[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

---

This was the opening hand at a critical time of the finals - neither side bid to the reasonable club slam. This begs a reiteration of a point made in another thread.

At one table the aution began, 1C-P-2C and this was described as "game forcing".
When you look at your hand opposite a normal "game forcing" hand there is nothing special about it - pretty minimum.

Now, what if responder had been able to make a bid that said, "I have a game forcing hand and at least some interest in slam as well." Now you look at your hand and see good controls and a doubleton along with the trump K. Hmmm, this hand isn't so minimum after all verses a potential slam try.

In another thread, I mentioned that 1C-1S-2S-3S could be used to differentiate game going from slam interest hands. The above hand from the finals with world class players makes the point better than I ever could - in the Spingold, neither hand felt quite good enough to move over 3N - if the message of "slam interest" could be sent at a low level, then opener has the opportunity to respond, "no, my hand is not suited for slam" or "yes, my hand is suited for slam."

In the auction of 1C-1S-2S-3S, a 3N bid could be used by opener to show minimum but a slam worthy hand while cue bids would show top end and 4S would show a hand not suitable for slam. Many responded that game tries could be used both ways - I humbly submit they do not do the job as well because asker does not have a bid to query: "Do you like your hand for slam?"

In the Spingold auction, had either of the pairs been using both inverted minor for as limit raise or better and crisscross raises as game forcing slam invites, it would have made for better auctions, seems to me. Opposite a hand that has at least some slam ambitions, the acutal hand held is a darn good minimum - the responding hand was not strong enough to take control. Without proper methods, neither player could adequately describe slam interest and acceptance.

Seems at imp play, this distinction is worth having.

[hrothgar]

Anyone care to guess how often one has a slam invitational hand opposite partner's opening bid? Even playing a sound opening style this seems pretty damn rare. With today's light opening bids, the frequency declines even more.

Next, start considering distributional requirements... Can you only express interest in slam with a fit? Alternatively, are you going to have lots of different slam invitational bids. (Please note: I'm not say that this is impractical. I LIKE strong jump shifts after 1m openings)

As always, this is a very complicated subject and depends enormously on the rest of the system. Playing my preferred methods (strong club, light openings, 4 card major) I prefer to devote my bidding space towards accurate game exploration and jam most slam auctions into the relays...

[mike777]

even if we assume 2c shows game force often unbalanced then:
1c=2c
2nt=3c=slam try



Even playing crisscross then:
1c=2d (game force in clubs, often unbalanced)
2nt=3c(slam try)

Let's assume 2nt in both cases shows 11-13 hcp and stoppers in the majors and partner is still making a slam try across from that known hand.

Is our hand really worth a cuebid?

[kenberg]

I think I was watching when this hand came up, but I don't remember the facing hand or how the auction went. Would an auction such as 1C-2C-2N-3D (or 3 something) have been possible and suggested slam interest? Of course I agree that the problem of how to say "not only do I force game I also think slam could well be there opposite the right cards" is in need of study. This hand might well be a good exhibit. But I like 1C-2D to show a big hand with diamonds, and if playing 2/1 I like 1D-3C to show the hand that would have bid 2C, and later a passable 3C, had we not been playing a gf 2/1. You are right that your treatment is useful, but like everything it doesn't come for free.

Ken

[1eyedjack]

Would have been nice to see the other hand and the auctions at the two tables (and meanings).

[neilkaz]

What's wrong with the relay possibilities of having 2NT rather than 3S show slam interest ?

ie .. 1C-1S-2S-2NT (GF in spades and slam interest). Now you have the entire 3 level to bid out your patterns and and then can investigate slam in more detail at the 4 level, and often stop in 4S safely (to withstand bad breaks..offside cards etc) when things aren't just right.

Off course, you give up 2NT as game try possibilities, but this seems a decent compromise since there are so many other game tries possible, including 3S as general strength (I wouldn't play 1-2-3 stop in Spades unless someone with a 357 Magnum forced me to)

.. neilkaz ..

[Winstonm]

A problem I have with relays in these auctions is that one hand becomes captain and the other expresses shape - not locations of cards and suitability of suits as trick sources.

