Sign-off or one more try ?

[sathyab]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq95hk7dkq62ckt5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np2cp2sp3hp]133|200[/hv]

 

3♥ shows unspecified shortness with more than game+ values, slammish if hands fit. 3♠ asks for shortness.

[aguahombre]

In other words, partner shows slam interest opposite your 16 point NT opening which is now worth about 13. How do you evaluate that fact for slam?

 

Just out of curiosity, how would partner have set spades as trump forcing after Stayman if he/she did not have shortness somewhere? I doubt a space gobbling 4m would be a good thing.

[CSGibson]

I would bid 4♠. I have wastage in every suit, no aces, this is almost as slam-unsuitable as possible almost opposite a hand that has a slam try with no wastage opposite specific shortage, the way I send that message is by not asking about the shortage.

[CSGibson]

 

Just out of curiosity, how would partner have set spades as trump forcing after Stayman if he/she did not have shortness somewhere? I doubt a space gobbling 4m would be a good thing.

 

Why do you think that? Two balanced hands means that a quantitative-with-a-fit try would be appropriate and relatively easy to evaluate.

[sathyab]

In other words, partner shows slam interest opposite your 16 point NT opening which is now worth about 13. How do you evaluate that fact for slam?

 

Just out of curiosity, how would partner have set spades as trump forcing after Stayman if he/she did not have shortness somewhere? I doubt a space gobbling 4m would be a good thing.

 

This treatment is the fairly familiar Baze Adjunct. With a balanced hand you can bid 4♦, 4♣ for RKC Gerber. Some people reverse the meaning of the above bids.

[Phil]

I can't imagine unilaterally signing off here. 3♠ doesn't 'show' extras, it just allows partner to show his shortness and then we can evaluate.

 

Besides, a club singleton is pretty good news. Wouldn't you want to play 6 opposite Axxx Axxx Axxx?

[phil_20686]

It seems close to me.

 

One the one hand, partner will need three keycards. He could easilyhave a hand like Axxx xxx x AQxxx and playing at the five level would dependent on a nice trump break. On the other hand, most hands with three aces make slam pretty good. There is a case for just bidding keycard. There is a case for signing off. There is a case for wait and see.

[sathyab]

It seems close to me.

 

One the one hand, partner will need three keycards. He could easilyhave a hand like Axxx xxx x AQxxx and playing at the five level would dependent on a nice trump break. On the other hand, most hands with three aces make slam pretty good. There is a case for just bidding keycard. There is a case for signing off. There is a case for wait and see.

Yes, if your partner thinks that's a slam try opposite a 15-17 NT, you should be signing off.

[phil_20686]

Yes, if your partner thinks that's a slam try opposite a 15-17 NT, you should be signing off.

 

Seems like a normal slam try to me, most 15-17 with no diamond values will have play for slam.

[aguahombre]

Besides, a club singleton is pretty good news. Wouldn't you want to play 6 opposite Axxx Axxx Axxx?

Yes. We just don't agree on the way to go about it (methods). Opener should not be asking questions, but rather showing a side concentration of values when holding such a great playing hand where the only side queen is in combo with a king.

 

Using a method where 3H is a non-specific slam try in spades allows more room for opener to show outside concentrations of strength. Splintering at the 4-level, depending on which singleton, might use up valuable space; and jumping to 4m on hands without shortness could stifle exploration as well.

[Flem72]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq95hk7dkq62ckt5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np2cp2sp3hp]133|200[/hv]

 

3♥ shows unspecified shortness with more than game+ values, slammish if hands fit. 3♠ asks for shortness.

 

3N: spread-out (and by the slimmest of inferences, prime?) values, nt suitable. How you like me now?

[Phil]

It seems close to me.

 

One the one hand, partner will need three keycards. He could easilyhave a hand like Axxx xxx x AQxxx and playing at the five level would dependent on a nice trump break. On the other hand, most hands with three aces make slam pretty good. There is a case for just bidding keycard. There is a case for signing off. There is a case for wait and see.

 

It doesn't sound like you've played these methods before. We can discover partner's shortness via 3♠ and sign off (i.e, 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♣ (middle shortage) - 4♠), so there's no need to risk the 5 level.

 

Would that change your opinion?

[Phil]

Yes. We just don't agree on the way to go about it (methods).

 

What type of concentration of values would you choose to show instead of letting partner to show their shortness (for instance why would choose hearts v diamonds here)? I suppose if I had an extreme concentration like AJxx Jx AKQx xxx I can understand letting partner take charge, but the relay break should be very well defined as a picture bid.

 

In my experience, how our hand matches up against partner's shortness is a lot better than trying to guess which features to show and let partner evaluate.

 

Besides, sometimes partner's flight plan includes RKC and he is showing the singleton along the way, to involve us in the 6 vs 7 decision.

