camrose disaster 1

[manudude03]

Just finished the camrose trials here in Northern Ireland, had a terrible end, but managed to scrape through for selection.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=saq862hj9875d4ck6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sd4dp4hp4sp5cp]133|200[/hv]

 

Butler IMPs scoring. Agree with the bidding so far? Do you have enough to bid slam now?

[cherdano]

Yes.

[Cyberyeti]

What are the bounds on your splinter, and what is 4♥ ?

[smerriman]

Non-expert comment follows..

 

Whether 4♥ is last train or not, continuing with 5♣ confirms partner must have a heart and club control.

 

But partner didn't bid Blackwood. The only explanation I can think of is that partner has a heart void. Perhaps KJxxx-void-Axxx-Axxx. In which case I'm not sure we want to be signing off in 6♠.

 

I'll go with 6♣, just in case partner doesn't have the diamond ace, and let him make the final decision.

[manudude03]

What are the bounds on your splinter, and what is 4♥ ?

 

splinter is 9-13, 4H was a cuebid (not last train).

[rmnka447]

Yes, I agree with your bidding so far.

 

Partner has made a move toward slam by showing a ♥ control AND missing ♠ AQ which you hold. The move was made after you Splintered. Partner also made a further move toward slam after you didn't show any interest in slam. There are some inferences you can make from that information.

 

o Likely partner has no wasted values in ♦,

 

o Partner must hold 1st round controls in at least 2 of the side suits, else it would be unlikely partner would continue on over 4 ♠,

 

o Partner has to have ♠ K and very likely ♠ J10 as well because without them there's too much risk of 2 potential ♠ losers to go past 4 ♠,

 

o Partner is likely to have the ♣ A for the 5 ♣ cue. If not, it might a stiff or void with ♦ A and lots of high ♥ because with your splinter, you're likely to have some ♥ length, and,

 

o Partner is not likely to bid beyond 5 ♠ missing the ♠ AQ.

 

In any case, every bid partner has made has made your hand more valuable. So, I think you must carry on past 5 ♠. So, there are really 2 choices, 6 ♣ or just blasting 6 ♠. By not cueing 5 ♦, you deny either a void or stiff ♦ A.

 

 

I'd think seriously about blasting 6 ♠, but in the end would probably bid 6 ♣ which may be useful to partner if has long ♣. It also lets partner potentially try for grand by bidding 6 ♥.

[gszes]

my main concern is that we have a heart loser and the x was BEHIND partner. If p was strong enough for us to make slam they were probably strong enough to rkc over 4d. 5s

[smerriman]

If p was strong enough for us to make slam they were probably strong enough to rkc over 4d.

Just for my interest, what's a possible hand that you think opener has? I tried to find one that fits your description here (one worth a second cuebid but too weak to RKC) but couldn't, so would like to know what you came up with.

[gszes]

Just for my interest, what's a possible hand that you think opener has? I tried to find one that fits your description here (one worth a second cuebid but too weak to RKC) but couldn't, so would like to know what you came up with.

 

Kxxxx(x) AQ(xx) x(xx) AQJ.

[The_Badger]

I can only agree with the bidding if East's hand had been posted - which makes it less of a problem than it already is, I agree. The problem with splinters and control bidding is that they should have definite parameters. Splinters must always be singletons, never a void. Controls after splinters must be first round, not second, etc.

 

I am sorely tempted to bid 6♠ here. And if I do, I don't see the point of mentioning the ♣K en route, and let's face it the opposition have some beans for the X, and rarely are grand slams bid and made when one opponent has an opening hand.

 

However, my big concern here is that partner does not have the ♦A and has ♥Ax and you cannot escape two losers. Let's given him ♠KJxxx ♥Ax ♦KQ ♣AJxx which just about leaves the opponents enough for a double on the first round of bidding.

 

5♠ is wussy; 6♠ just happens to be unlucky...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the question is, why did he bid 5C?

