How do you deal with this hand?

[Chamaco]

I like 2-way game tries (short suit and long suit).

 

Here I'd start with a short suit GT in clubs; if pard accepts, we have very good slam prospects.

I like this strategy much better than an immediate splinter 4C, since we have nothing in spades and it's difficult to checkback for a control there.

[han]

Since this was a pick-up partnership, I was definitely not going to splinter in partner's suit and get ourselves in trouble. I added the option to see if people would like it. The fact that so many people want to splinter with this hand (I would still prefer 3D) suggests that it might be reasonable to play it that way.

[inquiry]

Since this was a pick-up partnership, I was definitely not going to splinter in partner's suit and get ourselves in trouble. I added the option to see if people would like it. The fact that so many people want to splinter with this hand (I would still prefer 3D) suggests that it might be reasonable to play it that way.

Never splinter in partner's suit unless you have specific agreements about specific auctions where it is allowed.

 

3♦ should get you to whatever slams are possible. You can also use 2NT (not listed in your poll), if it is forcing. But 3♦ is best.

[Blofeld]

Sorry, I voted for splintering on the assumption that there was an agreement that it would be a splinter (and if there is, it's a bid that I'd like to make on this hand), whereas I wouldn't usually expect such an agreement.

[Fluffy]

4♣ if agreed.

3♦ otherwise, and 5♣ over the likelly 4♥ response, if partner bids 3♠ instead nothing will stop me to ask for aces, will try 7 if we have all.

[han]

OK, now that Fluffy says that he is going to try for the grand I am going to post partner's hand.

 

Partner had AJ10x xxxx x AKxx. Our auction was:

 

1C-1H

2H-3D

3S-4D

4H

 

My WC partner immediately took the blame for missing slam. I agree that this hand is huge and should definitely go on. However, I think that I was not without blame either, after partner's 3S I shouldn't let a mere sign-off stop me.

 

Anybody who disagrees with this analysis?

 

About playing in 7H, you would make it Fluffy. I made 7 in 4H, rarely a pleasant experience. We came in 2nd in the tourny, bidding slam would have been more than enough to win. <_<

[Walddk]

OK, now that Fluffy says that he is going to try for the grand I am going to post partner's hand.

 

Partner had AJ10x xxxx x AKxx. Our auction was:

 

1C-1H

2H-3D

3S-4D

4H

 

My WC partner immediately took the blame for missing slam. I agree that this hand is huge and should definitely go on. However, I think that I was not without blame either, after partner's 3S I shouldn't let a mere sign-off stop me.

 

Anybody who disagrees with this analysis?

 

About playing in 7H, you would make it Fluffy. I made 7 in 4H, rarely a pleasant experience. We came in 2nd in the tourny, bidding slam would have been more than enough to win. <_<

Signing off is quite an underbid with that hand now that partner confirmed that his 3♦ was a cue bid in advance. Opener could not have had better cards for his raise to 2♥.

 

Roland

[Winstonm]

I like 2-way game tries (short suit and long suit).

 

Here I'd start with a short suit GT in clubs; if pard accepts, we have very good slam prospects.

I like this strategy much better than an immediate splinter 4C, since we have nothing in spades and it's difficult to checkback for a control there.

I am a fan of 2-way game tries also, but have found one of the problems is that the first bid is taken not for slam try but for game try and the responses are quite different.

 

A solution to this problem is to use: 1C-1H-2H-3H* as "serious" and a slam invitation. If this agreement had been in place, the auction could have gone:

 

1C-1H

2H-3H* Forcing - slam try

3S-4C

4D-4N

5H-6H.

 

Winston

[Chamaco]

I am a fan of 2-way game tries also, but have found one of the problems is that the first bid is taken not for slam try but for game try and the responses are quite different.

 

This "problem" is not so difficult to solve, e.g.

 

1. when one does accept the game try, he does not signoff, but bids the first cue above 3M;

 

2. when one refuses the GT, his pard can bypass 3M, either with the first 3-level cuebid or "serious" 3NT

 

A solution to this problem is to use: 1C-1H-2H-3H* as "serious" and a slam invitation.

 

The idea can work, but I do prefer to be able to know if pard's values are fitting with mine BEFORE starting cuebids.

Using the approach you suggest, I would have to start the cuebids without knowing more of pard's hand, and this I don't like.

My basic idea is that I want to know pard's shape or fitting values before cues.