[aguahombre]

What type of concentration of values would you choose to show instead of letting partner to show their shortness (for instance why would choose hearts v diamonds here)?

I don't understand the question. I was talking about opener showing KQXX in diamonds; KX in hearts is not my idea of a side trick source.

[awm]

One of the advantages often cited for "concealed splinters" is that we can hide responders shortness from the lead on game-only hands. If you're always going to ask for shortness, isn't it better to play direct splinters and 3h as a balanced try to save some space for cue bids?

 

Its also not clear to me how knowing the shortness will ever help opener on this particular hand.

[Phil]

I don't understand the question. I was talking about opener showing KQXX in diamonds; KX in hearts is not my idea of a side trick source.

 

Thats true, misread. Make it KQxx / KQx in a few side suits for instance.

[Phil]

Reading this thread I wonder if anyone who has responded has really played this method, or if I have been playing it incorrectly for the past 15 years or so :(.

[aguahombre]

Reading this thread I wonder if anyone who has responded has really played this method, or if I have been playing it incorrectly for the past 15 years or so :(.

OP's method? I don't know. Using 3 of the other major to start a slam probe after Stayman has worked fine for us for a very long time; but it does not show or deny shortness somewhere. It does deny a long minor, however; with that kind of slammish hand we can bid 3m and then show our Major support later.

[Phil]

OP's method? I don't know. Using 3 of the other major to start a slam probe after Stayman has worked fine for us for a very long time; but it does not show or deny shortness somewhere. It does deny a long minor, however; with that kind of slammish hand we can bid 3m and then show our Major support later.

 

He specifically said "3♥ shows unknown shortness".

[gszes]

I do not know all the particulars of yur system for ex: just what would

4h mean vs 3h. What p does not do is just as important as what p

does. I am assuming p is close to slam but maybe needs a perfecto

to continue. Nothing wrong with trying espcially if it is safe and below

game level (like this is). Now here is the reason i sign off.

 

If p is strong they can always continue but if they need us to have our

stuff outside their (void) then we are defective. Yes we have some

controls and a probable ruffing value in hearts but this is a fairly normal

hand with no suit where p with a void (much less a singleton) will be

happy with our hand. I saw a suggestion of 3n and felt it would be better

saved for hands with poor trumps and all outside suits double stopped

Jxxx KQT KQT KQT.

 

Never ask questions when there is no answer you want to hear. bidding

3s here gives p the impression you would welcome slam somewhere

and that may slant their bidding if they are strong. Just sign off and be

happy.

[sathyab]

One of the advantages often cited for "concealed splinters" is that we can hide responders shortness from the lead on game-only hands. If you're always going to ask for shortness, isn't it better to play direct splinters and 3h as a balanced try to save some space for cue bids?

 

Its also not clear to me how knowing the shortness will ever help opener on this particular hand.

 

Really ? I thought Phil already pointed that out in his very first reply. You want to play a slam opp AJxx Axxx x Axxx or AJxx Axxx Axxx x ?

[aguahombre]

He specifically said "3♥ shows unknown shortness".

Yes, I can read. Did you notice that I was saying ours doesn't? Or that I was responding to your question?

 

the answwer was, that whatever 3H shows or denies, opener can show his stuff.

[Flem72]

What type of concentration of values would you choose to show instead of letting partner to show their shortness (for instance why would choose hearts v diamonds here)? I suppose if I had an extreme concentration like AJxx Jx AKQx xxx I can understand letting partner take charge

 

Opener should not be asking questions, but rather showing a side concentration of values when holding such a great playing hand where the only side queen is in combo with a king.

 

Seems to me that agua's comments violate the principle that shapely hands should describe themselves to balanced ones; seems to me that Phil's example hand is a prime cantidate for asking for a description, hoping to find a C stiff.

 

In the structure I like to use, these Baze bids describe 4M-5m-3-1s. I have other stuff for 4x1s and I use agua's delayed support seq for 6m-4M-2-1s. Now I'm adopting gszes' point that 3N is relatively poor M, so 4M is relatively good M, both with spread-out values (I'm usually asking about the stiff with any Jxx and with Qxx maximums; I'm assuming P is on an excellent 12ish+; if I hold weak opposite the short, and a fitting honor in the m, let's go). I'm a happy guy.

[Phil]

Yes, I can read. Did you notice that I was saying ours doesn't? Or that I was responding to your question?

 

the answwer was, that whatever 3H shows or denies, opener can show his stuff.

 

You can read fine, but I don't think your posts relating to what you play are particularly relevant because they don't answer the the question the OP asked.

[aguahombre]

ok...then I will answer by saying I would bid 4D, the KQXX suit and not ask for his shortness...the same bid I would make if I didn't know he had shortness.