[pclayton]

mikeh, on Mar 2 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

I do not agree that splinters operate as a transfer of captaincy.

The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.

This contradicts what Fred said in another thread that splintering absolutely surrenders captaincy (if I'm remembering correctly).

I ought to have been more precise. I completely agree that the splinter operates, at that stage, as a denial of captaincy. If Fred uses the term 'syrrender' of captaincy in that sense, there is no contradiction.

What I am really stressing is that in my view there will be many, many situations in which neither partner is captain: that captaincy has not been assumed.

Thus the splinter denies interest in being captain, at that stage of the auction, but does not insist that partner assume captaincy.

That is what I meant by suggesting that a common bid by the non-splinter hand is a cue: which may result (immediately or later) in the splinter hand assuming captaincy. If Fred said that all splinters forever forsake captaincy for the balance of the auction, then I respectfully disagree.

Also, bear in mind that not all splinter auctions are identical. Most would play that a splinter response to a 1 major opening, as an example, is tightly defined, and thus in those sequences, it is highly unlikely that responder will ever be in a position to assert captaincy, and (for reasons similar to my rule that a 1N opening bid may never keycard) it may be playable to state that the splinter hand can never thereafter take control: I have not previously considered this issue and am not stating a position on it. But we are engaged in a different sequence here, and I see no particular reason for responder's splinter to prevent responder from taking control. After all, opener might have been bidding 3N, and when he did not, responder's hand can become massively re-evaluated and thus the nature of the auction has changed (compared to 3N over the splinter).

I think this is a matter of semantics.

Perhaps a brief vignette will explain the captaincy principles here:

1♣ - 1♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
Pass.

1. 3♠: Love my hand, stiff spade, values for game (captaincy sent to responder).

Hidden message: If you keycard here, you better have the right hand.

2. 4♣: (in a non-serious 3N context): Interested in slam, A, K or Q♣. Take control if you want.

Hidden message: Splinter, schminter, the strong hand takes charge. I ain't taking the wheel.

3. 4♦: Last Train. I REALLY like my hand, but still can't take the reins.

Hidden Message: The last time you cued here, you needed a perfect max for slam. I have a 21 count, but its not enough to insist on slam opposite your prime 7.

4. 4♥: .....Tank......Signoff (and simultaneously barring pard).

I can't trust your bidding. I have a nice 9 count, but if you can't take control across from my crappy trump suit and known club card, then we don't have slam.

[joshs]

mikeh, on Mar 2 2006, 09:48 PM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

I do not agree that splinters operate as a transfer of captaincy.

The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.

This contradicts what Fred said in another thread that splintering absolutely surrenders captaincy (if I'm remembering correctly).

I ought to have been more precise. I completely agree that the splinter operates, at that stage, as a denial of captaincy. If Fred uses the term 'syrrender' of captaincy in that sense, there is no contradiction.

What I am really stressing is that in my view there will be many, many situations in which neither partner is captain: that captaincy has not been assumed.

Thus the splinter denies interest in being captain, at that stage of the auction, but does not insist that partner assume captaincy.

That is what I meant by suggesting that a common bid by the non-splinter hand is a cue: which may result (immediately or later) in the splinter hand assuming captaincy. If Fred said that all splinters forever forsake captaincy for the balance of the auction, then I respectfully disagree.

Also, bear in mind that not all splinter auctions are identical. Most would play that a splinter response to a 1 major opening, as an example, is tightly defined, and thus in those sequences, it is highly unlikely that responder will ever be in a position to assert captaincy, and (for reasons similar to my rule that a 1N opening bid may never keycard) it may be playable to state that the splinter hand can never thereafter take control: I have not previously considered this issue and am not stating a position on it. But we are engaged in a different sequence here, and I see no particular reason for responder's splinter to prevent responder from taking control. After all, opener might have been bidding 3N, and when he did not, responder's hand can become massively re-evaluated and thus the nature of the auction has changed (compared to 3N over the splinter).