 

I do like to be able to know more of pard's hand via short/long suit game tries, even when I have some slam prospects, and use the agreements I outlined above to tell pard that my hand was indeed a game force hand that was trying for slam.

[whereagles]

The key to the hand is the diamond singleton. Opener has no way to show it, unless you use some distributional gadget (which 99,99% don't).

[mike777]

The key to the hand is the diamond singleton. Opener has no way to show it, unless you use some distributional gadget (which 99,99% don't).

Why does not:

1c=1h

2h=3d

3s=more than enough? It gives me a huge hint that D are shortish at least?

I have only 2 spades in my hand, where are the spades?

 

BtW the huge vote for 4clubs splinter really shocks me. Am I the only guy here in shock and awe?

[inquiry]

Partner had AJ10x xxxx x AKxx. Our auction was:

 

1C-1H

2H-3D

3S-4D

4H

 

My WC partner immediately took the blame for missing slam. I agree that this hand is huge and should definitely go on. However, I think that I was not without blame either, after partner's 3S I shouldn't let a mere sign-off stop me.

 

Anybody who disagrees with this analysis?

 

About playing in 7H, you would make it Fluffy. I made 7 in 4H, rarely a pleasant experience. We came in 2nd in the tourny, bidding slam would have been more than enough to win. :D

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

 

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here. That is even it was last train, you missed the station when you failed to cue-bid 4♣. After partner shows life with 3S, it is time to cue-bid 4C not rebid 4D. A second advantage of 4C is it clears the way for partner bidding 4♦ as a return cue-bid or as last train.

 

Note, after 2♥ by partner, you are showing serious slam interest when you cue-bid 4♣ (or 4♦ for that matter). But over 4♦ partner can see your three small clubs, as you would have cue-bid with queen or second round control. After you bid 4♣ I can't imagine it is possible to miss slam, partner wiill cue-bidding the short ♦ (if it shows control), or bidding 4♦ (if it is last train).... I suspect when I found the heart queen missing, I would stop in six (after 4C by me and 4D by partner I use blackwood). But the grand might be "logical" if 4D by partner showed first or second round control on the following auction

 

1C-1H

2H-3D

3S-4C

4D-4NT

5H-5N

6C-7H

Pass

 

Assume 4D = first or second round control, not last train

5H = two keys, no heart queen

5NT = specific king ask

6C = king of club

7H = Partner has SPADE ACE, CLUB AK. If you play 14-16 NT, you now know parnters diamond control was likely singleton diamond, and if not, you have ♦ finessee in reserve.

[whereagles]

Mike777: You can reason like that, especially if opps don't like passing. But I would be weary of jumping into that sort of conclusion with a slam at stake.

[Fluffy]

The key to the hand is the diamond singleton. Opener has no way to show it, unless you use some distributional gadget (which 99,99% don't).

I play 2NT forcing asking for features, but then, I wouldn't had used it on this board.

[hrothgar]

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

 

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here.

Ben has touched on what I consider to be a very interesting question:

 

Assume that partner opens 1♣ playing a "standard" system and the auction develops something like 1♣ - 1M - 2M. Does it make sense to treat partner's Clubs as a "real" suit?

 

Earlier, a number of people were suggesting a splinter rebid in Clubs:

1♣ - 1H - 2H - 4♣ or some such.

 

Currently, Ben is suggesting cue bidding shortage opposite partner's "suit".

 

A number of people have criticized these bids, suggesting that its critical to be able to show support for partner's suit...

 

Here's the rub: Given that the 1♣ opening could easily be based on a holding like Qxx or xxxx, does it make sense to consider this as a suit or not?

[Chamaco]

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

 

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here.

Ben has touched on what I consider to be a very interesting question:

 

Assume that partner opens 1♣ playing a "standard" system and the auction develops something like 1♣ - 1M - 2M. Does it make sense to treat partner's Clubs as a "real" suit?

 

Earlier, a number of people were suggesting a splinter rebid in Clubs:

1♣ - 1H - 2H - 4♣ or some such.

 

Currently, Ben is suggesting cue bidding shortage opposite partner's "suit".

 

A number of people have criticized these bids, suggesting that its critical to be able to show support for partner's suit...

 

In all these cases a shortage cue does not seem a good approach, whereas everytime opener has xxx(x), it is.

Here's the rub: Given that the 1♣ opening could easily be based on a holding like Qxx or xxxx, does it make sense to consider this as a suit or not?

 

I think the anwer should come from a simulation.

How often does the 1C opener have values (even with only 3 cards) in the suit ?

