How to know to look for slam

[spadebaby]

I bid 4s and made 7.

Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

 

Here is what I had:

 

S:AK10xxx

H; A2

D:A

C:Q642

 

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4. My thinking was he had 3 heart support and 6-10 points.

At most we had 27 points.

But he had a void in Clubs....which really made the difference.

 

I say that there is no possible way I could have known that. Or is there??

 

Thanks

[Bbradley62]

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4.

You mean that you opened 1♠, partner raised to 2♠ and you bid 4♠?

[spadebaby]

yes. I apologize I was not clear on that.

 

I opened 1S, partner answered 2 s, and I went right to 4s.

 

No interference from opponents

[Trinidad]

I bid 4s and made 7.

Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

Tell him ... he should have led a trump.

 

But seriously, there was nothing really wrong with your 4♠ bid. You cannot always bid every slam that happens to be in the cards.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

What was his hand ? it's possible the void would mean he should have done more than bid 2♠.

 

I would have made a try for a slam, xxxx, Kxxx, xxxxx, void is enough to make 6 decent (and 7 on a non trump lead), Qxx, xxx, xxx, AK10x is a good 6 (and good 7♣) on a flat hand.

 

Not sure if you've come across splinters yet, but either 3♣ (long suit game try) if you play that, or 4♦ splinter (showing a singleton or void) would be my choice.

[spadebaby]

Thanks for the input.

 

If I remember correctly his void was in clubs....which suited me just fine.

Couldn't have worked out better.

 

And yes, I could not figure out how I could have known that.

 

No, I have not come across splinters yet. Will look them up.

[ggwhiz]

Very true that you can't bid them all but if you go slower by reason of all those controls you have a chance and it costs nothing as you do it below game.

 

A long suit game try is the starting point, 3♣ here but many responders will just jump to game with an acceptance and you should have a discussion on what other bids mean ie for us after 3♣, 3♦/♥ means I'm accepting the game try with help in the red suit I bid (if that helps). I may or may not have club help as well but I'll cue them if I do and you give me room to tell you.

 

We also play that 2nt after the raise asks responder to bid suits they can help with high cards up the line IF they are accepting the game try. None of this is mainstream and whatever you decide will lead to some squirrely auctions that only improve your chances a bit.

[Trinidad]

Thanks for the input.

 

If I remember correctly his void was in clubs....which suited me just fine.

Couldn't have worked out better.

 

And yes, I could not figure out how I could have known that.

 

No, I have not come across splinters yet. Will look them up.

Splinter bids are very useful... but only if you understand why they are useful.

 

In general, my advice is to play for a long time (several years) with only three conventions:

- Stayman

- Blackwood

- Takeout double of their opening bid in a suit

 

These conventions are easy to learn and easy to remember. You will do very well with only those. Playing like that teaches you how to bid properly and after a while you will see where you as a pair experience problems.

 

Make a list with those problems. You will see that these problems are not new. Other pairs have had them too and solutions are available in the form of conventions.

 

When your "frustration list" is long enough (about 15 problems identified) prioritize your frustrations. Do something about the most frustrating problems. You can ask others for help or you can search the internet (e.g. BBO). You will be most motivated to learn and understand new conventions when they get rid of a frustration.

 

I would say that splinters are not solving the biggest frustration on your list. Furthermore, this particular situation is not a simple splinter situation, this is a complicated splinter situation. (The simple splinters are in response to an opening bid. Here, Cyberyeti is talking about an autosplinter as opener's rebid. Those are advanced splinters. Don't start on saltos before you can do the somersaults.)

 

When I learned to play bridge, our bridge teacher adviced us not to learn any conventions other than the three I mentioned. After two and a half years, the frustration just got too big and we started adding conventions. But decades later, I am still grateful for the advice. In those two and a half years my partner (now my wife) and I really learned how to bid.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Natural bidding:

 

1♠ (I have a spade suit and opening values) -

 

2♠ (I have a fit for your spades and 6-10 HCP and 8 or 9 losers per the Losing Trick Count*) -

 

3♣ (I need a little help in clubs) -

 

3♠ - sorry, can't help you

 

4♠ - if you'd had help I'd be looking for slam.