I think you understand the concept. A transfer of captaincy is you figuratively handing over the reins. If partner takes the reins, he is allowed to hold onto them as long as he wants. If partner says "I don't want the reins" he has passed captaincy back to you. Sometime he takes the reins, but then invites you back in again (think about the grand slam tries in rkc. With 4N opener temporarily assumes the reins, with 5N he later passes them back since you are allowed to bid 7 at any time after the 5N bid. If instead of 5N he bids 6 of your suit, you are not allowed to bid 7. Although, There is a bit of leway here for you to bid 6N in some auctions where you can have substantionally extra high cards and have some information about partner's hand)

[whereagles]

I would just like to point out that the usual artgument that "I have bid my hand by opening 1NT" does NOT exepmt opener from responsibility in taking decisions. In fact, the stronger a hand is, the more independent it becomes, and the more likely it is it can sucessefully mastermind the auction.

The above goes to show that any strong hand can, and should, take control at some stage, even if that hand is limited. In this philosophy, it is absolutely normal for the 1NT opener (which is a farily strong hand) to ask for aces.

Still, in the hand shown, South did not act well for another reason. There is a simple common-sense argument that hints at bidding the slam. That is: even if South masterminds and takes 4♣ as some kind of temporizing bid, one thing is certain: North does not have spade wastage because he didn't bid 3NT. In light of that, it's a fair gamble to bid 6♣ over 5♣.

About splinters surrendering control: that depends on what kind of splinter you make. If your splinter shows exactly a 5431 ou 4441 with exactly 11-13 hcp, then that hand probably has not much more to say and should let pard do the rest. But if the splinter is unlimited (like it was in this case), that player can, obviously, still take charge at a later stage.

[Codo]

Hi Sigi,

I think there are two answers to this question:

In theory, it should be nice to have 4 CLub as SI but not ace asking and 4 Diamond as a cuebid or RCKB. (I belive, that the second way is better.)

In practice you had an easy agreement: 4 Club is Ace-asking. This is not the best way to play it, but the easiest to remember. So you had
been obliged to answer the question.

[Myon]

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 02:13 AM, said:

Quote

Now having said all that, if your agreement is that 4m in a forcing auction is rkc in m, then in this auction it is rkc in m, regardless of whether I think this treatment is a good idea....

Yeah, I should have stuck with that principle in this auction instead of masterminding my way into a cuebidding sequence that never existed in the first place. This was actually never the question on this hand.

Thanks a lot for your response Josh -- now everything is a lot clearer for me. Partner will be happy when reading this I guess ;-).

You didn't tell me you thought we were "missing a ♦ control" before, so I was of course quite annoyed you had passed out 5♣.

The question that remains for me is why you bid the splinter (or rather umlimited strenght shortness) if you didn't want me to go to slam anyway. The hand looked fine for 6♣ for me, and knowing about your small singleton, I didn't care about your potential additional strenght because we can't make a grand anyway.

I am (sort of) happier now, so please don't make the next disscussion in the club too wild

[cherdano]

I don't think this 3♠ bid transfers captaincy. This is not a splinter which limits the hand; responder could be just be searching for the right game (these shortness-showing bids are great for picking between 3N and 5m) or have a genuine slam try.

I have seen many pairs play 4m in ALL auctions as conditional RKCB (1st step = bad hand for slam, further steps usual RKCB-responses). While that seems better than playing it as RKCB, I still don't understand how this is supposed to work. Apparently they can never bid 4m in the search of the right strain. (Yes they even use this in highly competitive auctions, when 4m is the first time this minor is bid.)

Arend

[Sigi_BC84]

mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 03:48 AM, said:

That is what I meant by suggesting that a common bid by the non-splinter hand is a cue: which may result (immediately or later) in the splinter hand assuming captaincy. If Fred said that all splinters forever forsake captaincy for the balance of the auction, then I respectfully disagree.

I was wrong when quoting Fred in that way.

The original topic is here: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=12157 and what Fred writes is quite close to what you've said.

BTW a great article by Fred, well worth reading several times.

--Sigi

[Free]

One player is showing his hand, the other one is asking (+ captain). After the 1NT opening, you'd suspect responder is captain but it goes waaaaay beyond that! If responder starts with stayman (or something similar) then he clearly becomes captain because he's asking further. However, from the moment responder starts showing his hand he gives away the captaincy for a part. The only thing he has left is showing GI, GF or SI strength, but then it's up to opener to evaluate and decide what to do.

So from the moment your partner decided to show ♣ with short ♠, he gave captaincy away and showed slam interest. Now it's up to opener (captain) to decide what to do with the given info. He just needs to verify if you had enough keycards, that's all.

