[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

1NT-2D!
3H!-3S!-(DBl)
4D!
2D=Transfer with 4 card if at least limit
3H=4 card and minimum (15 or 16 bad)
3S= 1st/2nd control
4D=2nd control S, no Club control and 1st/2nd control D.
...You continue above 4H?

[kenrexford]

I absolutely love the auction so far. Canape transfers -- love them, used to play them. Cues -- perfect.

That said, I want to know one thing -- does Opener's bypass of 3NT mean anything?

I mean, we know that Opener has the spade King and that it is probably well-placed (thank you opponents). With the known diamond Ace, we have one spade loser and no diamond losers.

Partner has a minimum. With the spade King and diamond Ace, he is known to have something like ♠Kxx ♥??xx ♦Axx ♣xxx.

We need partner to have the AQ in hearts, giving him something like ♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦Axx ♣xxx.

To get to 15, he needs another card somewhere, whether two jacks or a queen or something.

The question, then, is what partner would need with a minimum to be "contextually serious," and only if you use Serious 3NT here. If you do, then it seems to me that AQ in hearts plus a side Ace is fairly good for starters. As the spade control will be known to be the King (for a no-redouble position), that cannot be considered a "negative feature" because it is known. Thus, the question, IMO, would be whether the exact high cards held, plus either a doubleton club or a club Queen (or a diamond Queen) would be enough for "serious" interest.

IMO, the following four hands WOULD be serious, contextually:

♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦AQxx ♣xx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦AQx ♣xxx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦Axxx ♣Qx.

However, maybe the third and fourth are not as clear, even though they are better, actually. It would seem to me that a non-serious 4♦ call from partner should, therefore, not produce what I need for slam.

After a serious 3NT, 4♣ by me, and 4♦ from partner, I would bid 5♣ to catch the slam opposite the third and fourth examples.

[gnasher]

Random cue-bidding is pretty useless on this sort of hand - what I want to know is whether partner's clubs are xxx or Qx.

Doesn't the system allow me to bid 4♣, showing a five-card club suit, and if not, why not? It's ridiculous that partner's break to 3♥ should leave me worse placed than if he had completed the transfer.

[jdonn]

Not to also hate on the system, but stayman then splinter, wow that would be nice.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Not to also hate on the system, but stayman then splinter, wow that would be nice.

If you would play Stayman then splinter, then after the canape transfer bid 3♠ as a splinter. No problem.

What I like about this sequence is that trumps are already agreed. Whereas for me Stayman-then-3♠ (three of other major) agrees trumps, in this sequence trumps are agreed and 3♠ means something.

If Stayman...3♠ is a splinter, then Responder has no way to just force game with slam interest. With these methods, presumably 3♠ could be used as a splinter, with 3NT by Responder as an all-purpose slam invite without shortness.

If you want 4♣ to be natural (completing the picture), fine. You are still better placed, I think, after the canape transfer approach.

[jdonn]

I'm glad you seem to be so good at figuring out partner's exact high cards and distribution for the difference between when he likes his 15 to bad 16 and not, and how to get partner to cooperate with the right doubleton in a suit you've never shown, and stop with KQx in a suit that you have generically cuebid but never shown a singleton in. But I bet beginners like me find this hand much easier to describe in some reasonable fashion than to figure out what partner's hand is.

[han]

Didn't really follow the discussion very carefully but pretty sure I agree with Josh.

[kgr]

We also play not-serious 3NT, but not sure my partner thought about that. I'm happy if he knows that 4♦ shows a 2nd round control in ♠.
 
After 1NT-2D-2NT: 3level bids are now splinters, not sure if 3♠ after 3♥ should also be a splinter and if it is better to bid 4♣ (or could 4♣ be a stronger hand without ♠ control; eg: xx=AKxxx=AQx=Kxx?). Something to discuss with my partner.

[gnasher]

kgr, on Sep 3 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

After 1NT-2D-2NT: 3level bids are now splinters, not sure if 3♠ after 3♥ should also be a splinter and if it is better to bid 4♣ (or could 4♣ be a stronger hand without ♠ control; eg: xx=AKxxx=AQx=Kxx?). Something to discuss with my partner.

When you said "2D=Transfer with 4 card if at least limit", I thought you meant that it could not be a good hand with five hearts. If it can, in fact, be either Canape or a 5332 slam try, I think you need to find a way to distinguish between the two hand-types. Why not 4C/D as Canape, with 3S and 3NT showing a 5332 slam try?

[kgr]

gnasher, on Sep 3 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

kgr, on Sep 3 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

After 1NT-2D-2NT: 3level bids are now splinters, not sure if 3♠ after 3♥ should also be a splinter and if it is better to bid 4♣ (or could 4♣ be a stronger hand without ♠ control; eg: xx=AKxxx=AQx=Kxx?). Something to discuss with my partner.

