Slam bidding

[waubrey]

My partner and I generally use total point count to determine whether to go to RKC and ask for controls. With 32 points, counting distribution 5-3-1, we generally explore slam. But we find that we wind up in some contracts that do not make while missing others that do. Is there a better way to approach it?

[P_Marlowe]

The answer to your question is system depend.

 

Nevertheless there are other approaches, e.g. the HCP count underestimates

distribution, even the 531 count does not do full justice to certain distributions.

 

The LTC is a different approach, but the LTC overestimates distribution.

 

And another component neither the LTC nor the HCP method takes into account

is honor loactions, i.e. do the honors in both hands fit well, or not, this leads to

cue bidding (or to short suit / long suit game tries)

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nigel_k]

IMO any kind of formulaic approach cannot work for slam bidding.

 

Point count more or less works for game bidding because weakness in one area can be compensated for by strength somewhere else. Also, you typically don't have space to investigate in great detail. In slam bidding, two losers in one suit is a fail, regardless of how much you have in the other suits. Conversely, hands that fit well can produce 12 tricks with less than the normal HCP or LTC. And in slam bidding there is often space to find out about such things.

 

The way to bid slams well is to imagine the kind of hands partner might hold and develop the auction so that you can distinguish the ones where slam is good from the ones where it is not, or provide partner with information he needs in order to do so. The visualization needed to do this well comes naturally to some people, but others can develop it with practice.

[Apollo81]

My partner and I generally use total point count to determine whether to go to RKC and ask for controls. With 32 points, counting distribution 5-3-1, we generally explore slam. But we find that we wind up in some contracts that do not make while missing others that do. Is there a better way to approach it?

Another key component in suit slam bidding is revealing side-suit shortness in one/both hands. With holdings like xxx opposite a singleton/void, you will need less high-card strength to make slam. With wasted holdings like KJxx opposite the shortness, you may need the full 32-33 points in high cards.

[fromageGB]

If I may add what might be a helpful comment : picking up on what others have said you should perhaps look at adding treatments such as cue bidding (before you commit to ace asking) to help determine whether any suits are wide open, and the use of splinter bids or other shortage showing/finding bids such as Jacoby.

[kenrexford]

Game bidding is wildly different than slam bidding. I would suggest that game bidding is almost like defending a hand, whereas slam bidding is like declaring a hand. Not in the sense of captaincy versus partnership, although that is often the case. Rather, when declaring, you plan out the play of an entire hand, whereas on defense you try to get to a set number of tricks.

 

In bidding a game, you tend to bid game if you think that the opponents probably won't get to their requisite number of tricks, or won't do it in time, or won't do it competently.

 

In bidding a slam, you visualize what you and partner generally have as far as pattern (through bidding and splinters and the like) and then try to fill in as many actual cards as possible (through cuebidding or RKCB), all to visually plan the play, to see if the slam should make. You might decide, just like you might need a finesse to work, that you need partner to have such-and-such card, and then ask for that card (which is sort of like trying the finesse).

 

At least, that's how I view it.

[junyi_zhu]

My partner and I generally use total point count to determine whether to go to RKC and ask for controls. With 32 points, counting distribution 5-3-1, we generally explore slam. But we find that we wind up in some contracts that do not make while missing others that do. Is there a better way to approach it?

It's usually a matter of trick taking potential and controls. IMO, if one can't count enough tricks or may miss both AKs in a suit, he shouldn't RKC usually.

[keylime]

I think locating distribution first, then cuebidding (I use denial cuebidding) prevents RKC issues. I think Larry and I have used RKC once. Maybe twice. We don't get ourselves into trouble much.