1NT openers define their hand pretty well. That doesn't mean they can't ask for anything anymore. Don't know where you get that idea anyway. Who is captain after a simple auction like 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT? Opener right? He's the one who has to decide what it's gonna be.

[Sigi_BC84]

Myon, on Mar 3 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

The question that remains for me is why you bid the splinter (or rather umlimited strenght shortness) if you didn't want me to go to slam anyway. The hand looked fine for 6♣ for me, and knowing about your small singleton, I didn't care about your potential additional strenght because we can't make a grand anyway.

As whereeagles pointed out as well, I should have bid 6♣ in any case with my hand. If you had denied ♦ control with your bid, you would have about 15-17 points in clubs and hearts, which is not possible with myself holding the ♥A and ♣KQJ.

So at this point shooting 6♣ would have been the best action from my side, no doubt about that.

I take the full blame for the disaster, but I didn't start this thread to go fishing for excuses but rather to get help sorting this (IMO difficult) issue out to some point. Thanks for all the helpful replies so far!

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

Free, on Mar 3 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

So from the moment your partner decided to show ♣ with short ♠, he gave captaincy away and showed slam interest.  Now it's up to opener (captain) to decide what to do with the given info.  He just needs to verify if you had enough keycards, that's all.

As Arend has pointed out above, 3♠ does not necessarily show (serious) slam interest, but could merely be a try for 3NT (I can have solid clubs with 3-3 garbage in the reds and ♠x -- if p holds ♠AKx 3NT is the best spot). By bidding 4♣ he merely says that 3NT is not a good idea at all because he doesn't have a ♠ stopper. As a side effect this boosts South's hand into slam territory! But partner doesn't (and cannot) know this in this auction. That's why I think South should still have absolute captaincy at this point, and the reason why 4♣ as unambiguous KCB is a Bad Thing™ in this sequence.

Quote

1NT openers define their hand pretty well.  That doesn't mean they can't ask for anything anymore.  Don't know where you get that idea anyway.  Who is captain after a simple auction like 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT?  Opener right?  He's the one who has to decide what it's gonna be.

He's the one who is accepting/declining an invite and setting strain based on his hand. In my eyes he is simply answering a question at this point: Are you maximum and do you have 3+ hearts. Answering that question doesn't make him captain in that auction.

--Sigi

[mike777]

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 12:14 PM, said:

Free, on Mar 3 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

So from the moment your partner decided to show ♣ with short ♠, he gave captaincy away and showed slam interest.  Now it's up to opener (captain) to decide what to do with the given info.  He just needs to verify if you had enough keycards, that's all.

As Arend has pointed out above, 3♠ does not necessarily show (serious) slam interest, but could merely be a try for 3NT (I can have solid clubs with 3-3 garbage in the reds and ♠x -- if p holds ♠AKx 3NT is the best spot). By bidding 4♣ he merely says that 3NT is not a good idea at all because he doesn't have a ♠ stopper. As a side effect this boosts South's hand into slam territory! But partner doesn't (and cannot) know this in this auction. That's why I think South should still have absolute captaincy at this point, and the reason why 4♣ as unambiguous KCB is a Bad Thing™ in this sequence.

Quote

1NT openers define their hand pretty well.  That doesn't mean they can't ask for anything anymore.  Don't know where you get that idea anyway.  Who is captain after a simple auction like 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT?  Opener right?  He's the one who has to decide what it's gonna be.

He's the one who is accepting/declining an invite and setting strain based on his hand. In my eyes he is simply answering a question at this point: Are you maximum and do you have 3+ hearts. Answering that question doesn't make him captain in that auction.

--Sigi

IMHO I strongly disagree, the 3s splinter is a slam try. Your 3club bid set the trump suit. Of course you may decline and bid 3nt or cuebid or assume captaincy with rkc. For me anyone bidding 4d would be rkc, 4nt by anyone would be to play. The only exception would be 4d...4s....4nt now would be trump queen ask and not natural and to play.

[joshs]

mike777, on Mar 3 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 12:14 PM, said:

Free, on Mar 3 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

So from the moment your partner decided to show ♣ with short ♠, he gave captaincy away and showed slam interest.  Now it's up to opener (captain) to decide what to do with the given info.  He just needs to verify if you had enough keycards, that's all.

