Out of Control

[twoshy]

I like the idea of bidding 5♠ after partner passes 4♥X. At the table I probably would have bid 5♥ with the partnership understanding being that XX by either partner = 1st round control. Obviously this is not an optimal agreement, but I'd be hopeful of partner understanding 5♥ given this agreement.

[gszes]

after s passes the x of 4h and given the bidding N did not trust south.

There is no reason for south to assume N has KQ of hearts vs say

KJ with the lead going through n at trick 1. S is still interested in slam

and the N hand is essentially a super max. hearts solidly stopped a 5th

spade when promising 4 (egad extra values) and no wasted

spade honors like the Q or J in a ten card + fit. Once p passes

the double of 4h and encourages there is just little reason for

North to not just bid 6s. It is difficult to imagine your hand being

any better. Even w/o detailed bidding it is possible to get to many

good slams and this is one of them if partners trust one another.

 

 

[Zelandakh]

I like the idea of bidding 5♠ after partner passes 4♥X. At the table I probably would have bid 5♥ with the partnership understanding being that XX by either partner = 1st round control. Obviously this is not an optimal agreement, but I'd be hopeful of partner understanding 5♥ given this agreement.

I think 5♥ should show shortage here. This is one of the reasons why I think 5♠ paints such a clear picture of the given hand.

[rmnka447]

Since the bidders are bidding 1st or 2nd round controls, South's failure to initially cue bid 3 ♥ over 3 ♦ marks the hand with at least a doubleton ♥.

 

North should also realize that after the encouraging pass of 4 ♥ doubled that South must have 1st round controls in both minors, otherwise a signoff in 4 ♠ would be appropriate.

 

It should also be apparent that South must hold ♠ K because South could not make any slam try without it.

 

So South is known to have at least something like the following 9 cards --

 

♠ Kxxxx

♥ xx

♦ A

♣ A

 

For South to make a sane slam try, the missing cards must fill in some strong holding in one of the minors. North's minor doubletons are both working and useful opposite whatever minor South must hold. Also, holding the ♠ Axxxx, North knows there are no likely spade losers -- something that South may never be able to visualize.

 

So, North has to make some forward move over the pass rather signoff. Lacking any other agreement other than that Redbl would show the ♥ A, I think the practical bid by North should be 6 ♠. Something like 5 ♥ might show the ♥ KQ, but will South ever be able to infer that North must have the ♠ A to make that bid? It would seem pretty hard to do so. Exactly the same issue/problem exists with a 5 ♠ bid by North.

[MrAce]

Since the bidders are bidding 1st or 2nd round controls, South's failure to initially cue bid 3 ♥ over 3 ♦ marks the hand with at least a doubleton ♥.

 

North should also realize that after the encouraging pass of 4 ♥ doubled that South must have 1st round controls in both minors, otherwise a signoff in 4 ♠ would be appropriate.

 

It should also be apparent that South must hold ♠ K because South could not make any slam try without it.

 

So South is known to have at least something like the following 9 cards --

 

♠ Kxxxx

♥ xx

♦ A

♣ A

 

For South to make a sane slam try, the missing cards must fill in some strong holding in one of the minors. North's minor doubletons are both working and useful opposite whatever minor South must hold. Also, holding the ♠ Axxxx, North knows there are no likely spade losers -- something that South may never be able to visualize.

 

So, North has to make some forward move over the pass rather signoff. Lacking any other agreement other than that Redbl would show the ♥ A, I think the practical bid by North should be 6 ♠. Something like 5 ♥ might show the ♥ KQ, but will South ever be able to infer that North must have the ♠ A to make that bid? It would seem pretty hard to do so. Exactly the same issue/problem exists with a 5 ♠ bid by North.

 

Nice post, i am not sure about the final part though. Upto your definition South also can hold a hand like KQJxx xx AQx AQx where slam is not hopeless but pretty bad. South can also hold KJxxxx xxx AKQ A. Etc etc...I think you are biased by knowing that South has 5-5 hand which in fact North doesn't know and i think Rainer and Andy has valid points about making slam bids differently with bicolor hands by opener and differently with single suited or balanced or semi balanced power house hands. I don't know how they can manage it in different hands but at least thats what i thought they said, i may have gotten it wrong.

[Fluffy]

Nice post, i am not sure about the final part though. Upto your definition South also can hold a hand like KQJxx xx AQx AQx where slam is not hopeless but pretty bad.

I have a good way to evaluate balanced vs balanced hands in slam context: I use my fingers to count to 28 combined (29 at most) and sing off in 4♠.

 

I agree that slam exploration can be improved a lot, specially after a sequence such as this where both 3♥ and 3NT can be used as some form of relays.

[gnasher]

i think Rainer and Andy has valid points about making slam bids differently with bicolor hands by opener and differently with single suited or balanced or semi balanced power house hands. I don't know how they can manage it in different hands but at least thats what i thought they said, i may have gotten it wrong.

3NT initiates cue-bidding, and new suits are natural slam tries. In this sequence you might choose to swap 3♥ and 3NT, so 3NT shows hearts and 3♥ is a general slam try.

[rhm]

... and i think Rainer and Andy has valid points about making slam bids differently with bicolor hands by opener and differently with single suited or balanced or semi balanced power house hands. I don't know how they can manage it in different hands but at least thats what i thought they said, i may have gotten it wrong.

It is a question of hand frequencies and priorities.

Many good players believe the key to successful slam bidding is to understand and use control bidding, at least when asking for keycards will not give you the right answer.

 

Roy Hughes in his book "Building a Bidding System" has a small chapter of 13 pages on slam bidding.

It is worth reading and then reading again, not because it has earth-shattering revolutionary new concepts but because it concisely describes what good slam bidding is about.

For slam to be present you need tricks, good trumps, aces and controls in that priority.

Hughes writes: "A simple answer would be that bidding system should assign the priorities the same way.

First we should see that there are lots of tricks, then we should check on trumps, then on the number of first-round controls, and lastly whether all suits are controlled."

 

I am not biased against control bidding provided the others, but particularly the first priority - tricks - are dealt with reasonably.

 

I cite 2 examples from this book, the first slightly changed by me to be more analogous to the bidding here:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj632h8dak4ckq96&n=skq87hj7d873caj53&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp3dp4cp6cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Tell me how you will find the slam by way of control bidding and yes we have bid the slam on 28 HCP.

 

Another example to think about from the book:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=skq4ha7dakj72ca63&e=sajt83hq63dqtcj82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2np3hp4dp5dp5hp5sp6sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

4♦: superaccept with diamonds

5♦: Help in diamonds

5♥: First round control in case of interest in grand slam

5♠: Nothing more to say

 

Rainer Herrmann