ATB

[mikeh]

I'm wondering whether an adaptatation where you count A/K controls not including K♣ could be more viable. We would give XKC responses with 4♠ interspersed showing that the hand had become really bad, but for us, 4♣ is categorically a void.

I have played methods in which, in sequences in which responder has made a slam-positive move, opener's next bid can be artificial, including showing keycards. This is, it seems to me, useful in some auctions that start, as an example, with 2N, which is very space consuming. So in some auctions, when responder shows a single suited minor as one example, opener's responses are basically step: 1st step no interest, 2nd step interest but mild and steps beyond are strong interest, with keycard responses.

 

The same principle can apply in other auctions.

 

The point is, however, that even when deciding to show keycards, judgment is involved, in that one looks at the totality of one's hand in the context of the auction and decides firstly whether to co-operate and only if one is really interested does one invoke the artificiality. That means that responder can draw some inferences about playing strength beyond the robotic 'I have x keycard' information.

 

I think, iirc, that Aces Scientific used some keycard-showing acceptances of slam try hands as well....my memory may be deceiving me but I think it was in response to some strong responses to a 1N opener. We're going back some 40 years and the methods never caught on.

 

The question, in a splinter context, becomes whether there is room to allow opener to show doubt/dislike and then use higher steps to show information. That would seem to be dependent on how much room there is between the splinter and game. In the OP, with maximal room, one could, I suppose, use 4♦ as negative slam interest, and 4♥ or higher as keycard (or flip 4♦ and 4♠), but obviously the smaller the gap the less useful this would be.

 

If one were going to use this sort of approach, I think it would be better to rework the system, such as, for example, playing that 3♠ over 1N was slamming, as I do in my current partnership....we use 2♣ then 3♠ as the invite with 6+ spades.

 

Then you could build in some science because your auction is much lower. There are other options. However, splinters to the 4-level tend to use up so much space that I doubt that quantitative control showing is superior to specific control showing. It might be interesting to experiment, but frankly slam-bidding isn't, in my view, an area of relative weakness in my partnerships....I'm not claiming we are brilliant, just that (especially at our advanced ages) we have limited resources to spend fine-tuning our methods and other areas need more attention.....for example we have just begun playing t-walsh and muiderberg 2♠. We ain't gonna fix what isn't (as far as we can tell) broken :P

[PhantomSac]

I don't think anyone did anything that bad. I blame south more than north but both splintering and signing off seem like reasonable actions to me.

[MrAce]

I understand your concern, and I have edited my post in response.

 

I know you are a good player, Art. I was surprised with your response. I guessed that you either misread or mistyped the auction, but had I said this earlier it would sound like different (in a negative way) than my intention.

[cherdano]

I wonder whether everyone would bid 4♥ if responder's had was KQJxxx xx AKxx x. (If you don't think this hand is forcing to slam over 4♥, I think you are resulting.)

 

I wonder whether everyone would dislike the splinter if opener's hand had more than 3 hcp in clubs - it will be hard to stop without knowing about the wastage.

 

I hate the splinter by South when you just need working AAK (plus maybe a jack) to make slam - but I don't know a better auction without complicated agreements.

I hate signing off with A AK - but making a positive move is also dangerous, you have a lot of losers in the red suits to cover.

[DAVDJ1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj864hq42dkq83c&n=sa95hakjdj652ck83&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c(Cs%2014%2B%20or%20balanced%2015%2B)p1h(4%2BSs%2C%205%2Bpoints)p1n(15-17%20bal%20without%204S%20%5Bmight%20be%201444%20exactly%5D)p4c(splinter)p4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

After the 1N bid, our system is very basic - checkback stayman with 3 weak TOs at the 2 level, nat at the 3 level. Who erred, and what should they have done differently?

 

(If relevant, we don't play Last Train)

[DAVDJ1]

wothon ypur system, 5D/over 4S will probably get yputp 6S

[mikeh]

I wonder whether everyone would bid 4♥ if responder's had was KQJxxx xx AKxx x. (If you don't think this hand is forcing to slam over 4♥, I think you are resulting.)

 

I wonder whether everyone would dislike the splinter if opener's hand had more than 3 hcp in clubs - it will be hard to stop without knowing about the wastage.

 

I hate the splinter by South when you just need working AAK (plus maybe a jack) to make slam - but I don't know a better auction without complicated agreements.

I hate signing off with A AK - but making a positive move is also dangerous, you have a lot of losers in the red suits to cover.

 

I think you are being unfair.

 

Say I hold your suggested KQJxxx xx AKxx x

 

I splinter. Partner bids 4♥

 

Keycard cannot possibly address my issues. Axx AKJ xxx KQx is just one of the hands on which I would make a move via 4♥ as is the actual hand. IOW, as S with your posited hand I can picture a diamond issue, especially in a method in which my opening is always going to be 1♣ even with 4=2 minors.

 

So I won't keycard....and you, as a long time poster, will know that I don't use keycard as much as most, so I hope you will accept that I wouldn't keycard in real life.

 

I would bid 5♦

 

Opener would bid 5♥

 

I would now bid 5♠ with a clear conscience.

 

I have announced no spade worries....if my only concern were spades, I would have keycarded unless I had a club void. I can't have a club void since I didn't bid 5♣. Therefore my spades are at least KQJxxx.

