[cherdano]

smerriman, on 2022-May-24, 19:29, said:

Has to be 4♠ surely. Even if partner has something like KQxx Axxx AKxx x, it's asking a bit much to hope the club suit sets up.

why are you saying "Even if"? Yes, the hand has no heart wastage, but it has the worst possible shape and is rather minimal in high cards for a splinter. Partner is allowed to have 4351 shape with 20 hcp! In my view, in no way should partner force to slam with your 4441 example, given that he could be so much better.


I think 4♥ is very clear. Yes, there is a chance partner has heart wastage, gets us to 5♠ lacking two keycards, and we go down on a bad diamond break. But I think it's much more likely that 4♠ misses a great or even laydown slam. Even KQxx Axx AKxxx x is ok (very good if ♣A is onside, chances if its off-side) - add ♦J and it's very good.

[cherdano]

akwoo, on 2022-May-25, 20:43, said:

The kind of hand that doesn't give a control bid is something like ♠Jxxx ♥Q ♦xx ♣QJxxxx - true dreck.

I think that's going a bit too far. Splinter here is fairly wide-ranging, and if we cuebid partner should be able to go on with a fair proportion of hands.

But your example does show how many great features our hand has - two keycards, ♣KQ aren't useless (will provide one or two pitches), and a heart shortness that can function at least as a control. Plus our lack of diamond cuebid will slow partner down if he has just one of ♦A/K.

[smerriman]

cherdano, on 2022-May-27, 05:24, said:

why are you saying "Even if"? Yes, the hand has no heart wastage, but it has the worst possible shape and is rather minimal in high cards for a splinter. Partner is allowed to have 4351 shape with 20 hcp!

Yes, you're absolutely right. I was intending to go for the best case by filling in all of the top honors in the three side suits, but didn't get close and completely missed the power of the 5th diamond.

[mr1303]

Thanks all.

My partner's response here was 4NT, which got us to the 5 level, which went down when trumps were 4-1.

I held

---

[mikeh]

For me, but not I think for everyone who has posted here, this is no better than an average splinter and the 4H cue, which I and several others felt was clear for responder, hurts this hand. Our heart King is not pulling its weight. I therefore have, imo, no reason to bid as if I held a maximum splinter.

An important principle is never to bid the same values twice. Partner did not take control (yes, I know that when the hand was played, partner bid a horrendous 4N): he bid (or should have bid) 4H.

4H says, at the time it was bid, that ‘I have some interest in slam but for now I’m trying to elicit cooperation, rather than taking charge. I have a stiff (far more common than a void) heart. How does that mesh with your hand?’ Note that it’s only because opener is looking at the AK of hearts that he knows the cuebid is shortness, but the king would be almost as good opposite many splinters where opener held Axx, as one example, as would be a stiff….the stiff is better because that would increase the chances of responder having decent trump and maybe the diamond queen. But since opener does have the heart AK, he now has to evaluate his hand in light of the stiff opposite…how does that information impact slam chances?

The answer is: not very well. So this hand, with its weak trump holding and the debatable heart king isn’t worth more than 4S. 4S doesn’t say ‘I didn’t have my splinter’: it says ‘I have my game force raise with short clubs but nothing special’. Responder is allowed to bid again, but with his actual hand would pass in a flash.

As Arend wrote, opener might have a 20 count…or maybe my example KQJx Axx AKJxx x….in which case he has ‘extras’ that the 4C bid did not fully disclose, then he would move to slam after the 4H expression of interest. But with the actual hand, bidding past 4S over 4H would be bidding the same values twice.

Collaborative slam bidding is an area in which experts significantly outperform average players, precisely because they understand that these auctions are dialogues, and they know how to listen to what partner is saying. Using keycard here, by responder, shows an inability or an unwillingness to converse.

Finally, and along the lines of bidding as dialogue, 4H was not a strong slam move. It said only that responder can see that slam might be good opposite a good splinter.

Once a gf has been established, cuebid below game are not by themselves slam moves…they merely say: we’re going to game. I have more than a minimum….here’s some information to help you evaluate. Both partners cue bid below game if they each feel the same way…then, by the time game is reached, each partner has usually been able to cuebid at least once….thus each partner has an idea of how the hands mesh. But whichever partner, if either, drives beyond game has to have either significant as yet not fully shown values or has a hand that’s grown up due to the cuebids already made. Note that it is a terrible but common mistake to use keycard at this point to try to get to slam. Keycard is used to try to stay out of slam! Or to reach a grand. If you don’t yet know that you have the values to take 12 tricks, you shouldn’t keycard. Keycard is because you can have the values for 12 tricks but have two losers…keycard tells you that and allows you to stay out of slam.

Here, responder has no way of thinking ‘we can take 12 tricks so long as we’re not off two keycards or one and the trump queen’. So he shouldn’t use keycard.

[mw64ahw]

mr1303, on 2022-May-31, 19:33, said:

Thanks all.

My partner's response here was 4NT, which got us to the 5 level, which went down when trumps were 4-1.