Of course there is give and take - you do one thing you give up something else.
However, I like the advice I received once from Mike Lawrence: slam bidding is a science; game bidding is not. From this I deduced that one must be awfully precise in slam bidding whereas games only need 45% accuracy on average.

When you overlap game tries and slam tries, seems to me you lose some in that precision category, which is critical in slams. In other words, if it came down to a slight degree of accuracy loss it would be better to lose that in game bidding rather than slam bidding.

Also, after having seen relays in action so often in the Spingold, it seems in relay you lose the interchange of expression that in my mind quatifies superior slam bidding - the cooperative nature of the exchange of information is replaced by question and response. This works fine if one hand is strong, but when both hands are borderline it seems not the best method.

But I freely admit I do not know the ins and outs of these relay methods so perhaps there is a way to do both?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 02:09 AM, said:

But I freely admit I do not know the ins and outs of these relay methods so perhaps there is a way to do both?

From my perspective relay methods work great on slam auctions.
The major flaw is evaluating 3NT contracts when you have nothing but shape information available...

[mike777]

If both hands are of equal hcp or close then you are often trying to bid an underpoint slam. If it is in a minor that makes it even harder. In this case I do not think the issue is so much that one hand asks and the other tells or that they both cooperate, I think the bigger issue is you are trying to bid an underpoint slam in a minor. Most of us would agree that relay methods or strong club methods have an advantage here.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 24 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

If both hands are of equal hcp or close then you are often trying to bid an underpoint slam.  If it is in a minor that makes it even harder. In this case I do not think the issue is so much that one hand asks and the other tells or that they both cooperate, I think the bigger issue is you are trying to bid an underpoint slam in a minor. Most of us would agree that relay methods or strong club methods have an advantage here.

You are exactly right - underpoint slams are critical to get right - and win bunches of imps we you can get to them.

However, I respectfully disagree that relay methods and strong clubs are better in this regard. Relay methods to my understanding are captaincy auctions, and one player has to judge the value of the combined hands, whereas non-relay auctions both players can use their judgement, experience, and evaluation to either try, reject, or force to slam

Best slam bidding IMO requires a cooperative exchage bidding technique rather than ask/answer.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 24 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 24 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

If both hands are of equal hcp or close then you are often trying to bid an underpoint slam.  If it is in a minor that makes it even harder. In this case I do not think the issue is so much that one hand asks and the other tells or that they both cooperate, I think the bigger issue is you are trying to bid an underpoint slam in a minor. Most of us would agree that relay methods or strong club methods have an advantage here.

You are exactly right - underpoint slams are critical to get right - and win bunches of imps we you can get to them.

However, I respectfully disagree that relay methods and strong clubs are better in this regard. Relay methods to my understanding are captaincy auctions, and one player has to judge the value of the combined hands, whereas non-relay auctions both players can use their judgement, experience, and evaluation to either try, reject, or force to slam

Best slam bidding IMO requires a cooperative exchage bidding technique rather than ask/answer.

This is an old argument and I think most great players would say cooperative but the main problem for the other 25 million players is these auctions, in practice, in the heat of battle can be very confusing. Most of us can cooperate for maybe one round but it can get tough after that.

Your example hand is an excellent example.
ATxx..KQxx..xx...Kxx

1c=2d(game force in clubs?)
2nt=3c
?
However you bid in your style lets assume 2nt shows minimum nt hand and major suit stoppers and 3c is game force foward going, what now? If this is an easy hand for you and clearcut, all I can say it was not in the finals of the Spingold.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 24 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 24 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

If both hands are of equal hcp or close then you are often trying to bid an underpoint slam.  If it is in a minor that makes it even harder. In this case I do not think the issue is so much that one hand asks and the other tells or that they both cooperate, I think the bigger issue is you are trying to bid an underpoint slam in a minor. Most of us would agree that relay methods or strong club methods have an advantage here.

You are exactly right - underpoint slams are critical to get right - and win bunches of imps we you can get to them.

However, I respectfully disagree that relay methods and strong clubs are better in this regard. Relay methods to my understanding are captaincy auctions, and one player has to judge the value of the combined hands, whereas non-relay auctions both players can use their judgement, experience, and evaluation to either try, reject, or force to slam

Best slam bidding IMO requires a cooperative exchage bidding technique rather than ask/answer.