 

I have a stiff club.

 

I have very little in hearts yet I have slam interest. I lack 4 hearts, since I didn't check back for hearts.

 

My most common shapes are 6=3=3=1 or 6=2=4=1, or hands with 7 spades. 7 card suits are far less frequent than are 6 card suits, even given that 7 card suits may be more slammish than 6 card suits and therefore my slam interest increases the likelihood of a 7 card suit.

 

Since N has Kxx in clubs, he knows we have a club loser. I cannot construct a hand for South on which Jxxx can possibly be a useful holding. I cannot construct a hand on which N will drive to slam on my auction.

 

Now, I admit that if you make N Axx AKx Qxx Kxxx, it is possible that N might swing low and we miss a good slam. However, again.....build hands for S consistent with the auction. Slam interest with a stiff club. No ability to keycard. No heart control. I submit that Qxx(x) with Axx in trump is worth a slam bid, while Jxx or Jxxx isn't. Would we bid this way with KQJxxx Qxx Axx x? No..at least I know I wouldn't. KQJxxx QJx AJx x? maybe but if this is the worst slam we reach we're pretty damn good or too damned conservative.

[rhm]

I don't think anyone did anything that bad. I blame south more than north but both splintering and signing off seem like reasonable actions to me.

I agree with this and I am not convinced that different sequences would likely do better.

Of course when looking at both hands it is almost always possible to construct an alternate sequence leading to a better contract.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

I think you are being unfair.

 

Say I hold your suggested KQJxxx xx AKxx x

 

I splinter. Partner bids 4♥

 

Keycard cannot possibly address my issues. Axx AKJ xxx KQx is just one of the hands on which I would make a move via 4♥ as is the actual hand.

 

Slam is excellent - it makes by force on a heart lead. On a non-heart, barring bad breaks you need the club ace onside or the heart finesse.

 

One hand proves nothing, but it is evidence that Cherdano is right about driving slam. And it even has reasonable play opposite our actual hand.

[1eyedjack]

North had balanced hand - Open 1NT responder transfers with 2H's for Spades then after suit is decidedlevelcan be established

 

When read the OP I naturally assumed that the hand was outside the range for a 1N opener in their methods (from the fact that they did not open 1N on a hand where it would be blindingly obvious if in range).

 

You on the other hand naturally assumed that they were blithering idiots.

 

Not sure that choice of minor opened is consistent with the description "very basic". The "most" basic method would open the longer minor. That might result in a huge change in the way that the auction develops. But that is just fortuitous. I would open 1C if outside range for 1N because I would be playing TWalsh. But that would not be "very basic".

 

 

 

[the hog]

This is so true. It is amazing how many of us missed this simple concept. We need t first recognize a 1NT opening when we see one. Then, Responder has an easy bid to decide that spades are trumps. Once that happens, one of the partners can then establish the level. That makes this problem a ton easier.

 

EDIT: I also agree that this needs to be restated, several times. Good advice is worth repeating! B-)

 

Another amazing comment from Ken Rexford. The 1NT rebid showed 15-17 bal. This indicates that the op was playing a weak NT or a NT out of range. It does not mean that the op cannot recognise a NT hand.. I also feel that neither Sth or Nth did much wrong. Maybe Sth should not splinter with a void and maybe Nth should move anyway, but both of these actions are arguable.

[aguahombre]

post deleted by myself, because I skipped a page; others have mentioned Josh's and Ken's mistake.

[Finch]

Sarcasm in writing often fails.

[Jinksy]

When read the OP I naturally assumed that the hand was outside the range for a 1N opener in their methods (from the fact that they did not open 1N on a hand where it would be blindingly obvious if in range).

 

You on the other hand naturally assumed that they were blithering idiots.

 

Neither precludes the other, of course ;)

 

Not sure that choice of minor opened is consistent with the description "very basic".

 

I said very basic after the 1N bid. I'm quite pleased with much of our 1♣ system, but can't persuade my main partner to play 2-way checkback, which I think would help here.

[Jinksy]

Ken's response made me laugh out loud. Surely 'I also agree that this needs to be restated, several times. Good advice is worth repeating! B-) ' in response to the quadruple post was the final tip-off?

[Trinidad]

Sarcasm in writing often fails.

That's true. However, sarcasm is harder to recognize when it is used inappropriately, as was the case here.

 

Ken's sarcasm towards a BBF rookie was uncalled for. I am sure that Ken didn't realize that he was dealing with a rookie (after all, he had already 4 posts to his name ;) ), but when one decides to use sarcasm, one should perform a couple of checks first. One of them is whether the subject of the sarcasm is a BBF newbie.

 

Rik

[kenrexford]

Lighten up, Francs. (A quote from the movie, Stripes. Seemed fitting. )

[kenrexford]

Another amazing comment from Ken Rexford. The 1NT rebid showed 15-17 bal. This indicates that the op was playing a weak NT or a NT out of range. It does not mean that the op cannot recognise a NT hand.. I also feel that neither Sth or Nth did much wrong. Maybe Sth should not splinter with a void and maybe Nth should move anyway, but both of these actions are arguable.

LOL. Good analysis, Hog. I stand corrected!

[MrAce]

I ♥ this bar http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

[aguahombre]

I ♥ this bar http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

Be right over. Save a seat.