This should indicate a void, ..., otherwise he could go via RKC, 4S told him,

I have a splinter, and nothing more, but he is sill looking for slam.

 

I would bid 5S, denying first round control in diamonds / hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

Hi,

 

the question is, why did he bid 5C?

This should indicate a void, ..., otherwise he could go via RKC, 4S told him,

I have a splinter, and nothing more, but he is sill looking for slam.

 

I would bid 5S, denying first round control in diamonds / hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

The inference of a void is valid, do you think his void is in clubs ? much more likely to be in hearts, now my hand is very suitable, his hand can be as bad as KJ10xxx, void, xxx, Axx and slam is fine, add frosting cards to make his hand worth his bidding.

[Tramticket]

the question is, why did he bid 5C?

This should indicate a void

 

The inference of a void is valid, do you think his void is in clubs ? much more likely to be in hearts

 

I agree with Cyberyeti that a void in hearts this is a likely hand type. The other main reason for choosing to cue-bid rather than ask for aces might be that partner is not worried about the number of controls, but is worried about the number of tricks. If this is the case then (in the context of previously signing off) our hand is very good and the fifth spade is a big card.

 

Either way I would bid 6♠

[mikeh]

I think that some posters are over-thinking this hand, worrying about what partner may have for his bidding. There are times when that approach is valid, but I don't see this as one of them, at least not in terms of drawing firm conclusions. As is often the case, this auction has taken the form of a dialogue or conversation, and we are now being asked to assess our hand in light of how that conversation has gone, particularly in light of what we have said ourselves.

 

So where are we at?

 

We have shown, firstly, a hand with 11-13 hcp, 4+ trump and a stiff diamond (I assume we might have held a void, but we haven't shown one).

 

Over this partner made a call that is a clear slam move....4♥.

 

 

In response to that, we told him that we had a hand that was unsuitable for slam...that we were not interested in going beyond 4♠. It doesn't matter if we, the audience here, agrees or disagrees with that view....that is the information we conveyed to partner.

 

What did partner do after we denied any interest in slam?

 

He bid 5♣: a further slam move made in the face of our denial of interest. He is asking us, begging us, to take another look and to indicate where we see our hand within the field of hands that have no slam interest over a 4♥ cue

 

Within that context we have, I think, an enormous hand. We have the absolutely perfect club holding....when combined with our AQxxx in spades (when we might have Axxx or AQxxx), Kx is a wonderful holding.

 

Not driving to slam here is an insult to partner, regardless of what his actual hand may be. He has asked us a question, to which the answer is an overwhelming 'yes'. If slam is poor, he doesn't have his bid. He already knows, for example, that we won't have something like AQxx Kxxx x Kxxx, since with that we would have moved over 4♥.

 

Within the context of the hands we have shown, by rejecting the initial try, we have a wonderful hand, and signing off again is silly.

 

It is possible, although I by no means assume it, that he holds something like KJ10xxx void Axxx Axx, opposite which grand is pretty good. He might have an even better hand....KJxxxx void Axx AQxx

 

Again, there is no need to construct hands here....just consider how the conversation has gone. We have limited our hand within a narrow range: we have shown an unsuitable for slam 11-13 hcp with short diamonds. How can it hurt to cue 6♣ here? Answer: it can't. We deny a heart control, we confirm the stiff diamond, and we announce that we now see our hand as slam suitable opposite a hand that can make another try after we signed off....and we are not rejecting grand should partner have interest.

[P_Marlowe]

The inference of a void is valid, do you think his void is in clubs ? much more likely to be in hearts, now my hand is very suitable, his hand can be as bad as KJ10xxx, void, xxx, Axx and slam is fine, add frosting cards to make his hand worth his bidding.

For us, the first Cue, would show an honor, his first cue was hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

For us, the first Cue, would show an honor, his first cue was hearts.

