[mike777]

I think this hand is too strong to splinter? Adam do you not play splinters as a very limited LTC hand and 2nt as a stronger, slammish hand?


"....Why does responder think there isnt a loser there?...."

Not a worry if partner bids 5nt over our one and only cuebid of 5D.

[Winstonm]

Let me admit that I would probably never reach 7S, no matter how I bid it.

1S-2D
2S*-**3S *2D didn't help the hand. **Just Forcing (4S would be specialized)
4C*-4D** *Not a serious slam try but one based most likely on 2 suits.
** Iffy, with no club card...maybe the suit will ruff out.

4H*-5H** *Cue **Cue
5S*-6S** *Nothing more to say **Good trumps here
P

I really think this is the extent of our auction.

[whereagles]

I tried a few auctions I would have playing opposite myself and I certainly wouldn't reach 7 on most of them.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jan 30 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 31 2007, 01:21 AM, said:

1♠
2NT (fit-showing, 4+)
3♣ (unbalanced, non-minimum)
3♦ (where's the stiff?)
3♥ (in the other major, hearts)
3♠ (cue, two top spade honors)
3NT (serious)
4♣ (club control -- known by Opener to be a stiff/void)

Opener should probably take over now. 

4NT (1430)
6♣ (three plus a void in clubs)

This looks like 12 easy tricks, but Opener needs something more.

6♥ (a 6-level bid in the short suit?  Must be LTTC)
7♠.

This auction isn't bad, however opener does take a somewhat rosy and luck view by using RKCB. He has shown a non-minimum PLUS a serious slam try, so I don't see why responder can't have ♠KQJ and ♥AK ♦Q as his only high cards up to 4♣.

Even assuming a diamond control, opener would be somewhat badly placed after hearing a reply of 2 keycards plus queen - is it ♠KQ ♥A ♦K or ♠KQ ♥Q ♦AK?

I agree that Opener seems to be taking a rosy view, to a degree. However, Responder has three times made moves.

He might have declined action after 3♣

After 3♥, he might have declined further action.

After 3NT, he might have declined further action.

None of these is particularly telling, though, as Opener is unlimited and cooperatives cues are key here. Accordingly, there is some merit to a cooperative cue of 4♥, to show the void (or stiff Ace -- known to be stiff) AND to clarify the diamond hole. Initially I had considered that route.

I decided that, at the table, I would feel the 5-level to be safe enough and the AKxxx of clubs too difficult to show opposite shortness. So, the admittedly rosy view was more a matter of practicality in a difficult auction.

[kenrexford]

Actually, Cherdano, the more I think about this hand and options, the more an alternative auction, albeit extremely inferential, comes to mind.

After 2NT, Opener had the option of showing a hand with a "source of tricks" in clubs and specifying his shortness.

Opting 3♣, instead, then 3♥, then 3NT, then 4♥, we know that Opener holds a void (or stiff Ace) in hearts (Responder knows which), no diamond control, and at most one top spade. How is this hand, then, "serious?"

Add in the spade Ace, not enough.

I am having trouble imagining a hand for Opener, where 4♣ is not selected over 3NT, that does not look exactly like what Opener has. With stiff Ace of hearts, AKxx in clubs, and Axxxxx of spades, possibly (but Responder knows that this is not so).

The problem is that Opener does not know that Responder holds the heart Ace. This alternative seems unavailable because it might encourage Responder to evaluate up KQJx of hearts, for instance.

But, how would 4♣-4♦-4♥ differ from 3NT-4♣/♦-4♥? One should imply stiff Ace and the other a void, it seems. Of course, the 3NT...4♥ auction might be used when clubs are AQxx(x) or KJxx(x) or KQxx(x), hoping for a cue of 4♣, but that might be a stiff, such that 4♣ seems better.

This makes 4♣...4♥ not assuredly AK in clubs; only 3NT would later imply that. So, it seems that either hand would be handled with 3NT...4♥.

One option is to trust partner to work it out when needed. Another is for one hand to take control -- probably the void-holding, with 4♥ implying a stiff Ace of hearts. However, perhaps a stiff Ace should not be shown as a shortness value initially?

The other problem, however, is when you start 3NT, hear 4♦ (diamond control, doubleton+ in clubs), and want to bid 4♥. This could be a void with an implied diamond control and club control. Very difficult.

However much this might occur, 3NT yielded the hoped-for 4♣. Now, it does seem that 4♥ must describe this hand, with spade length being the only unknown.

So, the 4♥ cue option may well be a better course.

[awm]

mike777, on Jan 30 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

I think this hand is too strong to splinter? Adam do you not play splinters as a very limited LTC hand and 2nt as a stronger, slammish hand?

No. My philosophy is that some hands are better off to try for slam by showing partner what I hold whereas other hands work better by asking partner to describe. To be more specific:

(1) Hands where slam is kind of a stretch (i.e. I need partner to have substantial extras) often require that I show my hand. Such a hand would always splinter with shortness.