As Arend has pointed out above, 3♠ does not necessarily show (serious) slam interest, but could merely be a try for 3NT (I can have solid clubs with 3-3 garbage in the reds and ♠x -- if p holds ♠AKx 3NT is the best spot). By bidding 4♣ he merely says that 3NT is not a good idea at all because he doesn't have a ♠ stopper. As a side effect this boosts South's hand into slam territory! But partner doesn't (and cannot) know this in this auction. That's why I think South should still have absolute captaincy at this point, and the reason why 4♣ as unambiguous KCB is a Bad Thing™ in this sequence.

Quote

1NT openers define their hand pretty well.  That doesn't mean they can't ask for anything anymore.  Don't know where you get that idea anyway.  Who is captain after a simple auction like 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT?  Opener right?  He's the one who has to decide what it's gonna be.

He's the one who is accepting/declining an invite and setting strain based on his hand. In my eyes he is simply answering a question at this point: Are you maximum and do you have 3+ hearts. Answering that question doesn't make him captain in that auction.

--Sigi

IMHO I strongly disagree, the 3s splinter is a slam try. Your 3club bid set the trump suit. Of course you may decline and bid 3nt or cuebid or assume captaincy with rkc. For me anyone bidding 4d would be rkc, 4nt by anyone would be to play. The only exception would be 4d...4s....4nt now would be trump queen ask and not natural and to play.

Well I would partially disagree here, at least in terms of the statement that 3S was a slam try. Holding, x Kxx xxx AQxxxx, playing 4 suit x-fers I will x-fer to clubs, and then bid 3S showing shortness. At this point I am merely trying to get to the correct game. I wasn't making a slam try. But having said that, partner can have hands that are good enough to produce slam any time I have game values and a singleton. If we end up playing in clubs, we are for the most part playing with a 34 HCP deck (KQJ of spades discounted) so we can easily make a slam with 6 points less than the normal 32-33, if those points happen to not include the wasted KQJ of spades. Basically any time an unbalanced hand expects to make X tricks in a suit contract opposite a balanced hand (Here the expectation is 10 tricks in clubs) that actual play strength can easily be +/- 2 tricks based on
a. degree of fit in trumps
b. the amount of wastage opposite the singleton

Give opener: xxx Ax AKQx Kxxx and slam is laydown on only 25 HCP

[mike777]

As I understand the first post the 3club accepted clubs as trumps, it is not an auto bid on this bidding. I do not play 4 suit tfr so perhaps your auction shows something else than mine.

NT bidder must take it as a slam try or the bidding gets to hard at MP where they may need to make an immediate choice of between clubs or nt. Even at imps who wants to be stuck playing 4nt or 5c when 3nt is really the best place. Either opening bidder can cooperate with slam or not. Granted I am coming at this from a perspective where 3s promises both clubs and D but even here where p may only have clubs or both (a style I do not like) I think 3s needs to be a slam try.

With your example hand concerns, you can still make 3s a slam try and then reject all of partners slam tries assuming he does not bid 3nt. In this way partner still thinks 3s is a slam try.

[joshs]

mike777, on Mar 3 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

As I understand the first post the 3club accepted clubs as trumps, it is not an auto bid on this bidding. I do not play 4 suit tfr so perhaps your auction shows something else than mine.

NT bidder must take it as a slam try or the bidding gets to hard at MP where they may need to make an immediate choice of between clubs or nt. Even at imps who wants to be stuck playing 4nt or 5c when 3nt is really the best place. Either opening bidder can cooperate with slam or not. Granted I am coming at this from a perspective where 3s promises both clubs and D but even here where p may only have clubs or both (a style I do not like) I think 3s needs to be a slam try.

With your example hand concerns, you can still make 3s a slam try and then reject all of partners slam tries assuming he does not bid 3nt. In this way partner still thinks 3s is a slam try.

At any form of scoring, playing 3N on
xxx Ax AKQx Kxxx
opposite
x Kxx xxx AQxxxx

is not good. Many players have 3NTitis at mps, but you still need to get to the correct strain. The opps are going to find a spade lead most of the time even if you don't describe your hand.

With
xxx Ax AKQx Kxxx
xx Kxx xx AQxxxx

3N is a perfectly reasonable spot at mps, at least if you didn't describe your hands. You can only make 11 tricks in clubs, and while a spade lead might beat 3N, the suit might be 4-4, and on a good day they will not lead a spade. After all they have 8 spades and 8 hearts and 7 diamonds....