I think a similiar discussion could be had on this hypothesis:

You will win more Imps or MP playing 4nt as always blackwood.

Of course non of us would ever ever do this but just look at 1000 bridge articles where the top rated 100-300 players will often disagree just what 4nt means and could lose a bushel of Imps/MP playing with each other.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 02:33 AM, said:

Best slam bidding IMO requires a cooperative exchange bidding technique rather than ask/answer.

I don't think that you can have this discussion without considering the notion of cost...

Lets assume, hypothetically, that you are correct and that "cooperative" bidding sequence is more accurate or subtle or nuanced than a relay sequence.

I argue that the great advantage of a relay system is the number of separate bidding sequences that are precisely enumerated. Once the partnership learns a relatively small number of basic rules they have automatically populated a remarkably large portion of the available bidding tree without any (real) risk of undiscussed sequences.

In theory, a pair playing natural methods could have nice detailed discussions as assign specific meanings to each and every one of those same sequences, however, that would leave remarkably little time to actually play bridge. I recognize that partnership harmony and meta agreements definetely help, even so... The relay structures offer enormous bang for the buck...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 24 2006, 07:08 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 02:33 AM, said:

Best slam bidding IMO requires a cooperative exchange bidding technique rather than ask/answer.

I don't think that you can have this discussion without considering the notion of cost...

Lets assume, hypothetically, that you are correct and that "cooperative" bidding sequence is more accurate or subtle or nuanced than a relay sequence.

I argue that the great advantage of a relay system is the number of separate bidding sequences that are precisely enumerated. Once the partnership learns a relatively small number of basic rules they have automatically populated a remarkably large portion of the available bidding tree without any (real) risk of undiscussed sequences.

In theory, a pair playing natural methods could have nice detailed discussions as assign specific meanings to each and every one of those same sequences, however, that would leave remarkably little time to actually play bridge. I recognize that partnership harmony and meta agreements definetely help, even so... The relay structures offer enormous bang for the buck...

Good information. Again, I am not familiar with playing relay methods so have no basis to agree or disagree except in the most general way.

You are entirely correct from what you describe in bang for the buck. Let me get your views on my contention.

Let's assume just for this discussion that 1C-2D shows a game forcing club raise and is by definition at least a "mild" slam try. The point I am trying to make is that you can have similar types of "general" agreements without as much specificity as you imply.

With Axxx, KQxx, xx, Kxx, although minimum strength you like your hand for slam purposes, yet with another type hand, such as QJxx, Qxxx Ax, Kxx you don't like the idea of slam. The "general agreement" here might be to cue bid with the first type hand and bid 2NT with the second. With a "serious" try, bid 3C.

My reasoning is that without being "forced" to respond a certain way, when you do chose that response, partner knows you are control rich and minimum and thus the bidding takes on the shape of "do we have enough tricks" rather than "do we have enough points' for slam. A denial with poor controls followed by a continued slam try would show a very powerful hand opposite. A "serious" bid by opener would show the extra values allowing the cue bid to show less.

Opinion?

[EricK]

IMO the best approach in many situations if you are going to split the Inv+ hands between two bids is to use one bid to show either Inv or slam interest and the other to show GF but no real slam interest.

Over the Inv/slam interest bid opener needs a bid to show minimum over which responder signs off or confirms slam interest. If opener denies a minimum, then responder can show slam interest (in the knowledge that opener is above minimum) or explore for the best game.

Over the GF bid, opener needs a bid to show slam interest if he has any, otherewise they are just exploring for the best game (alternatively opener uses a single bid to deny slam interest and immediate bids are exploring for the best game).

[the hog]

Why not support with support? Bid 3C and see what happens. Note how well this works if you are playing a MAFIA style in terms of responding.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 03:42 AM, said:

Opinion?

I'm think that this topic is far too complicated to discuss as a series of broad hypotheticals. As they say, the devil is in the details...

I think that you would do better by providing some very specific examples defining:

1. Requirements for a 1♣ (or 1♦ or 1♥ opening)
2. A proposed response structure over this opening

[kenrexford]

Although I cannot speak specifically to an unknown relay structure, it seems to me that a "natural" approach, sufficiently detailed, is difficult to beat.