In these cases a shortage cue does not feel right, whereas in the cases where opener has xxx(x), it sounds effective.

[inquiry]

I disagree with your bidding, I think 4♦ was wrong...... it might be vaguely possible to shoot the grand, but I doubt it...

 

What is 4D suppose to show? First, are we to assume 4D is last train? Even it is was, I think 4C is better option here.

Ben has touched on what I consider to be a very interesting question:

 

Assume that partner opens 1♣ playing a "standard" system and the auction develops something like 1♣ - 1M - 2M. Does it make sense to treat partner's Clubs as a "real" suit?

 

Earlier, a number of people were suggesting a splinter rebid in Clubs:

1♣ - 1H - 2H - 4♣ or some such.

 

Currently, Ben is suggesting cue bidding shortage opposite partner's "suit".

 

A number of people have criticized these bids, suggesting that its critical to be able to show support for partner's suit...

 

Here's the rub: Given that the 1♣ opening could easily be based on a holding like Qxx or xxxx, does it make sense to consider this as a suit or not?

Well, 4♣ on the auction I propose is clearly slam try. I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

 

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

[hrothgar]

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

 

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

 

1♣ - 1♥

2♥

 

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?

What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

 

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

[inquiry]

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

 

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

 

1♣ - 1♥

2♥

 

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?

What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

 

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

When I make a slam try, I cue=bid controls "up the line" and I count queen in partners suit as a control. Thus, with Hx or Hxx and slam intererst, I would have bid forcing 3♣ and then 4♦ to show my slam intent and a high club cover. Revesing the order shows distributional club control and slam interest.

 

So to answer your questions,

 

1) would I rebid 3♣ on Hxx? With slam interest, yes

2) What about Kx? With slam interest yes

3) Couild 3♣ be bid on doubleton honor? (yes, see #2)

4) "I" (richard) don't think you can conclude 4♣ is distributional control. Well, you are wrong.

 

Now to be fair, I can not bid 3♣ in "my system" with any of those hands and slam interest, as it would not be focing. But I would not be in this pickle. My partner would have jump rebid 3♦ mini-splinter with 29=32 ZAR points and four card support. And even if he wimped out and bid only 2♥, I would bid 2NT a convential inquiry we use and he would show maximum four card raise with a singleton ♦ by a jump to 4♦ (this is super max as he can't really be this strong). You realize I didn't include the 2NT inquiry and the 3♦ mini-splinter in the early decription as no one plays this way (well few). But the write up has been on the web for some time. ( After 1m-1M in inquiry 2over1 )

[mike777]

I would have raised clubs instead of bidding ♦ in standard with club stuff, and I don't splinter in partners suit. So this auction clearly shows, I beliieve, a distributional club control, but I will allow how some might include club support (like Q-third).

 

I firmly believe that 4♣ after hearing 3♠ is the way to go, and I think that bid should be automatic.

Assume that the auction starts

 

1♣ - 1♥

2♥

 

Would you rebid 3♣ on any Hxx?

What about Kx? Could the 3♣ bid be made on a doubleton honor?

 

I don't think that you can conclude that 4♣ must be distributional...

Keep in mind you can make a long suit/short suit game try in clubs if need be., no need to splinter.

 

I argue that after 3spades..how weak can partner be? Please note they could bid 4h over 3d...not 3s! if weak.

 

I still go back to my argument that if both LTC and FLT say try for slam with responder hand and if partner can cooperate, go for it, so:

 

1c=1h

2h=3d

3s=4s etc...

 

3d=long suit game try

3s=accept long suit game try and cooperate with slam try with 3s...

4s=ace ask for hearts.

 

 

How much less can 3s be here?

[whereagles]

If you play

 

1m 1M

2M

 

as possibly being 3 cards, then next step is usually a distributional relay. That might pick up the diamond singleton on this occasion.

 

Another advantage of this approach is to be able to use

 

1m 1M

2M 4m

 

as splinter. This is because if you want to know about pard's shortnesses, or to show a double fit, you can bid the relay. If you prefer to show shortness instead, you can bid the splinter.

[hrothgar]

1) would I rebid 3♣ on Hxx? With slam interest, yes

2) What about Kx? With slam interest yes

3) Couild 3♣ be bid on doubleton honor? (yes, see #2)

4) "I" (richard) don't think you can conclude 4♣ is distributional control. Well, you are wrong.

Sorry: I should have been more precise

 

Is it common for decent players to rebid 3♣ on Kx...