[kfay]

Partner is a passed hand and we're opening 3rd seat... maybe he is supposed to cuebid on:

---

but can we blame him if he doesn't? He probably thinks he's making a stab at game.

[mike777]

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam? Partner may have a hand that goes down in 5?


Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes.

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Dec 20 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

This is very interesting.

Here is a hand that would REJECT a game try of 3♣:

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

A minimum 2♥ response (except for the fourth heart). Doubleton small may be one of the worst holdings opposite a long suit (natural) game try.

And, of course, slam is virtually cold.

Now, what hand would accept a game try but not cuebid in response to the game try? Perhaps that is the wrong question. What is the meaning of a new suit bid over a game try? We have had this discussion before. Some play it as an advanced cue bid in case opener's 3♣ bid was a slam try and not a game try, and others play it as a "responsive game try" - I cannot accept your game try, but I have values in this other suit. Clearly, that does not apply to a 3♠ bid, since it is beyond 3♥. So a 3♠ bid is clearly a cue bid. But does the failure to bid 3♠ deny the ♠A? And does the failure to bid 4♣ deny second round control in clubs?

These are all legitimate questions. If your partner would always bid 3♠ with an acceptance which includes the ♠A, or, failing that, he would always bid 4♣ with an acceptance which includes the ♣K, then you have an easy pass of 4♥. But if you have a partner who may be a little lazy (and even some very good partners might not think to do anything but accept the game invitation), you might be a little uneasy passing 4♥.

Why would this hand reject a game try? It has 2 cover cards, 4 trump and a useful doubleton.

I see your point about certain hands being poor for game and useful for slam however.

[kfay]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam?
Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes.

Are you kidding me? If you think this hand is about HCP then you've missed the boat.


Edit:
Thinking that bidding 21-some-odd point slams is for the Aces is precisely the mentality that DOES lose bridge matches... to a certain extent.

If you're thinking about this hand in terms of HCP then I think that is just wrong.

I should say that I'm not saying this hand is a must drive to slam... if I did I wouldn't have posted it. I am, however, fairly surprised that so many think that it just warrants a pass. Although I do see a good point if partner has 3 small clubs and some random max without the ♠A.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Dec 20 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 20 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

By the way, I hate bids like pard's 4♥. What is the rush about bidding game here?

There's nothing to hate IMO as long as it's understood what it shows. To me it is either of

a maximum that doesn't have a great club holding but wants to play game regardless (Kxxx Qxx Kxxx xx)
or
a minimum that upgrades to a game bid strictly because of the club holding (xxx Txx Qxxx KQx, Axxx xxx xxxx Kx)

In neither case do I want to be in a grand, but in the second case I'm (barely) willing to chance a small slam. So I bid 5♣ describing my hand type, which should encourage partner with a great club holding but discourage him with cards in other suits like my first example. I try to avoid bids like this deny controls in spades, for example, but rather are just indicative of my hand type.

I haven't closely read the other replies so hopefully what I'm about to say is moot. But I think if anyone bids keycard here that is terrible to the nth degree. Kx of clubs in partners hand is probably two tricks more valuable than the ace of spades would be. This hand is not about keycards.

Perhaps it should be:

"no top honor in clubs (or shortness) and intermediates in the other suits".

Another useful definition could be picturesque:

"no A/K, s/v in ♠/♦, but at least two covers in ♥/♣".

[mike777]

kfay, on Dec 20 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam?
Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes.

Are you kidding me? If you think this hand is about HCP then you've missed the boat.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post.

[pclayton]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

kfay, on Dec 20 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam?
Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes.

Are you kidding me? If you think this hand is about HCP then you've missed the boat.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post.

Mike if you don't think missing a cold slam is "losing bridge", then what is?

[mike777]

pclayton, on Dec 20 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

kfay, on Dec 20 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Are you trying to find a 21 or 22 hcp slam?
Again I just do not think this is why most of us, at least me, lose at bridge. Play and defense yes. Gross misbidding, yes.

Are you kidding me? If you think this hand is about HCP then you've missed the boat.

As I said i thought it was about trying to improve our bridge and win.

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post.

Mike if you don't think missing a cold slam is "losing bridge", then what is?

Sigh slam was not cold with his, Kfay, example, yes or did I miss something?

[jdonn]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

Again you make no argument why missing this type of slam is losing bridge compared to what I argued are more important points. You missed the whole point of my post.

If you miss a good slam on this hand, that is losing bridge. If you misplay the next hand, that is also losing bridge.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Dec 20 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

This is very interesting.

Here is a hand that would REJECT a game try of 3♣:

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

YEEGADS! Miss a lot of games do we?

[mike777]

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these types of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

[joshs]

kfay, on Dec 20 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

P-1♥
2♥-3♣
4♥-?

---

Planning on bidding game anyways you make a gametry with 3♣ and partner responds.

What's your plan here? If you bid 4NT partner will eventually show 1KC without the queen.

If you play 6-keycard blackwood, does it apply here?

Personally, I play 1M-2M-Jump Shift as a side 5 bagger that is interested in slam, so that partner will evaluate cards in my suits, and aces, but nothing else. If you have a 5431 or a 6331 hand interested in slam you can start slowly and see what partner does (unless you play some kind of 2 way tries that includes a short suit try).

