all pard needs to bid slam, he can still bid it on his own. The only unexpected card I have is the 5th heart, and I don't think that makes THAT much of a difference as compared to a 3433 with the same hcp.

[Fluffy]

I also liked 4NT, but I assumed partner would take it as key card blackwood.

 

Probably suboptimal, but my meta-agreements lead there for simplicity.

 

 

To Ninja: I think we all agree that partner is highly worried about trumps. Giving partner ♥10 (along with ♣10), is giving him too good cards IMO.

[benlessard]

We will get a D lead for sure. Holding a spade void partner can open 1C instead of 2C with a pretty huge hand but there is still a limit to this in my book.

 

---

AKxx

Axx

AKQxxx

 

---

Axxx

AKx

AKQxxx

 

Are almost 2C opening for me.

 

 

Edited i prefer 4Nt now. Tough hand.

[Phil]

Agree with 4N. Not RKC.

[Winstonm]

I cannot fathom a splinter from opener with such a weak hand as: __ Kxxx, Axx, AKQxxx. Furthermore, over the signoff bid of 4H, signifying initially wasted spade values rather than a real weak hand, partner forced the issue again with 4S, so now this weak hand becomes impossible.

 

The fact that partner chose to emphasize the spade suit seems it should be important, as over the signoff could have bid 5C, 5D, or 5H. With simply a question about hearts the 5H bid looks obvious.

 

Seems this 4S bid should point to diamonds - void, AKxx, Q10x, AKQxxx looks about right.

 

I sign off again at 5H.

[mikeh]

My initial reaction was to sign off, but one of the advantages (for me) of the aging process is that I have slowed down :(

 

While I don't have much, what I do have is incredibly well positioned. I own the heart J along with a 5th trump, and the club J plus the 9, which may come in useful on some unlikely layouts.

 

What can he have? Given that we might be looking at xxxx in hearts, with spade wastage, to place him with less than AKxx in hearts seems improbable.

 

I think he has to have 6 clubs or AKQxx... AKxxx is the worst slam holding imaginable... if I hold 3 cards, we have a loser if I lack the Queen (with which I would have been encouraged by the splinter on most slam hands) and if I hold xx, the suit rates to break 4-2.

 

Also, holding 5 clubs gives him 4 diamonds, and if he has that, he has a truly enormous hand, since the auction screams to lead that suit... void AKxx AQxx AQ10xx... and this looks dubious yet slam is excellent. Even a debatable void AKxx AKx A10xxxx is a good slam.

 

He cannot be lacking a diamond control.. he has at least KQx... QJx, etc, makes no sense when I don't have to have solid trump.

 

In short, almost all hands on which I would bid as he did offer at least a 50% play for slam (ok, maybe a tiny bit lower... clubs could be 4-0, as an example) so I am not going to torture him with a 4N bid that neither he nor are will be certain to understand... I suspect it means 'bid slam if you have a good hand in context'...

 

6♥. I won't redouble.

[kenrexford]

5♣.

[JLOL]

Wow this has been a non retarded thread. Thanks guys!

 

Pard has void AKxx AKxx ATxxx

 

Also for completeness, Shane gave me this hand as responder, and asked if he bid it ok. When he told me partner's hand I said they should bid 5C. Then John Hurd was given the hand this way and bid 5H stating that partner should bid 5H over 4H if all he needed was good hearts. Then Kevin Bathurst said he would bid 4N. Then there was discussion about if 4N was RKC or not (I think we decided it was).

[gnasher]

Then there was discussion about if 4N was RKC or not (I think we decided it was).

I was wondering about that. These days most partnerships play 4NT with a major agreed as RKCB, regardless of the auction, so I was a bit surprised to see so many people saying 4NT was something else. Whilst you might want it to be rolling here, you can't just make up agreements in the middle of the auction. If I bid 4NT opposite any of my partners they'd shrug their shoulders and tell me how many keycards they had.

[jdonn]

It's something I've thought about before. There are certain auctions when it seems clear to me a very weak hand won't want to bid RKC and it would be more useful in the sense suggested here. But I've never thought of a good way to delineate those from the other auctions other than one hand being quite strong and the 4NT bidder being quite weak, so at the table I've never bothered. It would probably be worth doing though.