 

Or, as your partner would actually have bid:

 

4♠ (I can deal with your clubs problem) -

 

Now you can take another shot. Blackwood would be okay on this hand, particularly Roman Keycard Blackwood if you play that.

 

* The Losing Trick Count (LTC) is another method of hand evaluation. It's a bit more complex than Point Count, and has its own idiosyncrasies, but it's worth learning at some point (though perhaps not right away). Its application to this hand is that you have 4 1/2 losers, so if partner has 8, you have a total of 12 1/2, you subtract that from 24 (never mind why at this point, just do it) and you should be able to take 11 or 12 tricks. Since partner has a void, he actually might well have fewer than 8 losers, so slam is even more likely (other things being equal of course). BTW, a minimum opening hand is normally 7 losers. You have a far better hand than that.

[spadebaby]

WOW

 

Thanks to everyone for all your input and advice.

 

I greatly appreciate your sharing your time and knowledge.

 

My mentor recently said that keeping it simple and getting

good at the basics is more important than learning each and every new

convention out there Can only get you more confused...and that was happening

for me. Glad to see it reinforced here.

 

 

Is there any specific book that teaches the intricacies of the takeout double?

[blackshoe]

Is there any specific book that teaches the intricacies of the takeout double?

The Complete Book of Takeout Doubles, by Mike Lawrence. Be advised there's an awful lot of stuff in there, some of which is stuff novices shouldn't be getting into just yet. However, it is, IMO, the best book on takeout doubles ever written. B-)

[Lovera]

I bid 4s and made 7.

Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

 

Here is what I had:

 

S:AK10xxx

H; A2

D:A

C:Q642

 

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4. My thinking was he had 3 heart support and 6-10 points.

At most we had 27 points.

But he had a void in Clubs....which really made the difference.

 

I say that there is no possible way I could have known that. Or is there??

 

Thanks

Your hand is about limit 2 clubs declaration:i suggest you to read "The complete Stayman systeme of conctract bidding" and learn his method of valutation of the hand; see also sites of A. Agumperez about research of slam (very interesting and reading more time).(Lovera)

[ahydra]

I suspect partner should have bid more than 2S, holding support + a club void? Can we see his hand?

 

Not playing splinters I think just bidding 4S is fine. Playing splinters I would bid 4D.

 

ahydra

[Lovera]

ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY 'OF SLAM. Before a slam can be declared, there must be a decision by the couple to move beyond the heats. There are countless ways in which it can 'derive a slam, but the main lure is madre from awareness, at some point in the auction, which It has been proved sufficient force to put the couple in the slam or close to it. As the auction unfolds, there will be a phase in which one of the players can determine: 1) that a slam is impossible; 2) that a slam is improbable 3) that a slam is probable; 4) that a slam is absoluty certain.(.. Stayman sistema.. pagg. 296 and 297).

[akwoo]

Let me first say that I think this is already an Intermediate/Advanced level problem. For a Beginner/Novice, bidding 4♠ is fine. Half of my local club (some of whom have been playing 30 or 40 years) wouldn't do better. One can certainly occasionally win a club game without being able to better than bidding 4♠ on this hand.

 

What you should be doing when partner bids 2♠ is to look at your hand and try to imagine if partner can have hands opposite which you should bid slam. Here, you should be in 6♠ if partner has

 

♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx

 

or

 

♠Qxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣AKx (EDIT: Actually, for a declarer who won't figure out the extra chance of a ♥/♣ squeeze when neither black suit splits, missing slam on this isn't so bad.)

 

or

 

♠xxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxxx ♣x

 

or any of a number of other hands consistent with the 2♠ response.

 

If you need the perfect fitting maximum hand from partner to make slam, it's generally not worth going for. Here, you can make slam opposite most maximums holding a club control and even some well-fitting minimums, so it should be worth trying to find it.

 

Now that you have figured out that it's worth trying for slam in some way, you need to figure out a way of finding out if partner has the kind of hand you need.

 

Blackwood won't do the job, because the K♣, or even a singleton club with other extras, is worth about the same as the A♣. Hence you need some sort of control showing (aka cue bidding) sequence.