I held

---

You can't win them all; on another day the auction will yield results.
The key is to maintain a consistent probability based strategy over time. Have you run the figures to see if the Ace ask was justified on a statistical basis assuming an exit in 5♠

With a slower approach I find a trump honour missing before 4♠, but still need to find the missing Ace. This should help with any judgment, but it would be a tricky call for me at the table.
Is 5♠ makeable on any lead?

[Cyberyeti]

Your partner bidding 4N is OTT but I think I would over 4♥, is AQxxx, x, Qx, xxxxx really out of the question ? Even without ♦Q is not terrible, unlucky you can't make 5.

[Douglas43]

In the OP it says 1♠ is "forced by system", so I take it that 1♠ could be zero hcp rather than the usual minimum of 5/6. Does the scheme for opener's rebids take account of this?
Our actual hand is not much better than minimum in terms of working points for a standard response, although I would still bid 4♥ because I love that Q♦.
But if we could have a Yarborough, then presumably 4♣ should be a terrific hand, and we are better than we might be by the Ace of trumps and the queen of partner's suit?

[smerriman]

Douglas43, on 2022-June-01, 02:39, said:

In the OP it says 1♠ is "forced by system", so I take it that 1♠ could be zero hcp rather than the usual minimum of 5/6.

It was definitely unclear but I suspect the intention was "I bid 1♠ because our system doesn't allow us to bid 2♣ with 4 spades".

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-01, 02:19, said:

Your partner bidding 4N is OTT but I think I would over 4♥, is AQxxx, x, Qx, xxxxx really out of the question ? Even without ♦Q is not terrible, unlucky you can't make 5.

Yes

Unless partner doesn’t know how to bid or thinks you don’t, he can’t have that hand.

To bid 4H and then pass 4S means he thinks opener created a game force splinter raise on something like Jxxx KQx AKJxx x or KJxx AQJ KJxxx x and so on.

Kxxx KQx AKJxx x is, for me, too weak to gf. Maybe KJxx KQx AKJxx x….but we have 5 level safety opposite that hand so passing 4S, if one bid 4H, makes no sense.

As I mentioned in my last post, it’s ok to keycard in these auctions when one knows one has the values for slam but want to ensure you’re not off two keycards or one and the trump queen (unless one has a 10 card fit).

With AQxxx x Qx xxxxx we know we have the values to take 12 tricks so the issue is keycards. The extra spade, the spade queen, and that very valuable diamond queen….not going beyond 4S is woeful. Opener taking control just in case responder has that hand and refuses to go past 4S is, imo, very poor.

[mikeh]

Douglas43, on 2022-June-01, 02:39, said:

In the OP it says 1♠ is "forced by system", so I take it that 1♠ could be zero hcp rather than the usual minimum of 5/6. Does the scheme for opener's rebids take account of this?
Our actual hand is not much better than minimum in terms of working points for a standard response, although I would still bid 4♥ because I love that Q♦.
But if we could have a Yarborough, then presumably 4♣ should be a terrific hand, and we are better than we might be by the Ace of trumps and the queen of partner's suit?

My take on ‘forced by system’ is that they are playing 2/1. Responder lacks the strength to force to game so cannot bid 2C. I don’t see it as saying that 1D was forcing.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2022-June-01, 07:42, said:

Yes

Unless partner doesn’t know how to bid or thinks you don’t, he can’t have that hand.

To bid 4H and then pass 4S means he thinks opener created a game force splinter raise on something like Jxxx KQx AKJxx x or KJxx AQJ KJxxx x and so on.

Kxxx KQx AKJxx x is, for me, too weak to gf. Maybe KJxx KQx AKJxx x….but we have 5 level safety opposite that hand so passing 4S, if one bid 4H, makes no sense.

As I mentioned in my last post, it’s ok to keycard in these auctions when one knows one has the values for slam but want to ensure you’re not off two keycards or one and the trump queen (unless one has a 10 card fit).

With AQxxx x Qx xxxxx we know we have the values to take 12 tricks so the issue is keycards. The extra spade, the spade queen, and that very valuable diamond queen….not going beyond 4S is woeful. Opener taking control just in case responder has that hand and refuses to go past 4S is, imo, very poor.

OK, but xxxx, AKQ, AKJxx, x is fine to splinter on, but you don't have 5 level safety although it's likely 5 will make.

And certainly the same hand with 2 small diamonds instead of Qx will pass 4♠.

We wouldn't have this problem with 5-5 in the blacks as we would show 5-5 by 3N. (4♣ would be a void, GF unbal 2N with a semi forced 3♣ response that we break when 5-5)

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-01, 08:30, said:

OK, but xxxx, AKQ, AKJxx, x is fine to splinter on, but you don't have 5 level safety although it's likely 5 will make.

And certainly the same hand with 2 small diamonds instead of Qx will pass 4♠.

We wouldn't have this problem with 5-5 in the blacks as we would show 5-5 by 3N. (4♣ would be a void, GF unbal 2N with a semi forced 3♣ response that we break when 5-5)

When you have to imagine an extremely unlikely holding AND have bad luck to fail at the 5 level even then, you’re not evaluating properly.