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these type of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

Other things are much more important.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

It might've worked better to try 3♠ over 2♥ (splinter). This has the nice effect that:

(1) Partner will sign off with wasted spade values, which we should want. Something like:

♠KJx
♥Qxx
♦xxxx
♣Kxx

Probably accepts a club game try, doesn't offer any real play for slam, and might go down at the five level on a bad day.

(2) Partner will cue 4♣ on a nice hand with the club king and not much in spades. This is the hand where slam really starts to look good! Making the "game try" of 3♣ doesn't distinguish between hands with the club king and hands like:

♠xxxx
♥Qxxx
♦Kx
♣Qxx

Again I think this is an accept of club game try, but even 5♥ is on a finesse.

After the 3♠ splinter, which is clearly a slam try, we can pass 4♥ from partner, sign off over 4♦ from partner (wasted diamond value and no club king hurts our chances a lot) and push hard for slam over a 4♣ cuebid.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

Are the forum posters here saying in the hierarchy of what you would teach int/adv players bidding these types of low hcp slams ranks at the top or near the top of what you would teach?

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

Mike you have a truly annoying habit of saying "are forum posters saying" or "if you are saying .... then ok" and then making a statement that absolutely no one has said.

Regarding what you actually DID say, if you make the claim "missing slams like this (if there is one) is not the main reason I lose at bridge" then you are probably right but so what? It is still a reason even if it's not the biggest reason. You would do better if you bid hands like this better, and thus lose less often, whether it's the main reason you lose or not. Bidding slams that are light in strength and declaring hands better are not mutually exclusive. Best is to improve at both!

[mikeh]

Late to the thread.

Josh posits a hand for partner that includes the ♠A and the ♣K. Josh and I have never played and may never play together, but I would be surprised if he ever bid 4♥ with the hand he suggested: surely every good player bids 3♠, on the way to 4♥? How can that be wrong, with 2 key working cards? Wouldn't we be bidding the same 3♣ with x AKQxxx A Axxxx?

As it is, I have a borderline decision over 4♥, since there are hands on which the 5 level is not safe: KJx xxx xxxx QJx is a hand on which I'd like partner to accept my game try (imagine me with Qx AKJxxx x A10xx).

I think, on balance, I'd pass 4♥ because the range of hands on which the opps have not bid spades and we have a good slam are less, I think, than the range of hands on which 5♥ fails. Bear in mind that the opps will often hold 9 spades here, and this suggests that partner has some wastage, as well as by no means assuring us of no club losers.

I love bidding slams. But I can't quite bring myself to go hunting for this one.

As for Mike's last post, what I would prefer to teach advanced players (and bright intermediates) is to downplay the importance of counting points and to start to understand that location of values is at least as important, in constructive auctions, as number of values. I'd try to get them to engage in second-level thinking, and then tertiary thinking, as opposed to the 'count the points' primary thinking we all start with. And this applies to ALL constructive bidding, not just slams.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 20 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 20 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

This is very interesting.

Here is a hand that would REJECT a game try of 3♣:

Axx QTxx xxxx xx

YEEGADS! Miss a lot of games do we?

IMHO you are being a bit harsh Josh.

Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks.
It's only real positive is the 4 card support. But since we are a Passed Hand, Opener may have only 4 ♥'s rather than the 5 we would expect in 1st or 2nd chair. The 44 fit does not tend to play better than the 54 fit

(In fact, if Opener =does= have 5 ♥'s, I'd much rather that I had xxxx in ♥'s and QTxx in ♦'s)

If Opener has some indifferent 6 loser hand with 16-17 HCP or the playing strength equivalent for their game try, I submit that the percentage action is not to be in game.

[whereagles]

I don't have a clue what pard might have for his 4♥, so I'll just press on with 5♣. Hope this gets the message through.

[jdonn]

Mike I agree my second example was hasty and should bid 3♠. K of spades not the A would be a better example, which would get me to 5 which could go down. Or Qxx of hearts and Kx of clubs, which could be a fair slam depending what partner's second highest heart is.

Foo, sigh...

First of all, your post has a lot of redundancy. "Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks." is about 5 statements that say about 2 things. I understand that it's a 6 count with no shortness. On the other hand the 6 count is an ace and the queen of trumps, it has the ten of trumps, a fourth trump, and a doubleton where partner needs help. It started off as an above average 6 count, and each bid your partner made upgraded this hand tremendously, it is a clear 4♥ bid over 3♣. In fact it would have been a good example for me to use in my post on that auction!

I'm not sure what source of tricks you expect from a 6-9 count anyway, but this hand has them. Club ruffs.

And, your statement that partner may have 4 hearts is totally ridiculous. That's only if he is opening light, not if he is good enough to make later game tries.

[kenrexford]

With Axx-Q10xx-xxxx-xx, you would surely, even if the most timid person on the planet, at least try a 3♦ bump. Normal people would bid 3♠. No one bids 3♥, unless 2♥ was a constructive raise, and even then not (that's maybe when you would bump 3♦).

On a completely different note -- it is nice to see how many people would cooperate here. Few years ago would dream of helping partner when he is slammish. The standard responses were (1) 3♥, (2) 4♥, and (3) I ain't biddin' no esoteric B.S.