 

What you do over 2♠ now depends on your agreements. If you bid a new suit now, that is universally a game try of some kind. If you keep bidding over partner's response of 3♠ or 4♠ to the game try, then your original game try bid gets re-interpreted as a slam try of some sort. The question is how this is re-interpreted, and this depends on partnership agreements.

 

If it is re-interpreted as control showing, then you should bid 3♥ over 2♠. You should then bid diamonds over partner's response. This shows controls in both ♥ and ♦. Partner should understand that you want to bid slam if he or she has a good hand with a control in ♣.

 

If it is re-interpreted as weakness showing, then you should bid 3♣ over 2♠. You should again bid diamonds over partner's response. This would show a control in ♦, a problem in ♣, and interest in slam if partner covers the problem. Partner should again understand what to do.

 

(Then there is the possibility that you have agreed to play game tries that show shortness. That's another approach that will change what the re-interpretations of your game try will be and again change what your bids would be.)

[Lovera]

ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY 'OF SLAM. Before a slam can be declared, there must be a decision by the couple to move beyond the heats. There are countless ways in which it can 'derive a slam, but the main lure e'data from awareness, at some point in the auction, which It has been proved sufficient force to put the couple in the slam or close to it. As the auction unfolds, there will be a phase in which one of the players can determine: 1) that a slam and 'impossible; 2) that a slam and 'uncertain; 3) that a slam and 'probable; 4) that a slam and 'absoluty certain.(.. Stayman sistema.. pagg. 296 and 297)

This knowledge can occur immediately prior to the declaration or, later, during the bidding process. When the slam will only depend on the strength, a simple arithmetic calculation, made at the beginning of the auction, it will be enough to determine whether it is appropriate or not the search for a slam. On the other hand if you slam depends, as well as distributional factors, including the high cards, the awareness of the possibility of slam can come out ahead in the second or third round of bidding. To this point, for the first time, the prospects for slam proved by the discovery of some distributional factor, which had been hitherto unknown (pag. 297).

[Fluffy]

The best advice I can give you: when you have found a fit and you have an unbalanced hand, forget about high card points, they are not a good meassurement of how many tricks you make. Your next step would be to count losers I guess, but later on you can just imagine partner's hand and calculate how many tricks you make.

[Lovera]

In order to reach a slam in a trump sui,the couple must have a good method to determine the extent to which it exercises control in all suits.There are two techniques generally adopted for this purpose. The first method 'called "direct or conventional, the second" indirect or cue-bidding. "The indirect method employs statements that show the controls of the hand are able to make the first or second round in a suit . Ordinarily, the cue- bid 'started after agreement was reached on the suit in which the contract will be played. (..) The first cue-bid has several functions: 1) states that the registrant has an ace or a chicane in the suit bid, 2) says that manche is sure and that it is worth probing for the slam, 3) urges the partners to continue further with the cue-bids, even if he wishes to show slam interest, or return immediately if not agreed in suit for it has no optimism. Conventional method 'used only when the conduct of the slam depends on the number of Aces and Kings owned by the couple.

[gszes]

One of the first steps is to realize hand potential---your 1s opening bid

is fine but look at what happens when your partner bids 2s. You correctly

identified the probability that your combined assets were worth a game bid

and that is a good start. Next you need to imagine if there might be more

and if there is more how do you find the information you need.

 

After you see the 2s bid how would you feel about being in slam if p held

as little as xxxx Kxxx xxx Kx??? That holding (and many similar) can be

readily explored using a help suit game try of 3c. If your partner does not

like the 3c bid and tries to sign off in 3s you can simply bid 4s and forget

about slam.

 

It is too large of a topic to cover here but I can at least offer some

suggestion as to how your current bidding might have allowed your side to

reach slam---

1s 2s

3c 4d A cue bid and a really great hand opposite 3c (within the limits of 2s

anyway)

4n 5c (0 or 3)

6s

 

The largest inference is that responder is relatively short in clubs as they

could have bid 4c to show a "doublefit" and they would consider a really great

hand with (relative) club shortness only of they held 4 or more trumps which gives

us a ten card trump fit and so we need not worry about the trump queen so much.