The normal auction with these hands is 1N-3N. You have no singleton and don't have slam values, so why look for another strain?


Maybe the problem is language. I use the term "slam try" to mean that the player who made the bid was trying for slam. The bid may result on his partner being interested in slam even without that being the intention.

I know some fine players who don't even play the sequence x-fer to a minor then a singleton as game forcing.

For instance:
Qxx Axx AKxx Kxx
x xxx xxx AQxxxx

The auction goes:
1N-2S(clubs)-2N(If you have an INV hand I think we might have 9 fast tricks in 3N)-3S(I have a singleton spade)-4C(well in that case 3N is a bad spot)-P
down 1 in 4C

Switch opener's Qxx to a differ suit and 3N would be a great spot. This was an unlucky mesh. Should responder have just bid 3N without showing the singleton? Well then opener might have:
Qxx Ax AKxx Kxxx and you make 4C
or
xxx Ax AKQx Kxxx and you make 5C

Note: of course, that responder was just planning on playing 3C if opener didn't pre-accept.

Essentially the idea is that ALL bids below 3N are tries for 3N (except for maybe 3S when hearts is an agreed suit), not tries for slam. Whether you think its worth it to be able to stop in 4m when you realize that 3N is bad can be a matter for partnership agreement, there isn't universal agreement about this. I do think being able to stop in 4m is a minority agreement these days.

[Myon]

mike777, on Mar 4 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

As I understand the first post the 3club accepted clubs as trumps, it is not an auto bid on this bidding. I do not play 4 suit tfr so perhaps your auction shows something else than mine.

The agreement is that after 1NT-2♠, 3♣ is the "weak" relay and 2NT is a super accept of ♣. When responder rebids 3♣, this is to play, everything else is GF, maybe even SI.

We didn't include the continuations after 2♠-(X) in our system notes, but in the Xfer-to-M sequences a free bid after X shows extra values, so the 3♣ bid here must be a (maybe weak) super accept.

What 2NT shows here isn't so clear when asking others playing the same system, IMHO it should show a moderately nice hand with a solid ♠ stopper, but others have argued that we should play "system on" unless agreed otherwise and that 2NT is the (now even stronger) ♣ super accept.

[Myon]

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

As Arend has pointed out above, 3♠ does not necessarily show (serious) slam interest, but could merely be a try for 3NT (I can have solid clubs with 3-3 garbage  in the reds and ♠x -- if p holds ♠AKx 3NT is the best spot).  By bidding 4♣ he merely says that 3NT is not a good idea at all because he doesn't have a ♠ stopper.  As a side effect this boosts South's hand into slam territory!  But partner doesn't (and cannot) know this in this auction.  That's why I think South should still have absolute captaincy at this point, and the reason why 4♣ as unambiguous KCB is a Bad Thing™ in this sequence.

Maybe the Right Thing is to play 3♠-4♣ in a two-way style: Firstly, if you hand isn't worth 5♣ in any case, don't bid over 3♣. When you continue, 3♠ shows a singleton (void?) in ♠, and after opener doesn't bid 3NT but 4♣: 1) if you hand isn't worth 6♣ in any case, bid 5♣. 2) in every other case, answer KCB.

So far, our GF forces to any game, the question whether we should be able to stop in 4m if 3NT isn't a good spot is related but hasn't been discussed here yet.

I don't know if that's the right strategy at MPs, but we are playing IMPs (and an IMPs-tuned system) anyway here...

[Sigi_BC84]

Myon, on Mar 6 2006, 11:09 AM, said:

Maybe the Right Thing is to play 3♠-4♣ in a two-way style: Firstly, if you hand isn't worth 5♣ in any case, don't bid over 3♣. When you continue, 3♠ shows a singleton (void?) in ♠, and after opener doesn't bid 3NT but 4♣: 1) if you hand isn't worth 6♣ in any case, bid 5♣. 2) in every other case, answer KCB.

So I assume you want us to include void showing responses to KCB as well then, or should responder just raise to seven with a void if opener bids 6m? I'm quite sure I would not want to risk that in a serious teams event.

In my opinion the best treatment is kickback, when 4m+1 will be KCB. That way both partners have the ability to ask (I expect responder to be in a much better position to ask in most cases).

--Sigi