When you said "2D=Transfer with 4 card if at least limit", I thought you meant that it could not be a good hand with five hearts. If it can, in fact, be either Canape or a 5332 slam try, I think you need to find a way to distinguish between the two hand-types. Why not 4C/D as Canape, with 3S and 3NT showing a 5332 slam try?

4 card H if limit+

[kenrexford]

Well, if 3NT is non-serious, this is rather easy.

To answer Josh's concerns, let's think this through.

First, let's focus on what Opener should have in spades. When Opener does not redouble, he denies the spade Ace. As he cannot have shortness and open 1NT, he must have the King to show second-round control. Hence, we know that Opener has the spade King, whether Kx, Kxx, or Kxxx. Plus, he knows, because of the lead-director, that Responder probably has a stiff or void in spades and that his RHO likes spades. Accordingly, K-empty is good stuff, but KQ sucks. So, to be "serious," in the context of this sequence, he will have K-empty and 2-4 spades. He can show serious interest with this holding because we can figure out that he has this holding.

How about general texture? The best hand partner can have for controls is five (heart Ace, diamond Ace, and spade King). For me, at least, a 14-15 count with five controls is a high-end bid. (With a 16-copunt, this is too good, per definition, if Opener has a high control count.) So, to be "serious," Opener should have a high control count. The best "control count" he can have is actually five with the trump Queen. In theory, he could easily have six controls (AKAK or AAA), or even six with the trump Queen (AAA:Q), but we know that he cannot have that. I would expect that "serious interest" is shown when Opener has five controls with the Queen or better. Perhaps five controls might be enough, except that he cannot also have covers. I would also expect at least four covers plus something. With spade King, two red Aces, and a few queens, partner has insufficient covers to have serious interest.

Thus, it seems fairly strong that "serious interest" can only exist if partner has the spade King (per the auction), plus the two red Aces (to get his control count high enough) and the heart Queen (to get his cover card count high enough).

Thus, we know that Opener has Kx(x)(x) in spades, AQxx in hearts, plus the diamond Ace, for 13 HCP. Maybe that is enough to show "serious interest." So, if he bids 4♦, we can expect these cards with fair certainty. Opposite the worst possible holding (I did not provide the patterns as what I thought but as "worst case scenarios), the five-level looks fairly safe. So, we now bid 5♣ to focus partner on his club holding. If he has the Queen of clubs, this is a no-brainer. If he has a doubleton club, without the Queen, I think he should bid 5♦ as LTTC.

This is not all that difficult. The problems with analysis you suggest, jdonn, are frankly based on a lack of auction awareness. When 3♠ was doubled, the entire nature of the auction changed.

Now, I will acknowledge that a lack of a double makes the sequence more complicated, as Opener's 4♦ cue carries less meaning in that event. However, in this sequence, that is not so much of a problem.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Plus, he knows, because of the lead-director, that Responder probably has a stiff or void in spades and that his RHO likes spades. Accordingly, K-empty is good stuff, but KQ sucks.

dangerous assumption...

Quote

With spade King, two red Aces, and a few queens, partner has insufficient covers to have serious interest.

dangerous assumption...

Quote

So, we now bid 5♣ to focus partner on his club holding.

dangerous assumption...

Quote

The problems with analysis you suggest, jdonn, are frankly based on a lack of auction awareness.

ignorance is bliss, what can i say. thanks for pointing it out to me though.

Quote

When 3♠ was doubled, the entire nature of the auction changed.

remind me to double more of your cuebids. because they sure seem to double mine on every random piece of crap holding with regularity.

Quote

Now, I will acknowledge that a lack of a double makes the sequence more complicated, as Opener's 4♦ cue carries less meaning in that event.  However, in this sequence, that is not so much of a problem.

Oh...and there I was not liking the method, when I just had to realize that it's great as long as the opponents double in for us!

[RichMor]

gnasher, on Sep 2 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Random cue-bidding is pretty useless on this sort of hand - what I want to know is whether partner's clubs are xxx or Qx.

Doesn't the system allow me to bid 4♣, showing a five-card club suit, and if not, why not? 

Good comment IMO. The first slam try should tell pard how we hope to make it, not how we hope to avoid losing the first 2 tricks.

Up the line control bidding, showing first or second round control, is more effective after we know something about the general fit of the 2 hands.

After a natural 4♣ slam try, opener can evaluate and cooperate. Upgrade for secondary honors and length in Hearts and Clubs. Upgrade for controls in Spades and Diamonds. Opener can cue bid with a good hand in context or retreat to 4♥ with a bad hand.

Look at some example hands from Ken.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦AQxx ♣xx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦AQx ♣xxx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx.
♠Kxx ♥AQxx ♦Axxx ♣Qx.

Wouldn't you rather know about responder's Clubs and slam interest instead of a first or second round Spade control ?

[kenrexford]

But, isn't the question one of who is captain?

In the actual sequence, Opener has provided incredible detail to Responder, defining his HCP range quite tightly, his support, and his general shape. Responder, on the other hand, is the wildly unknown.