 

This is one example how HSGT can be used to search for slam also not limited to

getting to game. Keep up the good work and if the opps felt you should bid slam

it might be a good idea to ask them (after the game) how the hand could be bid

better since they are taking at least a modest interest in your learning but leaving

it up to you to pursue the knowledge.

[Interrobng]

This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

 

I am a beginner, and in my life I think I might have used cue bids once. My impression was that cue bids generally show control. So, if I open 1S, partner responds 2S, and I realize slam is a possibility, on the given hand I might have bid 3D (had I remembered that cue bids exist). That would have said two things: I can't control clubs, and I can control diamonds.

 

I have never before heard of using a cue bid to ask if partner can help with a suit, as earlier responders have recommended.

 

When does a cue bid show weakness in a suit, and when does it show strength in a suit?

 

Thanks very much!

 

RobR

[EricK]

This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

 

I am a beginner, and in my life I think I might have used cue bids once. My impression was that cue bids generally show control. So, if I open 1S, partner responds 2S, and I realize slam is a possibility, on the given hand I might have bid 3D (had I remembered that cue bids exist). That would have said two things: I can't control clubs, and I can control diamonds.

 

I have never before heard of using a cue bid to ask if partner can help with a suit, as earlier responders have recommended.

 

When does a cue bid show weakness in a suit, and when does it show strength in a suit?

 

Thanks very much!

 

RobR

To make a slam in a suit requires three things: Good trumps, good controls, and enough tricks.

 

Good trumps are important because, for example, if you get to slam on a suit like Axxx opposite xxxx, then you will definitely go down, or with Axxxx opposite xxxx you will often go down no matter what you have in the rest of the hand.

 

Controls are important because you don't want the opponents to cash two Aces, or the Ace King of a suit.

 

But even if you have great trumps and lots of controls, you still need to find 12 tricks! eg ♠AKxx ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx opposite ♠QJxx ♥Kxx ♦Axx ♣Axx has great trumps and loads of controls and still only makes 10 tricks most of the time.

 

When partner has supported your suit with some sort of limit bid (eg 1♠ 3♠, or 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♥) you generally have a reasonable idea of whether 12 tricks is a plausible target. So slam bidding becomes a matter of determining whether you have good enough trumps, and sufficient controls. This is why one of the most common approaches to slam bidding involves the partners cooperatively cue-bidding suits with controls to ensure there is no suit uncontrolled; allied with some sort of Blackwood to determine if the trumps and good enough, and there aren't 2 Aces missing.

 

Game in a suit, on the other hand, does not require so much. You don't need great trumps; you don't need every suit controlled; in fact, if it looks like you have the playing strength for ten tricks, then you are best off just bidding game and hoping you can set up and make your ten tricks before the opposition can make four. However, a lot of the time, whether the two hands have the combined playing strength for ten tricks depends on how well they fit together. A common way of finding out is bidding a suit in which you need help, and allowing partner to make the decision. This is generally known as a 'trial bid'.

 

If you are the responder, how can you tell whether partner is showing a control or asking for help? If you are in a game forcing situation, then partner's bid must be looking for a slam, and so is a control. If you are already at the 3 level, then partner's bid effectively forces you to game, so again it is a control bid. However, if there is still room for the partnership to subside in 3 of the major, then responder should initially assume it is a trial bid asking for help with a view to seeing if the hands fit well enough for game. I say 'initially assume', because if opener is slam interested he can start with a trial bid and then bid on even if partner tries to sign off at the 3 level.

[Mbodell]

When does a cue bid show weakness in a suit, and when does it show strength in a suit?

 

A cue bid essentially always shows strength/control in the suit. A common agreement is the strength should be either first or second round control. That is either the A, or the K, or a void or a stiff. Further, if the suit is one partner has shown in the auction, then you only cue strength, not shortness, so just the A or K are shown. By cue bidding like this you are helping to figure out if there is a suit where you will lose 2 tricks in it off the go and hence you can't make slam. If partner skips cue bidding a suit, and you can't cue bid the suit, you know that game is the limit on the hand. But you usually only make cue bids when you are in an auction that is forcing to game and investigating slam.