(2) Hands with a bunch of controls and no source of tricks are often better for me to describe, since cuebidding will quickly show "all my cards." Partner can work out whether my aces and kings enable her to count to 12 tricks or not.

(3) Hands where I have substantial extras including some "dubious" values (kings and queens in side suits, not aces) are usually better for me to listen to partner. If partner shows shortness opposite my slow cards I can put on the breaks, if partner has a side suit opposite my kings or queens I can upgrade.

So I will usually splinter on a hand with shortness unless I hold a very strong side suit (where a 2/1 might be better). This hand is appealing to describe for reason (2). Of course, with splinters there will often be a decision point "what if partner signs off?" and I need to know whether I'm bidding on or not; if my hand is too strong to feel comfortable passing and not strong enough to bid on I'll consider starting with some bid other than splinter. I think this hand is good enough to bid on, because slam has chances opposite:

Axxxx Kxx xx KQx

This is close to the worst possible hand for partner, and we'd probably get out at the five level. Give partner the ♥Q instead of ♣Q and we're pretty cold despite the flat minimum with wasted values in clubs.

[kenrexford]

In case anyone cares, the reason I personally declined the Splinter option is that it understates distribution by two degrees. Having a void-splinter option would help.

The normal assumption is that a splinter shows a stiff. Having a void, one fewer losers are present if partner has the right hand. Having a fifth trump, we can expect at least one more trick from ruffing, and the fifth trump acts as a guard against bad splits and the like.

If KQxx-Axx-Axxxx-x is right for a splinter, the actual hand is MUCH stronger.

If 3♣, say, is the auction starts for stiff splinters, and 4♣ then shows a void, the hand is pretty well defined by a 4♣ void splinter. The fact that 4♦ and 4♥ are possible for Opener after this would convince me of the merits.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jan 30 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

And no one's shot down my auction yet.

Ok... here goes (never could resist a challenge)

Your auction involved splintering with 5♣ and then having NS confirm their respective voids while inferentially showing the ♦A and then the Axxxxx bid grand all by itself, after already showing slam interest. While this is possible, it does occur to me that both players bid exactly the same with AKxxxx void xx Axxxx opposite QJxxx Axx AJxxx void as an example.

If you agree with that (and you may not), then we'd see the same auction with Axxxxx void xx AKxxx opposite QJxxx Axx AJxxx void... the grand clearly has play, but it is against the odds.

Plus you have responder's 5♣ call promising 2nd round (or better) control of ♦, and I think that is just plain wrong. In fact I think that many would take the 5♣ call as showing the void and focussing partner's attention on the ♦ suit... it may be that the later bids would inferentially show the ♦A, but I think that at the table, there is a high risk that confusion would have set in...I think it is 'red queen' bidding to state that 5♣ means ♦ control.... a bid means what I say it means.

Having said all of that, your auction is as good as any I've seen so far... the fact that I don't believe it is only a minor quibble

[awm]

Sometimes in cuebidding the negative inferences are important, and some of this is a matter of style. With your example hand:

QJxxx Axx AJxxx -

1♠(1) - 4♣(2)
4♥(3) - 5♣(4)
5♥(5) - 5NT(6)
....

(1) Natural
(2) Splinter
(3) Cuebid
(4) Void cuebid
(5) 1st+2nd round in ♥
(6) Asking about trump quality

In general I use 5NT in cuebidding sequences as a trump quality ask, because this is often an issue when we're trying for grand without using keycard. After all there is no way to cuebid the trump ace and king. With two potential trump losers (i.e. we need partner to hold both ♠AK for grand to be good) it's normal to use the 5NT call. With the actual hand (holding ♠KQJ) responder can actually guarantee that there are no trump losers as he can count opener for the ace on the bidding. So bypassing 5NT says "I am not particularly worried about the trump suit" whereas bidding 5NT says "I have a grand slam try but I am concerned about the trump honors." Obviously you could reverse these bids if you want, but I think this convention (a version of Grand Slam Force) is not far from the mainstream.

As for the 5♣ bid showing a diamond control, again this is a matter of cuebidding style. The popular style on BBO forums involves cuebidding first or second round controls up the line. There are some situations where an attempt to sign off should not deny a cuebid but in any case a cuebid denies the ability to make a cheaper cuebid. Again, this style is not universal but it was detailed in Fred's excellent articles on "improving 2/1 GF" and seems to be popular amongst forum posters. Playing this style, the sequence:

1♠(1) - 4♣(2)
4♥(3)

The 4♥ call is a cuebid. This denies the ability to make the cheaper cuebid of 4♦ and thereby denies first or second round control of the diamond suit. I suppose in principle someone could play 4♥ as "last train" but it's hard to envision a hand that opener views as "suitable for slam opposite a club splinter" without including first or second round control in either red suit, or any of the ♠KQJ. Regardless of whether 4♥ could be "last train" it certainly denies the ability to cuebid 4♦. So if responder has no first or second round control in diamonds there is really no reason to bid on. We're off two diamond tricks and no slam is possible, no matter how nice responder's hand might appear.

