[Lobowolf]

han, on Sep 15 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

Listen to lobowolf's argument:

I have a 6-loser hand. However, 4 of my losers are in partner's suits so he will cover most of these.

That's one of the most backwards arguments I have read this year and because I'm so polite I blame loser count for it.

That analysis (sic) addresses only a portion of my argument, and it bears a passing resemblance, at best, to what I was saying. At the risk of being understood, I'll clarify.

Losing trick count characterizes Qx as a 2-loser suit, the same as xx; it characterizes Qxxx as almost as bad as xxx, 2 1/2 losers.

However, when partner has length in suits where we have a queen, and partner has a good hand, it becomes more probable than the Q will in fact be a useful card, and thus losing trick count makes our hand seem worse than it is. Putting our red suits up against some of the relevant hands for partner (partner has a hand worth at least considering 6♦), as, for instance, the hands posted by Phil, MikeH, and others, make this point by specific example, as opposed to the general terms I was using, but it's the same point.

My point is nothing remotely like "partner will cover most of my losers."

Part of my point (the part about the red suits) is: "Because partner has strength, and length in the suits where I have Qx(xx), my hand is better than LTC would suggest."

[MFA]

Lobowolf, on Sep 15 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 15 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

[SOAPBOX]
The big problem with losing trick count, high card count, or whatever count is that it's a static evaluation of a dynamic problem.  You come up with a "value" for your hand based on some measure and consider your hand in isolation of everything else that is going on.  You then assign a guess of a similar measure from your partner based on what you have heard thus far and then think this is a good tool to examine the combined value of the two hands?

Why not just consider the problem more fluidly.  You can consider things like:

Honor location
Fitting values
Extra trump length
Useful shortness
Offensive vs defensive holdings
etc.

Notice that when the good bidders give reasons for their choices, they are based on knowledge from the entire auction (including opponents) as well as how their hand has increased in value or decreased in value based on the auction.

Can you tell me how losing trick count increases in value or decreases in value based on the auction?  If not, then how can we possibly consider it a useful guide for bidding decisions?
[/SOAPBOX]

I agree completely, which is why in my post LTC was merely a basic starting point. I contextualized my evaluation with reference to partner's bidding (making it likely that my red suit holdings weren't full of the losers as they would be in isolation), the opponents' bidding (partner's potential concern about the club suit), and the potential "in and out" (as Jeff Rubens would say) benefit of having slow honors in partner's suits and fast honors outside it.

Are you considering that ♠KQT and ♣AK is less than ideal opposite 0-3 black cards? We have a lot wasted there, and at the same time only mediocre fit for partner.

[mike777]

Good problem

Here is one email response:


"I decided to bid 5D (not cue bidding) before reading edit’s comments. My reasoning is that I am not concerned about black suit controls. Most of my strength is outside of partner’s suits…partner will know I am 2-4 in the reds, and he knows my strength. I agree that 4S and 5C are cues for diamonds and could work – I think those bids work BETTER if I actually did NOT control the other black suit and had more stuff in the RED suits…..so when I do bid 5D, I either control both or neither black suit, and trust partner to figure which way it is, based upon the 13 cards he is intently peering upon."

[Lobowolf]

MFA, on Sep 15 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

Are you considering that ♠KQT and ♣AK is less than ideal opposite 0-3 black cards? We have a lot wasted there, and at the same time only mediocre fit for partner.

Definitely agree that it's less than ideal; I just think it's enough for a cue below the game level, particularly given the opponents' having bid clubs, and therefore that on some of the hands on which 6♦ is correct, partner won't move over 5♦ due to concerns about that suit.

Part of the question is where you fall on the cuebids-below-game continuum -- On one end, they can suggest a hand that REALLY looks good for slam; on the other end, you can take the position that you're going to 5♦ anyway, and as long as your hand doesn't look quite UNsuitable for slam, you should use the room to show partner a holding that might help him with his possible decision on whether to go farther.

[cherdano]

I still think the cuebidders are fooling themselves since it is so easy to construct hands where slam is good. There are just too many hands where partner should go to slam where it has no play. Ax AJxxx Axxxx x makes for a decent slam opposite xxxx Kx Qxxx AKx, how could that hand not bid slam opposite a cooperating strong NT? We have only one keycard, much less than partner can expect.

[benlessard]

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts. Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

With

AKxxx
AKxxx

in the red

partner will bid slam anyway.

[paulg]

benlessard, on Sep 15 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

With

AKxxx
AKxxx

in the red

partner will bid slam anyway.

I thought that one of the challenges on this problem is that partner will not bid slam with this hand unless you do something other than bid 5♦. Not that it stopped me making the same bid.

Paul

[Lobowolf]

cardsharp, on Sep 16 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

benlessard, on Sep 15 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

With

AKxxx
AKxxx

in the red

partner will bid slam anyway.

I thought that one of the challenges on this problem is that partner will not bid slam with this hand unless you do something other than bid 5♦. Not that it stopped me making the same bid.

Paul

I think part of the question is certainly, "Will he bid it anyway over 5♦ if 2 of his black cards are clubs?"