 

The 3♣ bid as sort of "showing weakness" over the 1♠-2♠ auction isn't a cue bid. Commonly a new suit after a bid and simple raise of a major is some sort of game try in that suit. The most natural game try is a long suit game try, saying this is my second suit, can you help me in this suit. Exactly what holdings make a game try in that suit and what holdings from partner are good can be a little ambiguous and depend on partnership agreements and style.

 

Note that these game tries are called game tries because they are 95+% about deciding between a part score and a game. It is only occasionally that they might get used to decide between a game and a slam. So how should partner respond to 1♠-2♠-3♣? As follows (the 2♠ bidder should be between a good 5 to a bad 10 count so minimum, maximum, and medium are in terms of that range):

 

If you are a maximum and you have help for clubs, cue bidding a suit between 3♠ and 4♠ (not including spades!), as a way to accept the game try. If you can't cue or don't want to, at least bid game.

 

If you are a maximum and you don't have help for clubs, just bid game.

 

If you are a medium hand and you have help for clubs, just bid game.

 

If you are a medium hand and you don't have help for clubs, if you have help for a suit between this one and trump (so the red suits on this auction), bid the cheapest such suit at the 3 level. This is a counter-game try saying "I can't accept your help suit game try in clubs, but I can accept it in this suit".

 

If you are a medium hand and you don't have help for clubs and you don't have help for any suit between the help suit and trump, just bid trump at the 3 level (this is unlikely to happen in the 1♠-2♠-3♣ auction, but in a 1♠-2♠-3♦ auction you might have club help, but you know that is no good because partner didn't ask for help in clubs).

 

If you are a minimum hand, just decline the try and bid 3 of the trump suit (spades in this example). If you are a minimum with help you'll probably even make the contract.

 

So the 95% of the time that your partner does this they'll pass any game or signoff you make and reevaluate if you make a counter-try or cue bid. But a small percentage of the time they were trying for slam and will correct your 3 level signoff to the 4 level and investigate slam over your more positive responses. Note confusingly sometimes people will call this 4♠ bid a slam try (in the auction 1♠-2♠-3♣-3♠-4♠), but really it isn't a slam try but instead is placing the contract and revealing that the 3♣ bid was a slam try that you've already turned down.

[Winstonm]

I'd really like to know your partner's hand as your bidding was fine but his/hers may have been less than good. A void with 4 trumps is pretty powerful at times. Most likely your hands simply fit perfectly and there is no way to know that in the bidding UNLESS partner can make a stronger bid than 2S.

 

A fairly reasonable rule of thumb is that an auction that begins with a simple raise will almost never produce slam - this hand looks like the exception. Oh, well, no rule of thumb is perfect.

[Interrobng]

Many thanks to those who took the time to reply in detail to my question about cue bidding. Those were very helpful posts.

 

RobR

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm makes a good point. A slam after 1M-2M raise is a rare event. For that very reason, a slam try following such a sequence shows a rather special hand. So, rare it may be, but it can be catered for.

 

It may not be the place for this sub-forum, but a new suit following 1M-2M raise could be, with partnership agreement, one of two hand types: A game try or a slam try. And the hand types could vary depending on which of these options he holds. That does not initially matter, because the new suit is a forcing bid, and clarification can follow later. You assume the weaker option initially (ie game try) and bid on that assumption. If partner happens to have the slam try then that will be confirmed. So you bid on the assumption that partner had only a game try for his bid of the suit, and that bid might (by agreement) indicate weakness.

 

If accepting the game try, and you wish to be sophisticated, you could build in some continuations that preserve bidding space to cater for the unlikely event that partner had the slam try possibility. This risks giving additional information to the defenders when the practical reality is that it is very unlikely that partner had the slam try for which such additional information would be of value. That level of complexity is not appropriate here. Indeed there is a strong argument that sophisticated methods have no net benefit here: a low frequency of value and a high frequency of redundant information given to the opponents.

 

All that having been said, it is quite common for a new suit to show (initially) a *game* try asking for help in the suit, and then later, when showing a slam try, clarifying that that the earlier bid was a strength-showing control.