The problem I expect from relay systems, and asking bid structures, is the inherent necessity to use a level of bidding space to ask the question, as well as the singularity of the response. As an example, I position one asking bid structure against one natural structure.

Suppose 1D-P-2C is GF, artificial. Suppose, then, that Opener's 2H is a one-under natural call, showing spades. Suppose further that 2S by Responder agrees spades and starts a slam probe.

In one relay structure I learned years ago, 2S by Responder is a Top Control asking bid, Opener giving his total control count in steps. Suppose the reply shows three controls, by bidding 3C. The next asking bid might be 3D, perhaps asking for trump quality, with the response perhaps being 3NT, showing very good trumps. Now, 4C might ask for shortness, with 4D showing shortness in clubs, 4H shortness in hearts, and 4S no shortness. That structure would allow us to fit into the bidding three asking bids, all responses below 4S, and quite a bit of information exchanged. However, natural would do beter.

After 2H, Responder would have quite a range of jump calls to establish spades as trumps. If he instead opted 2S, parameters would be set on his possible hand types. Opener then could cue values. If 2NT would have denied good trumps, a 3D call would infer good trumps, deny a club control, and show a diamond control. Further, as Opener declined jump alternatives, the parameters of his hand would be tightened. Back to Responder. Having one non-signoff jump after 3D still available, non-jumps would similarly further restrict his options and clarify holdings. Back-and-forth. Add in Serious 3NT and LTTC, and you end up with incredible information exchange.

My experience has been that the natural approach often allows discovery of stray jacks, specific location of values, and total control fit much earlier than the asking bid and relay sequences I have reviously learned. The value comes in weird fit hands, where AKx is opposite Qx, or QJ fills in AKxxx, or other precisely held minimum-opposite-minimum hands producing slam. Asking bids and relays seem to focus on finding precise fits opposite freaks.

I may be wrong...

[Winstonm]

My proposition is that the money and imps are won in substandard-stregth slam bidding. High card slams have been bid reasonably well since the days of Goren, so there is no pressing need to inprove greatly on those methods; however, if you can consistently bid good 12 trick slams on minimal high cards you will be tough to deal with as a foe.

I, as most, watched a great deal of the Spingold and I wasn't dazzled by the many relay structures used, especially the ones in 2/1 auctions and after forcing raises.
It seemed a lot of room was used showing shapes but then there was a lot of guessing then at the 4-level of whether to try for slam or not. Some good slams were bid and some were missed - in my eyes, relay didn't seem to be show much of a net plus or net minus compared to more standard methods.

Again, my belief is it is location of cards and the quality of those cards that matters more than specific shape - but that is based on an attempt to maximize each hand individually rather than generalize about shapes.

Just seems to me that relay works great when one hand is in position to make a final determination, but when it takes a cooperative effort it lacks.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

In one relay structure I learned years ago, 2S by Responder is a Top Control asking bid, Opener giving his total control count in steps. Suppose the reply shows three controls, by bidding 3C. The next asking bid might be 3D, perhaps asking for trump quality, with the response perhaps being 3NT, showing very good trumps. Now, 4C might ask for shortness, with 4D showing shortness in clubs, 4H shortness in hearts, and 4S no shortness. That structure would allow us to fit into the bidding three asking bids, all responses below 4S, and quite a bit of information exchanged. However, natural would do beter.

I don't think that its useful to throw out a fair poorly constructed straw man relay structure and use this to evaluate relay methods in general.

Modern relay systems (typically) investiagte slam using the following process:

Step 1: Relay responder reveals complete shape. On average complete shape will be revealed with a 3♥ response.

Step 2: The relay captain chose an appropriate control ask. The captain will normally get to chose between a couple different types of control asking bids. (For example, playing MOSCITO the captain has a choice between asking for Slam Points (A=3, K=2, Q=1) or setting a suit as trump and using RKCB

Step 3: Relay captain places specific honors. (This will often involve place Jacks and like)

Look at the run that relay systems have had in various bididng challenges (Challenge the Champs, etc). Well designed relay systems have very good track records.