[benlessard]

Ive thought about 5C, but i prefer it to show the Q. Partner rate to have 6 clubs here so there is a gap between J9x and Qx or better.

 

5H stating that partner should bid 5H over 4H if all he needed was good hearts.

 

Without too much thinking i would play that 5H focussed on the trumps but that the S ace is still a working card. With all S void i would bid 4S. I have a strong reflex to show a void that is difficult to overcome.

 

With more thinking It make sense that 5H is still showing a S void, because with a stiff S and looking for trumps quality you can ask for keycards, but often like here you will KC and partner will respond 5D (03) and you wont be able to ask for the trumps queen.

 

Ill discuss this one with regular partner for sure.

[skjaeran]

Tough problem.

 

Agree with Mike that partner's got to have a diamond control.

With the fifth trump and only five minor suit cards, I think I'm just barely good enough to bid slam.

[Fluffy]

Ken, don't you have agreements of what an odd bid like 5♦ from north instead of 4♠ would ask about?, if it makes emphasis on club help this looks like it.

[kenrexford]

Ken, don't you have agreements of what an odd bid like 5♦ from north instead of 4♠ would ask about?, if it makes emphasis on club help this looks like it.

A couple of my thoughts.

 

First, 4NT by Responder over 4♠ is clearly not RKCB. It has to be a cue. I would expect it to be a trump cue, and possibly right on this hand, to emphasize the fifth heart. But, I would expect this to show extra heart length with a top heart honor (Ace or King). 4NT, though, is a VERY close second call for this hand, and I have no real problem with that option in theory.

 

Second, I cue'd 5♣ as Responder because I would have cue'd 4♣ with any fitting hand worthy of action at this point with the club Queen, as a bypass of serious 3NT and a courtesy cue. So, I think I have denied the club Queen. J9(x) is contextually huge (and actually so opposite A10xxx).

 

As to Opener's options...

 

One aspect of this problem is the "what if" scenario. Partner had the option of a 4♠ leap immediately, as Exclusion I'm sure. So, the delayed action implies a need. I think the contextual need is obvious -- club help, whether shortness or honors. Something. This is about what I'd expect, which again is why I bid 5♣.

 

5♦ would be a weird call. However, I'd expect that to show what it sounds like. Something like ♠x ♥AKQx ♦AKxx ♣AJ109, perhaps. An inability to rebid spades because of the stiff, and inability to cue clubs again because of the lack of two top club honors, but diamonds. If the 1-4-4-4 is opened 1♦, then ♠x ♥AKQx ♦AKx ♣AJ109x. The fact that I as Responder am looking at the heart Queen does not change my understanding of what 5♦ should show -- it explains why 5♦ was not an option for Opener.

 

5♣ after the splinter, should look more like ♠x ♥AKQx ♦Axx ♣AKJ9x, IMO.

 

In other words, a splinter then bid again looks like a trouble hand that is strong enough for but could not bid 2♣ as an opening. A splinter then 4♠, however, looks like a wild player with a void that cannot stand it. That latter hand type has many forms, which is OK because the space available is maximal.

[Winstonm]

You can't know the continuations until you know the substance of the 4H sign off. Does it mean big spade waste: KQxx, Qxxx, xxx, xx? Does it mean weak hand: xxx, KJxx, xxx, Jx? Does it mean weak trumps? Kxxx, xxxx, Kxx, Qxx? Or is it general disinterest in slam: Qxxx, Qxxx, Qxx, Qx?

 

The meanings of the various continuations depend greatly on the meaning behind the sign off bid.

[kenrexford]

You can't know the continuations until you know the substance of the 4H sign off. Does it mean big spade waste: KQxx, Qxxx, xxx, xx? Does it mean weak hand: xxx, KJxx, xxx, Jx? Does it mean weak trumps? Kxxx, xxxx, Kxx, Qxx? Or is it general disinterest in slam: Qxxx, Qxxx, Qxx, Qx?

 

The meanings of the various continuations depend greatly on the meaning behind the sign off bid.

True, to a degree. However, I think you can assume at least that Responder won't have a monster like some of these hands. It is also fair to assume some degree of modern bidding if Justin is posting the question.

[whereagles]

As it went, it's the weak hand that has to imagine what the strong hand has. It's always hard to get to the right solution in cases like these.

 

All praise the allmighty club 10 :)