[benlessard]

Qxxx
Jxxx
Txx
xx

Partner Showned 5152 GF (= 2C opener in standard)
4 keycard + K of D but no K of clubs.

You are in 4S do you feel the 5 level is safe enough to make a move ?

4Nt ask for the Q of D
a later 5H will ask for a club control.

[gnasher]

If I may say so, this isn't much of an advertisement for your methods. Wouldn't it be better for me to show a 4=4=3=2 shape with ♠Q, so that the stonking two-suiter can then place the contract?

AKJ10x x AKQxx Ax makes a good slam, but AKJ10x A AKJxx Qx might mean 5♠ down one.

Also, it seems that you can't find out what you need to know. KJ10xx A AKQxx Ax contains ♦Q and club control, but slam is hopeless, since the bidding has told them what to lead.

I pass, and then I change my system.

[whereagles]

Indeed. A yarborough doing the asking can hardly be a good method. Unless you play something like denail cuebids (i.e. pard cues the suit where he LACKS fillers )

[benlessard]

We play spiral scan wich is the same as denials cue. Its symmetrical.

Asking the card you need= exactly the same as showing the card you have.

Quote

Wouldn't it be better for me to show a 4=4=3=2

Its tougher to show a balanced hand + there is more spot for card in a balanced hand. Unbalanced hand should always do the showing & strenght is irrelevant most of the time. On this case since north has only 1 card its going to be easier but give north 2 or 3 cards and checking for the specifics card will take the same space if not more.

Quote

I pass, and then I change my system.

My guess for the numbers of players in the world that manage to bid those slam in an intelligent way is close to 0.

[whereagles]

benlessard, on Apr 3 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

Unbalanced hand should always do the showing & strenght is irrelevant most of the time.

While it is, in general, true that the balanced hand is better positioned to do the asking, one cannot neglect the fact that the strong hand is more independant. I.e. there are occasions where it might be convenient to let the unbalanced, strong hand do the asking, especially when the hcp difference is very large. Your example seems to be one of those cases.

If your partner were doing the asking, he would have already fished out your shape and high cards. For instance, if I recall correctly, in the Truscott Symmetric Relay scheme, I believe you'd have your shape shown at around 3♠, after which the ♠Q would be found out with the bidding at 4♥. You might have to play 5♠ (as 4♠ now would relay), but pard would know exactly where to go.

[gnasher]

benlessard, on Apr 3 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

My guess for the numbers of players in the world that manage to bid those slam in an intelligent way is close to 0.

I'm sure that there are hands where your system works very well, but this plainly isn't one of them. Your methods force you to guess which of several hands your partner has, and if you guess wrongly you may miss a slam, go down at the five level, or reach a no-play slam. I don't think that such methods should be described as "intelligent".

In fact, you seem to be worse off than if you had started with a strong 2♣ opening. I expect that the auction would start either 2♣-2♦; 2♠-4♠ or 2♣-2♦; 2♠-2NT;3♦-4♠, showing four spades in a poor hand, without any outside controls. On the three examples I gave:

AKJ10x x AKQxx Ax - Opener will probably bid slam, checking for ♠Q first if necessary. This will be good opposite most shapes where partner is 4=3 or longer in the majors, and no play opposite some other shapes.
AKJ10x A AKJxx Qx - Opener will pass, knowing he has at least two losers.
KJ10xx A AKQxx Ax - Opener will pass, knowing he has two losers on a club lead, and may not make on another lead.

[Fluffy]

There is no safety at all, we coudl even have 2 trump losers. Lets pass.

[benlessard]

My hand was
AKxxx
x
AKQxx
Ax

Pretty sure nobody bid slam & some were in 1S making 6. My feeling is at least 80% of the players opened 1S.

1S----3S (weak)
4S
or
1S----3S(weak)
4Y----4S

was by far the most common auction

Its 80% more likely i have AK of S then the stiff Ace of H.+ i have a hard time finding a hand with the A of H without the Q of D that is GF

Axxxx
A
AKxxx
AQ
being at the 5 level isnt fun but not terrible.

IMO the risk in 5S are so low compared to the risk of missing a good slam.

Kxxxx
A
AKQxx
Ax
PS south doesnt have the K of clubs but north may have it. West might still lead heart.

The only system ive seen so far that might bid it convingcinly is TSOR
1C---1D (0-7)
1H----1S (2nd neg)
2C (GF)-----2D (bal)
2H ?---2Nt (44 same rank)
3C?----3Nt (doubleton club so 4432)
etc

This is because the 2nd neg is very valuable in that case and balanced hands are showned before unbalanced hand

[gnasher]

benlessard, on Apr 3 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

Its 80% more likely i have AK of S then the stiff Ace of H.+ i have a hard time finding a hand with the A of H without the Q of D that is GF

I gave this example earlier in the thread: AKJ10x A AKJxx Qx. Isn't that worth a game-force? In fact, AKJ10x A AKxxx Qx would probably be enough.

I hope I'm not sounding over-critical, but the main benefit of relay methods is accuracy when specific cards and shapes are needed. These methods also have disadvantages, so on the hands that are well-suited to them they really have to deliver.

[benlessard]

AKJxx A AKJxx Qx
This is a very specific hand that is about 25 times less likely then
AKxxx---x---AKQxx---Ax

Also note that 5S is a 50% contract.

AKJ10x A AKxxx Qx
Close but not quite a true GF for me.

[Cascade]

benlessard, on Apr 3 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

You are in 4S do you feel the 5 level is safe enough to make a move ?

Safety at the five-level is over-rated.

The four-level is not 'safe' if we have 12 tricks. Sometimes you have to take a calculated risk to try for slam even though there is some danger at the five-level.

Say we have an slam x% of the time with chance of going off at the five-level y% of the time.

Then passing versus bidding

wins 470 (10 IMPs) or 720 (12 IMPs) y% of the time

and

loses 500 (11 IMPs) or 750 (13 IMPs) x% of the time

This breaks even or gains

when 10y >= 11x (12y >= 13x)

y >= 1.1x (y >= 13/12 x)

This suggests the chance of going down at the 5-level must be significantly higher than the chance of bidding and making slam.

(this analysis is a little on the optimistic slam - I basically assumed we would never go down in six. I did not assume we would always bid six when it was making - x% is the chance of bidding and making the slam. The principle is still valid though in spite of this optimism)

[whereagles]

After 1♠ - 3♠ I don't think I'll bid less than 6. Even if pard has a flat 5332 with no hcps, slam is cold

[Edmunte1]

I agree with most of the things gnasher said. Your methods are basically wrong: when a hand is very strong and another is weak, the weak hand should describe. Why? Because most of the time we don't have enough bidding space to perfectly describe 'a monster'. Also the big hand is the promoting hand, and must be filled with some little pieces for making the slam. So the weak hand should never take the capitancy. It seems much normal to show 4 card fit ,Queen of trumps and if necesary third round control in clubs for partner to take the winning decision.