In almost any constructive auction one can imagine low probability hands where things can go wrong. Outside of relay methods (which have their own problems) it’s rare that one can know partner’s exact hand so one engages in the sort of exercise I described in my first post on this thread. If I held AQxxx x Qx xxxxx I wouldn’t mentally imagine the worst possible hand for partner, conclude that on a bad day opposite that holding we might fail at the 5 level and thus pass partner’s 4S bid.

Note how you in fact want to do the opposite. With Kxxx AKx AKJxx x you want to imagine AQxxx x Qx xxxxx and conclude that you need to bid 4N, rather than let partner bid his hand, because opposite that hand (for which there is no strong evidence) you can make slam.

We all want to be the hero. We all want to take charge. But you watch expert pairs in action and what you will see is that they trust each other. They only take charge once they have good reason to do so…otherwise they cooperate and that requires trust that partner will bid his or her hand properly. Then we don’t need to lurch into keycard every time we think that there might be a slam.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm slightly handicapped by system here, I would respond 2♣ on the actual hand so would not visualise that hand, hence the odds of partner having 5 spades improve.

Forget the ♦Qx, visualise AQxxx, x, xx, xxxxx where I think you still want to be in a slam and partner is passing 4♠.

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-01, 10:41, said:

I'm slightly handicapped by system here, I would respond 2♣ on the actual hand so would not visualise that hand, hence the odds of partner having 5 spades improve.

Forget the ♦Qx, visualise AQxxx, x, xx, xxxxx where I think you still want to be in a slam and partner is passing 4♠.

With this hand, the partnership has 26 out of 30 hcp.

Passing 4♠ would mean you assume partner's game forces are overbids.

Carl

[cherdano]

I have just one doubt about Mike's post here:

mikeh, on 2022-May-31, 23:01, said:

4H says, at the time it was bid, that ‘I have some interest in slam but for now I’m trying to elicit cooperation, rather than taking charge. I have a stiff (far more common than a void) heart. How does that mesh with your hand?’ Note that it’s only because opener is looking at the AK of hearts that he knows the cuebid is shortness, but the king would be almost as good opposite many splinters where opener held Axx, as one example, as would be a stiff

Are we sure 4♥ shows a control? Might it not be bid as last train with a useful hand that has no red suit control to bid? Say ♠AQxxx ♥xxx ♦Qx ♣xxx?

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2022-June-01, 16:01, said:

I have just one doubt about Mike's post here:

Are we sure 4♥ shows a control? Might it not be bid as last train with a useful hand that has no red suit control to bid? Say ♠AQxxx ♥xxx ♦Qx ♣xxx?

I haven’t played a lot of last train, but I’d expect 4D to be last train….I’ve always thought that it was the cheapest ‘cue bid’ when space is limited, but I may well be out of step with the expert consensus. LTTC sounds like a great gadget but in my admittedly limited experience with it, it arises very rarely.

Here, for example, I think that 4H promising a control, and using 4D as last train, denying a heart control p, is likely to be the most efficient use. Opener, having shown a gf hand, is almost never much worried about diamonds but with responder on play and denying a heart control, opener knows to sign off with, for example, KQJx Kxx AKJxx x whereas if 4H were ambiguous, the partnership is in a quandary

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2022-June-01, 16:54, said:

I haven’t played a lot of last train, but I’d expect 4D to be last train….I’ve always thought that it was the cheapest ‘cue bid’ when space is limited, but I may well be out of step with the expert consensus. LTTC sounds like a great gadget but in my admittedly limited experience with it, it arises very rarely.

Here, for example, I think that 4H promising a control, and using 4D as last train, denying a heart control p, is likely to be the most efficient use. Opener, having shown a gf hand, is almost never much worried about diamonds but with responder on play and denying a heart control, opener knows to sign off with, for example, KQJx Kxx AKJxx x whereas if 4H were ambiguous, the partnership is in a quandary

I have never heard of 4♦ as last train - I've always seen it as the last bid below game.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2022-June-01, 18:11, said:

I have never heard of 4♦ as last train - I've always seen it as the last bid below game.

The only examples I recall seeing were when the cuebidding has run out of space. Thus, with spades trump, someone had cuebid 4D, so that the only ‘cuebid’ left was 4H.

Now that I think about it, I wonder whether there is much utility to last train over 4C, with spades trump. Had it gone 1D 1H 4C, then 4D would be last train.

But after 1D 1S 4C, there are two cues available and it would be a rare hand that was interested in slam yet had no real cue available. Not an impossible situation: AQxxx xx xx Axxx, but with that hand I doubt I can construct a gf splinter with two top red suit losers. I’d fake a cue of 4D because I want to hear 4H before I keycard…..I’ll pay to KJxx AKQ QJxxx x, since that’s not a 4C bid. KJxx AKQ KJxxx x is a rock bottom minimum and has reasonable play

Anyway, this is more a confession of ignorance than anything else. I had last train on a CC in one fairly serious partnership. I think it came up once.

I don’t play it any more and haven’t seen a need for it in real life. That’s not saying it can’t help on occasion but it’s not something I’m spending time on in my partnerships these days