Sign-off or one more try ?

[CSGibson]

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 :(.

 

I've played Aces scientific for a few years now. My 4M bid over the shortage showing bid simply says that my hand will not accept a slam try opposite any specific shortage, which is clear to me - I am not cooperating. The purpose of this, as Adam said, is to avoid telling the opening leader where partner's shortage is on a hand where I was not cooperating anyway. If partner still has another try opposite a hand like that, then he can go on.

[awm]

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 ?

 

Both seem mediocre. The first needs diamond finesse and a spade break, or some minor suit squeeze with a spade break. The second needs diamonds splitting with some additional luck. I agree the second is marginally better, but its not a big difference and I'm not prepared to bid past 4S in hope of such a hand regardless of shortness.

[sathyab]

Both seem mediocre. The first needs diamond finesse and a spade break, or some minor suit squeeze with a spade break. The second needs diamonds splitting with some additional luck. I agree the second is marginally better, but its not a big difference and I'm not prepared to bid past 4S in hope of such a hand regardless of shortness.

 

What additional luck are you talking about ? Yes ♦ need to break 3-2 if we're missing the Jack. You need two ♣ ruffs in dummy. You will be chalking up a lot of 480's and 680's if you keep waiting for better odds.

 

BTW, notice that neither hand can make a move if you sign-off. Also in terms of source of tricks 4144 are the worst. No reason why partner can not have Axxx Axx Axxxx x, again a hand that is pretty hard to make a move opposite a sign-off. Of course the pat answer is "partner is not barred from making a move" just because you sign-off. My problem is that my partners do have hands like KQxx QJx Qx KQJx for a sign-off.

[Flem72]

My problem is that my partners do have hands like KQxx QJx Qx KQJx for a sign-off.

 

Well, that is a problem, but maybe the more fundamental issue is opening that hand 1SNT to start the ball rolling. What is that, 13.5? Just saying.

[Flem72]

BTW, notice that neither hand can make a move if you sign-off. Also in terms of source of tricks 4144 are the worst. No reason why partner can not have Axxx Axx Axxxx x, again a hand that is pretty hard to make a move opposite a sign-off.

 

Different stuff for the 4x1s. If you're 5-4-3-1, 1N-2C//2S-3H//4S-5C//?

 

That's like a 15ish playing strength hand, and I'm telling P that I have 5-level safety opposite a non-fit SNT.

[sathyab]

Well, that is a problem, but maybe the more fundamental issue is opening that hand 1SNT to start the ball rolling. What is that, 13.5? Just saying.

Sure everybody talks about K&R value of these kinds of hands. But that's all very nice when you're a commentator on VuGraph. In reality very few players including those same commentators do anything different than count 16 HCP and open 1nt.

[lalldonn]

I think it's worth trying opposite short clubs for sure. The 4441 examples are fine but other shapes are better like 4351 or even a club void and two aces. And can't partner even have like the heart queen on top of the 3 aces like Axxx AQxx Axxx x? He describes his hand and we sign off, why would he move? For all he knows our spades are bad and 5 isn't safe. Also note we could cuebid over 4♣ so we aren't forcing past 4 anyway, and if he has more than the worst part of his range he can move. It's not like partner isn't aware that 4441 is his worst shape.

 

Opposite short diamonds I would sign off. We have a lot of wastage but it's worth noting how good it is that's our longest side suit. But to me there is too much chance of a slow club loser on top of the other chances we would be taking.

 

Opposite short hearts we have less wastage but duplicated shortness. We might also have that potential club loser. I would just sign off there too.

 

There is more to look at than whether 100% of our hand is outside the splinter suit (if it is we should probably just bid RKC almost all the time). We also look at our shape, whether we are min or max, and how useful our outside cards are. Opposite short clubs we have a wasted king but 13 points that all look like they are working really well.

[Phil]

Both seem mediocre. The first needs diamond finesse and a spade break, or some minor suit squeeze with a spade break. The second needs diamonds splitting with some additional luck. I agree the second is marginally better, but its not a big difference and I'm not prepared to bid past 4S in hope of such a hand regardless of shortness.

 

Flem reminded me that this sequence implies 5431 as well.

[phil_20686]

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?

 

I know he has a shortage, obviously in some sense a diamond shortage is worse than a heart or club shortage, but most of the time when partner chooses to show shortage he has some 4(315) type hand here. 4441 is possible obviously, but fairly rare. I just don't really see how I will be better placed finding out about his shortage. I would like to make a very mild slam try, as i have decent values and controls, it feels like if I ask and then cuebid I am coming on pretty strong, can i just bid last train without asking? Would that show a kind of mild try with disparate values?

[gnasher]

Perhaps 3NT should show this hand? You may as well use the extra space for something.

[Phil]

I know he has a shortage, obviously in some sense a diamond shortage is worse than a heart or club shortage, but most of the time when partner chooses to show shortage he has some 4(315) type hand here. 4441 is possible obviously, but fairly rare. I just don't really see how I will be better placed finding out about his shortage. I would like to make a very mild slam try, as i have decent values and controls, it feels like if I ask and then cuebid I am coming on pretty strong, can i just bid last train without asking? Would that show a kind of mild try with disparate values?

 

I suppose you could define 4♥ as that, but it seems more logical to ask for the shortness first, and then last train.

 

Similarly, you could respect partner's last train and sign off after asking.

[sathyab]

Perhaps 3NT should show this hand? You may as well use the extra space for something.

 

Even assuming you wanted to, you couldn't use it when ♥s are trumps. 1nt-2♣-2♥-3♠-, now 3nt is the only asking bid available.

[JustTosh]

4s. Sign off for me. No aces, let's tell pd 4 sp is enough. He could still go on if he's strong enough. Let's say you did ask for shortness. Whatever the answer would be you'd then have to sign off leaving pd with impression he had shortness in the wrong suit. No harm done probably but more accurate to tell pd I don't really care where you've got your singel/void.

[Zelandakh]

Even assuming you wanted to, you couldn't use it when ♥s are trumps. 1nt-2♣-2♥-3♠-, now 3nt is the only asking bid available.

It is possible to rearrange your 1NT responses so that 3♦ is the bid agreeing hearts. Then you have the same extra space with hearts as with spades. Nonetheless Andy's point is still valid; you have extra space after 3♥ with spades agreed as opposed to 3♠ with hearts agreed so it makes sense to use it in some useful way.

[han]

I completely agree with lalldonn, and also with what phil was writing earlier. It seems really obvious to ask for the shortness.

 

If partner shows short clubs, I would bid 4D, but then sign off in 4S if partner bids 4H.

 

If partner shows short diamonds or hearts then I would sign off immediately.

 

Even if partner has the dreadhand that Scottish Phil was talking about then there is not much lost. We will sign off in 4S, and no way will partner act again with that hand.