Plus, we know that Opener will cue controls, meaning Aces and Kings. So, if Responder needs to know about the locations of Opener's Aces and Kings, he can control the auction fairly well by simply launching into cues, especially if ser/non-ser 3NT is available.

The problem hand is described by this example, where Responder needs a specific Queen, as Opener can find out about a necessary Ace or King through cues (give Responder AQxxx or KQxxx in clubs, for example). Pattern bidding will help Opener evaluate the right Queen. However, Responder might also have a hole, where cuebidding helps better.

At least in my mind, as Responder is best suited on average to be in control in a sequence like this, then I'll reserve the Queen-ask for the five level (as I described) and ensure that we have reasonable five-level safety through cues and ser/non-ser 3NT.

I mean, after 4♣ as a slam try with clubs and hearts, how much extra stuff does Opener need? Does he get excited about a doubleton club for some reason? How many external controls does he need even if he has the club Queen? How many covers does he need?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

But, isn't the question one of who is captain?

Why should there be a captain? I think that most deals are easier to bid if both players are involved in the decision-making.

Quote

In the actual sequence, Opener has provided incredible detail to Responder, defining his HCP range quite tightly, his support, and his general shape.  Responder, on the other hand, is the wildly unknown.

I don't agree that on this deal responder's hand is, or at least should be, unknown. Whilst we don't have complete information about the system, it appears that the only slam-try hands that responder can have are 4H-5m and balanced. It also appears that we have room for responder to show both types of hand at a sensible level.

Quote

At least in my mind, as Responder is best suited on average to be in control in a sequence like this, then I'll reserve the Queen-ask for the five level (as I described) and ensure that we have reasonable five-level safety through cues and ser/non-ser 3NT.

So, simplifying somewhat, you use the four level to find out about controls, and the five level to find out whether you have enough winners; I use the four level to find out if we have the tricks, and the five level to find out it we have the controls. You will end up in 5♥ when you have the controls but the hands fit poorly; I will end up in 5♥ when the hands fit well but we have two top losers. You will go down when things break badly, because your 11 trick get reduced to 10; I will go down when they are able to add a ruff to their two top tricks.

I think my way is better.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Sep 3 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

So, simplifying somewhat, you use the four level to find out about controls, and the five level to find out whether you have enough winners; I use the four level to find out if we have the tricks, and the five level to find out it we have the controls. You will end up in 5♥ when you have the controls but the hands fit poorly; I will end up in 5♥ when the hands fit well but we have two top losers. You will go down when things break badly, because your 11 trick get reduced to 10; I will go down when they are able to add a ruff to their two top tricks.

I think my way is better.

In the simplification, you miss the essence and reach the opposite conclusion.

After Responder bids 3♠, a cuebid, Opener has two initial options:

1. Show contextually serious interest.
2. Cooperate only.

If Opener shows "contextually serious interest," then he has a high number of controls and likely cover cards given the range of his possible holdings.

If Opener denies "contextually serious interest," then he has a low number of controls and likely cover cards given the range of his possible holdings.

Hence, the three-level is actually used to discover if we have sufficient tricks, the four-level sufficient controls, and the five-level the critical trick 12.

In other words, using serious 3NT (the reverse for non-serious):

3♠ = I have a spade control
3NT (3-level call) = I have extra tricks/controls
4-bid (4-level call) = OK, I have this/need this control
5-bid (5-level call) = do you have this also?

Your auction is different. Rather than allow anyone to show mild or strong slam interest, and without any definition of control needs, we just announce a second suit. If the suit is diamonds, BTW, not even LTTC would be available. In other words:

4♣ = I have a club second suit
4♦ = I kinda like that
4NT = Uh, kinda is probably enough

or

4♦ = I have diamonds also
...hesitation...
GUESS!!!

That works wonders. Especially when the opponents cash the first two tricks in spades or in the other minor.

Now, Responder can also do this maneuver:

1. 3♠ as a cue
2. 3NT as serious interest without a spade control
3. 4♣ as a cooperative cue
4. 4♦ as a cooperative cue

So, Responder can also set the "need a lot" or "need a little" stage with the three-level.

I would like the cooperative cues as natural calls, admittedly. In fact, I like it a lot:

1. 3♠ = cue start, unknown seriousness
2. 3NT = serious start but no spade control
3. Non-serious but with clubs secondary
4. Non-serious but with diamond secondary

That works very well. A blended approach.

[kgr]

kgr, on Sep 2 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ x ♥ Kxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ AKxxx

1NT-2D!
3H!-3S!-(DBl)
4D!
2D=Transfer with 4 card if at least limit
3H=4 card and minimum (15 or 16 bad)
3S= 1st/2nd control
4D=2nd control S, no Club control and 1st/2nd control D.
...You continue above 4H?

Partner had:

KJxx
AQxx
AJxx
xx
6H made easily with Clubs 3-3, but we stopped in 4H.