 

For us not, but if you bypass a void you're risking having to guess and you might not always have enough extras to go beyond 4♠, so you will miss a slam because neither has partner and there's nothing wasted in hearts.

[mikeh]

I find it a bit strange that so many posters are reading inferences into partner's failure to use keycard: it suggests that these players don't understand the limitations of keycard or the benefits of cue-bidding.

 

Using keycard is advisable when one knows that the values are there for slam but are interested in staying out of slam if missing too many keycards/trump queen or are interested in grand...either because one can count 13 winners (or near enough) or because one wants to involve partner in the grand decision (by rebidding 5N or by making an asking bid at the 6 level) and so on. It is NOT the only way to bid slam when one lacks a void.

 

Indeed, I think most advancing players would benefit a lot were they to agree that for at least 6 months they would not use any ace-asking bids at all. I'm not denying the utility of keycard, but I am very confident that most non-expert players would see their slam bidding improve significantly when they ended that period...they'd be bidding an increased number of good contracts without ever keycarding.

 

Here, responder has limited his hand, in terms of hcp, but there may be features about his hand, other than keycards or the spade Queen, that are important to judging the final contract. As one example, the responding hand is far better than AQxx Jxxxx x Kxx, which is the same honour holding, but clearly not only a trick worse, in winner count, but a loser worse in loser count.

 

Or AQxxx Jxxx x Kxx: now the same winner count but an extra loser count.

 

Imagine opener with KJxxxx A xxx Axx, an example chosen to illustrate the point.

 

Opposite our actual hand, slam is essentially cold. Opposite AQxxx Jxxx x Kxx, it has essentially no play. I invite those who argue that partner 'must have a void because he did not use keycard' to explain to me how they and their favourite partner would know to bid slam on the first one and stay out on the second, were opener to have used keycard.

 

Make opener KJxxxx A Axx Axx and now the issue is grand or small, and keycard is not exactly optimal on this either.

 

Now, can I always get to the right spot by cuebidding? I don't claim infallibility, but I do think cuebidding helps, especially if the cuebidding can start below game.

 

This is because I play what I think is a fairly common, and perhaps even 'standard' approach. A cuebid below game does not mandate that partner HAS to cuebid back. Partner is expected to cuebid (or use last train, if that is available and appropriate) only if partner likes his hand within the context of the auction so far. Responder is allowed not to cuebid, even if the cuebid is convenient, if he is minimum or his hand is otherwise unsuitable for slam in the context of what he has already promised.

 

Cuebids beyond game, on the other hand, impose an obligation on partner to cuebid in response, if possible.

 

This allows opener to invite partner to be an intelligent participant in the conversation about level, rather than a robot answering questions where the answers may leave the asker guessing.

 

Here, opener has cuebid 4♥ which does far more than simply show a heart control. It does more than invite slam: it asks responder to express an opinion as to how slam suitable his hand is, within the context of the auction.

 

Then responder says: no, my hand doesn't look good for slam.

 

And opener says: ok, but even so I am still interested and here is the club Ace...what do you think now, given that you know I don't expect much from you?

 

Now, maybe with AQxxx Jxxx x Kxx I will still push, but maybe not. That heart jack is wasted, and so likely is the spade Queen. Compare to Axxxx xxxx x KQx: that second hand is better than the hand I actually hold. I can't be objective about what I would do with the AQxxx Jxxx x Kxx hand, since I have made up the opener's hand such that slam fails when he holds KJxxxx A xxx Axx and grand fails when he has KJxxxx void Axxx Axx. But I do not, without hesitation, that the actual hand would get me bidding 6♣ over 5♣ and I'd bid grand if partner made another move, which he might well do with the 6=0=4=3 hand....he is hoping I hold Axxx(x) in spades and 3rd round club control.

