[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Bob Hamman - in the bidding, if there is one particular card you need me to hold, I ain't got it!

I can't imagine Hamman ever said that. Trying to find out whether partner has one golden card for slam is often possible at a safe level.
The quote I remember is "Don't play me for the perfect hand,...", and this hand is a very good example to show why.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Oct 28 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Bob Hamman - in the bidding, if there is one particular card you need me to hold, I ain't got it!

I can't imagine Hamman ever said that. Trying to find out whether partner has one golden card for slam is often possible at a safe level.
The quote I remember is "Don't play me for the perfect hand,...", and this hand is a very good example to show why.

Could be a paraphrase or it could be my memory is simply faulty.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

Sure, we may well miss these slams. I'd rather get to some of them, though.

The point is not what I could could -- the point is what PARTNER should have to move. I don't think he should make a cooperative cue with only two useful cards. I conceded that he might misconstrue the spade King as a useful card, which is a borderline hand. But, KJ10xxx with a side club King and the spade Queen is just not all that exciting.

If I happen to have one of these power hands, with double honor support in hearts, then I might splinter.

If you must show slam interest with the provided hand, then I can accept that. But then you must have Opener allowed to bid 4♦ Last Train.

If you are concerned about whether I am double dummy bidding a lot, follow me and my partner around a little. You might learn something about slam bidding. I won't even charge. rotflol!!!

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Oct 28 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 28 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

Sure, we may well miss these slams. I'd rather get to some of them, though.

The point is not what I could could -- the point is what PARTNER should have to move. I don't think he should make a cooperative cue with only two useful cards. I conceded that he might misconstrue the spade King as a useful card, which is a borderline hand. But, KJ10xxx with a side club King and the spade Queen is just not all that exciting.

Uhm. KJT of trumps, K in partner's suit, and Q in partner's side suit sounds pretty exciting to me, given that I have limited my hand to 8-10 hcp.

[kenrexford]

Quit looking at the actual cards!

The question is "From what source are our tricks coming?"

This is a classic scenario for analysis akin to why I use 3NT as serious for the LSGT second suit and empathetic splinters. You want to have a running suit, a trump suit, and both side controls, as your trick sources.

When it's 5431 opposite 3433, for example, you are expecting five from the long suit, 4+1 from the 4-4 fit, and two more, which makes A-K powerful in the 3-3 holding.

When it's 5332 opposite 3532, five from each 5-card suit, and two Aces.

This is the equivalent of 5332 opposite 3532, with an extra card of length in each sde suit, an Ace, and a stiff instead of an Ace. Slow queens, even if "well placed," cannot do the trick.

I'll grant that this sounds like it could be a 6-4 run potential. Six hearts, four spades, diamond control, and club A-K. This would require AKJx-AQ-x-Axxxxx, which is too much. So, it cannot be that.

The question, then, is not whether the spade Queen, or King for that matter, might in fact be a missing card. The question is whether that card helps the play of the hand at all. It does not, so it is not valuable, contextually.

BTW -- more on the "double dummy" analysis. How can this be "double dummy" anyway? We don't know what Responder did have. Evaluating calls based upon what Responder might have, and what he would do with hypothetical holdings, is not double dummy. It's how you bid.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Oct 29 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 28 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 28 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Ken, why can't you have Axxx AQ x AQxxxx? Or even Axxx Axx --- AQxxxx? I still find your thinking to be constantly double dummy to fit the actual hands. If partner will not cuebid with the CK and the KJT of hearts you are going to miss slams opposite these hands.

Sure, we may well miss these slams. I'd rather get to some of them, though.

Yes, so you could say you only get to the ones where opener has a stronger hand than this and responder has the slightly weaker ones (ie Qx KJTxxx xxx Kx). You have seemingly arbitrarily decided that you will get to this one and miss other ones, that is my problem.

You do not have this problem if you add in the possibility of Last Train and a 4♦ splinter. Your assumption seems to be that Opener only has one slam try available -- a 3♠ cue. Hardly.

1. Opener could bid 4♣. Because Responder could bid 4♦ LTTC, 4♣ has a range.

2. Opener could cue 3♠. If Responder cues 4♣, Opener could re-cue 4♦ as a Last Train call. This gives 3♠ a range.

3. Opener could Splinter 4♦. This should be tight.

For that matter, if Serious 3NT is in use, you can get even more definition. 3♠ enables a 3NT cue for the bomb hand, allowing 4♣ and Last Train, or 4♦. 4♣, bypassing 3NT, with a 4♦ Last Train. 4♦, bypassing 3NT.

I even think that a jump to 3NT probably should have a meaning as well, meaning a heart slam try meaning, but let's forget that for a second.

The above leaves us with the following:

1. Bid 3♠ and decline any further offers
2. Bid 3♠ and decline any offers that bypass 3NT
3. Bid 3♠ and decline a 4♦ call that bypasses 3NT
4. Bid 3♠ and decline a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT
5. Bid 3♠ and Last Train a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT
6. Bid 3♠ and accept a 4♣ call that bypasses 3NT
7. Bid 3♠ and accept a 4♦ call that bypasses 3NT
8. Bid 3♠ and accept any call that bypasses 3NT
9. Bid 3♠ and accept a serious 3NT
10. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♣ after a serious 3NT, but decline 4♦ LTTC
11. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♣ after a serious 3NT, and accept a 4♦ LTTC
12. Bid 3♠ and then bid 4♦ after a serious 3NT
13. Bid 3♠ and then decline a serious 3NT
14. Bid 4♣ and decline a 4♦ LTTC
15. Bid 4♣ and accept a 4♦ LTTC
16. Bid 4♦
[17. Bid 3NT and decline any further offers]
[18. Bid 3NT and Last Train a 4♣ call]
[19. Bid 3NT and accept a 4♦ call]
[20. Bid 3NT and accept a 4♣ call]

With 16, and possibly 20, ways to describe slam interest with a mere 1♠ rebid opposite an 8-10 count, I doubt that you'd have much problem in the way of covering everything. I'm not sure to what degree the proposed system (in the question) will allow for this much nuance, but the core question, whether to ask, seems easy -- yes. If you cannot ask well, then perhaps improve the system. If your techniques will not give you the right answers, then asking is meaningless. But, if you can get the information that you need, ask.

[Raivis]

3♠ enables cue bidding.
If partner shows ♣K cue bid, tray to slam; otherwise stops in 4♥.