I agree with Noble that the 6♥ cuebid in my example auction is somewhat "optimistic" and that some people wouldn't do it, but since the sequence should deny holding both the ♦AK (else why not cuebid 6♦ instead of 6♥) I don't think there's much risk of getting overboard.

[kyrkoherde]

clayniac, on Jan 30 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

This hand was held in the other direction at the club today.  At our table against intermediate players, the bidding went one spade- (tank) six spades.  We played it the 4th play, and one pair bid the grand, others all bid 6.  A pair of experienced little old ladies who are not bad players and who are nice people bid the grand.  Please post expert bidding to the grand-can use Jacoby 2nt, exclusion blackwood, spllitners, any tools you wish.  Just *asterisk and explain the tools for the general readership.

opener:  ♠ AXXXXX  ♥ VOID  ♦ XX  ♣ AKXXX

responder:  ♠ KQJXX  ♥ AXX  ♦ AXXXX  ♣ VOID

How can each find out about the other's void and second suit?  What is the best bidding to reach the easy grand?

Thanks all,
Patsy

I suggest:
1♠-3[♣](splinter, at least 3 ♠)
3♥(Ace, king, void or singleton)-4♦ (ace or void)
5♠ (asking for topcards)- 7♠ (with two out of three)

[inquiry]

clayniac, on Jan 30 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

opener: ♠ AXXXXX ♥ VOID ♦ XX ♣ AKXXX

responder: ♠ KQJXX ♥ AXX ♦ AXXXX ♣ VOID

I will forgo the auction starting with 2♠ showing a minimum opening hand with spades and clubs, as so few play that.

Opener   1♠ * What else?
Rspder   2♦ * Game force, 5+♦ for me
Opener   3♣ * 6-5 three first round controls, 5 controls, too good for 2♠ rebid
Rspder   3♠ * set trumps, slam try
Opener   4♣ * cue-bid, since no last train, shows weaker end of 3♣ bid
Rspder   4♦ * cue-bid, slam interest DESPITE the weakness showing 4♣ cuebid
Opener   4♥ *Last train, not even the queen of diamonds. Opener could bid 4♠ so last train is showing something here that desires going on.
Rspder   4NT * RKCB
Opener   5NT * Two keycards and a void
Rspder   7♠ * see long winded logic below.

After 5NT, responder has to picture openers hand. Strong enough for 3C over 2D, not strong enough for serious 3NT, strong enough for LAST train. I think he will figure with diamond void, opener would not have used last train, so the void should be in hearts. So opener will be 6-0-2-5 or 5-0-3-5. Grand is a go against the first distribution and has no play against the second.

I would like to be able to bid something like 6♣ to see if partner would show 3♦, but come on, I am not crazy enough to bid 6♣ and potentially play in a 5-0 fit. I would like to bid 6♦ asking bid about diamond holding looking for a doubleton diamond (since 4♥ denied even the queen of diamonds). Alas, I think this bid sets the contract, and if it didn't it would be an asking bid for the spade queen. Likewise, a 6♥ is grand slam try in spades but equally clearly, this ask about the queen of trumps. rather than if partner has a diamond doubleton. Sigh. So I would just bid 7♠ based upon an assumption. The assumption is that with 5-0-3-5 opener would have rebid 3♦ in the known 5-3 fit rather than cloud the auction with a 3♣ bid.

Not perfect, and probably not found at the table, but it seems as logical as some of the others bid here. Not all grands are biddable....

[Winstonm]

I frankly don't see how anyone realistically at the table would get excited about a splinter bid in your best suit -

The object of splintering is to define how well the cards are working together between the two hands - call it a short suit slam try - but it basically elevates the worth of cards outside the splintered suit, not in it.

Sure, AK are always two tricks, and the heart void may be productive, but what about those 2 little diamonds - after all, your hand is now all of a 4-count in working high cards (OK, 11, I'll count the AK as 2 tricks.)

Still, unless partner holds a ton of spade length the crossfufff necessary to produce slam will be hard to come by.

KQxx, AKJ, KJxx, x.

This will be more in keeping with a direct splinter, and here the better hand to hold would be Axxxx, Qx, AQ, xxxx

In the given auction, if partner's hand would have been KQxx, Axx, Axxxxx then a trump out gives 7S a headache - and if the hand is KQx, AQxx, Axxxxx it is pretty well hopeless.

The only realistic way to get to 7 on the deal is either to misbid or someone take a flyer - IMHO.

[kenrexford]

"I will forgo the auction starting with 2♠ showing a minimum opening hand with spades and clubs, as so few play that."

It's a damn shame, is it not?