 

I mentioned in my first post that I thought it to be an error for posters to try to picture opener's hand due to the failure to use keycard. I thought I'd add some expansion about that. Note that there are other hand-types, beyond a heart void or stiff Ace, wherein keycard would be useless while cuebidding might be helpful. Opener might, for example, hold Ax in hearts and be hoping at some point to pry a heart cue out of responder......KJxxxx Ax xxx AQx hoping to catch us with Axxx Kxx x Kxx rather than AQxx QJx x Kxx Try using keycard to tell the difference such that one stops in 5♠ opposite the 'stronger' hand and reaches slam opposite the 'weaker' hand.

[smerriman]

I find it a bit strange that so many posters are reading inferences into partner's failure to use keycard: it suggests that these players don't understand the limitations of keycard or the benefits of cue-bidding.

Apologies if I shouldn't have been posting in this forum. I did mention it was a non-expert comment; I concluded a void not because cuebidding guarantees one but because I couldn't think of another hand opener could have when cuebidding would be more beneficial.

 

In particular, I was thinking of opener having something like your last example, but where I have the heart king and not the spade ace - I cuebid 5♥ and we reach a slam missing two aces.

 

But obviously it's all based on some risk and I now see there are cases where cuebidding might be more useful than Blackwood. Thanks.

[cherdano]

Apologies if I shouldn't have been posting in this forum. I did mention it was a non-expert comment; I concluded a void not because cuebidding guarantees one but because I couldn't think of another hand opener could have when cuebidding would be more beneficial.

 

In particular, I was thinking of opener having something like your last example, but where I have the heart king and not the spade ace - I cuebid 5♥ and we reach a slam missing two aces.

 

But obviously it's all based on some risk and I now see there are cases where cuebidding might be more useful than Blackwood. Thanks.

No reason to apologise - quite a few posters thought this must show a void. This would, indeed, be true opposite many non-expert partners; and that's why discussing it here is useful!

 

Meanwhile, thanks to Mike for saving me quite some time, and writing the post I meant to write much better than I would have.

[mikeh]

 

 

In particular, I was thinking of opener having something like your last example, but where I have the heart king and not the spade ace - I cuebid 5♥ and we reach a slam missing two aces.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand this part of your post. BTW, the last example I gave for opener contained 14 cards...I typed one too many x's in the spade suit. It ought to have been KJxxx Ax xxx AQx and I gave as the example he might have been seeking Axxx Kxxx x Kxxx (I made up for the extra x in opener's hand by omitting two in responder's, lol...that last paragraph was a last minute addition and I didn't proof read it.

 

So I gave responder the heart K and the spade Ace, so am unsure what you meant.

 

However, assuming that we can construct a hand with no spade Ace and the heart K, let's see what happens.

 

Say Qxxxx Kxx x KQxx

 

Let's assume that this is a splinter....

 

Certainly this is a very slam unsuitable hand in context...not an Ace to be seen and minimum or sub-minimum hcp. Clearly we bid 4S

 

Now partner, with KJxxxx A xxx Axx decides to bid again: he trots out 5C and, as per my 'rule' for cuebidding, we have to own up to the heart King, via 5H.

 

I know of no rule that makes this a force to slam. We still have crap, and our 5H call doesn't change that...we were obliged to cue over 5C. We still have 'crap' if we make it Qxxx KQx x KQxxx, since we have no Aces.

 

More to the point, even if we were to occasionally misbid to a hopeless slam, that is no reason for opener to (mis) use keycard when he knows, at the point of bidding 4N, that the answer can't help him know what to do.

 

Partner has an easy 5S call. That says, in the conversational mode that I think to be an essential element of how to understand bidding: I had a slam try even tho you denied interest.....but my hand isn't good enough to force to slam merely because you have the heart King. Take a look.....how does your hand look compared to what you've shown? If you love your hand, in context, bid slam...otherwise feel free to pass.

 

We look at our hand and still see no aces! We still see a pile of crap with not one scintilla of value that we didn't already show.

 

I defy anyone to construct a hand for opener on which he would properly bid 5S and slam is good.

 

I think this thread is very useful. I admit that it pushes a button for me, in the sense that I think that the conversational approach to understanding bidding is a technique that can be very powerful, and yet I have never seen any teacher expound upon it. The most powerful aspect of it is the repeated caution to view one's hand 'in context', as in...'given what I've said so far, here's what I think when you ask me to look at it'

 

Not only does this seem, to me, to allow for a better understanding of (especially) constructive bidding, but, more importantly, one cannot use this method without learning to constantly re-evaluate one's hand.

 

If there is one big mistake non-experts make (and there are of course usually far more than one) it is overbidding big hands and underbidding weak hands, both in the context of auctions that scream that the big hand has diminished in value and those where the weak hand has become quite powerful. Once one realizes that at each call in the auction, one has already (to some degree) described, in positive or negative terms, something of one's hand, one can then refine that valuation 'in context'.

 

Finally, never, ever apologize for posting in any forum! There are some non-experts who write as if they think they are expert, and write utter tripe, but you are not one of them :rolleyes:

 

The more posts there are by interested readers, leaving aside the pseudo-experts who think they know everything but get most things wrong, the better the for a.

[smerriman]

Ah, of course. Was thinking when you said opener was hoping for a heart cue, that meant he'd bid slam on one - but of course, 5♠ is still an option.

 

I can tell you know what you're talking about - I enjoy your posts :) (That's why I had to double check my figures 4 times before correcting you in that card combination thread!)

 

OK, enough from me, I'm looking forward to seeing what the actual disaster turned out to be in the original hand..

[nullve]

I mentioned in my first post that I thought it to be an error for posters to try to picture opener's hand due to the failure to use keycard. I thought I'd add some expansion about that. Note that there are other hand-types, beyond a heart void or stiff Ace, wherein keycard would be useless while cuebidding might be helpful. Opener might, for example, hold Ax in hearts and be hoping at some point to pry a heart cue out of responder......KJxxxx Ax xxx AQx hoping to catch us with Axxx Kxx x Kxx rather than AQxx QJx x Kxx Try using keycard to tell the difference such that one stops in 5♠ opposite the 'stronger' hand and reaches slam opposite the 'weaker' hand.

And if Responder has 13 cards and a fourth club, do you still want to stop in 5♠ opposite the weaker hand?

[lamford]

I would certainly be bidding slam here. Something like ♠KJxxx ♥none ♦xxx ♣AQxxx is enough, and I don't think partner has less than that. He could easily have ♠Kxxxx ♥none ♦Axx [cl[AQxxx when grand is good. I would bid 6C, showing what could be a valuable card, as 6S is just a bit lazy.

[mikeh]

And if Responder has 13 cards and a fourth club, do you still want to stop in 5♠ opposite the weaker hand?

 

I think you miss my point. I did not claim that cuebidding is infallible. It merely, on some hands, gives one a better chance of bidding accurately, because it involves both players in the sharing and valuation of information, as opposed to the robotic question and answer of keycard. Note that there will be hands where keycard is actually the better option. Good players choose their tools according the demands and challenges of their holdings and the auction, but I know of no method that works on every layout. Even relay has weaknesses.

 

Obviously if the hands were KJxxx Ax xxx AQx opposite Axxxx QJx x Kxxx, I'd like my chances of 4 club tricks or dropping the stiff heart king, and would hope to avoid a spade loser. But I'd probably miss this slam, whether I used keycard or cuebidding.

[Dinarius]

My thought is: where are all my hearts going? Ruffs using partner’s probable void? Maybe. But, after a trump lead, or a 3/0 trump split?

 

Does the bidding clarify what partner’s second suit is, if indeed he has one - e.g. 6/0/4/3?

 

Partner has opened and only reacted thereafter to my splinter.

 

Seems to me the hand has lots of possible hiccoughs - ♠️K?

 

I’m not convinced. Dead curious to know partner’s hand!

 

D.