[mikeh]

benlessard, on Sep 15 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

I think our hand isnt worth a move, KQx is spades is ugly. If i bid 5C (denying the S A) he will know that ive got some soft wasted S values. But on this hand its so likely that ive got 5 wasted pts.  Plus if i bid 5D he will know that ive got 4D and 2H.

With

AKxxx
AKxxx

in the red

partner will bid slam anyway.

Why will he bid slam?

Even with 2=5=5=1, how can he know that we are not AKQx xx Jxxx KQx? Is this a good slam? No.

Or we may be AKx Qx Qxxx KQxx... is this a good slam? It would be, if it weren't for the auction, which tells us that RHO is leading his stiff club and we are now down when trump are (are we surprised?) 3-1.

And if he is 1=5=5=2, he is NEVER bidding over 5♦, even with x AKJxx AKJxx xx, since he can see how they rate to beat him in clubs. After all, we could have and should have bid 5♣ if we had a slam-suitable holding opposite AKxxx AKxxx.

Frankly, if any partner of mine raised 5♦ to slam opposite these raises, I would seriously question his ability.

[han]

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.

[mikeh]

han, on Sep 16 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.

Sorry, Han.. I completely disagree.

I see no basis for asserting that we will drive to slam with any hand, no matter how good it may seem.

Partner has not evinced any slam interest: he bid a forcing 3♥... we really had little choice but to bid 3N with no heart fit, and a club stopper, especially if the club stopper offered some prospect of combining well: say A10x(x).

When he bid 4♦, he was still looking for the best game, not enquiring about slam. With AJx J10xxx AJxxx void, I'd expect the same auction... and it is far from clear how he should bid over 3♣ with say KJxxx Axxxxx in the reds.

So I cannot accept that 'with the top 20% of hands', consistent with 3N, we should drive to slam.

I also have trouble with the middle 35-80% cue bid.

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

Hence, 5♣ is only slightly stronger than 5♦... it is a MILD try for slam, and, on the given layout, would have got partner unimpressed. Partner would have had no trouble bidding 5♦. Note that even improving opener's hand to Kx in hearts still makes slam a poor contract.

I admit that this style will miss slam when opener has Kxx Ax Qxxx AKxx, as an example... but all styles represent compromise.

And, as an aside, after 5♣, I think that partner can bid slam even with xx in spades, with AKxxx AKxxx, since we cannot be suggesting a mild slam try without at least 2nd round control in spades.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Sep 16 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

han, on Sep 16 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

I think this is the right approach: with the very best hands we drive to slam, say with the top 20%. With the middle 35%-80% we cuebid and leave it up to partner. With worse (10%-35%) hands we bid 5D, allowing partner to still bid 6D if that seems with the odds.

Of course, with the very worst hands for diamonds we'll be bidding 4NT, not 5D.

It is easy to construct a combination of hands where this approach will get us overboard or will make us miss a slam, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. I think this hand falls into the 5D category.

Partner had AJx J109xx AKJxx - in case someone is interested.

Sorry, Han.. I completely disagree.

I see no basis for asserting that we will drive to slam with any hand, no matter how good it may seem.

Partner has not evinced any slam interest: he bid a forcing 3♥... we really had little choice but to bid 3N with no heart fit, and a club stopper, especially if the club stopper offered some prospect of combining well: say A10x(x).

When he bid 4♦, he was still looking for the best game, not enquiring about slam. With AJx J10xxx AJxxx void, I'd expect the same auction... and it is far from clear how he should bid over 3♣ with say KJxxx Axxxxx in the reds.

So I cannot accept that 'with the top 20% of hands', consistent with 3N, we should drive to slam.

I also have trouble with the middle 35-80% cue bid.

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

Hence, 5♣ is only slightly stronger than 5♦... it is a MILD try for slam, and, on the given layout, would have got partner unimpressed. Partner would have had no trouble bidding 5♦. Note that even improving opener's hand to Kx in hearts still makes slam a poor contract.

I admit that this style will miss slam when opener has Kxx Ax Qxxx AKxx, as an example... but all styles represent compromise.

And, as an aside, after 5♣, I think that partner can bid slam even with xx in spades, with AKxxx AKxxx, since we cannot be suggesting a mild slam try without at least 2nd round control in spades.

I agree with this post. I also think that it also (along with Han's previous post) underscores that at its most fundamental level, the difference between 5♣ and 5♦ is simply one of partnership philosophy/agreement/understanding about what cuebids below the game level mean in this and analogous situations.

[cherdano]

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.
I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

[jdonn]

han, on Sep 16 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

If we do not cuebid then that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the worst possible hand in the history of bridge. Partner is still allowed to bid slam if he thinks that slam will make opposite most hands that would bid 5D.

Yes, we might get to some poor slams if partner bids this way, but we will get to more poor slams if we cuebid 5C with this hand as well as much better hands. How is partner supposed to know that we have so little help in the red suits?

This echoed my exact thoughts. We have one keycard and very little in partner's suits, and even the Q Q in partner's suits could turn out to pull no weight, this is the latest thread that is shocking to me. This strikes me as the type of hand where an ace or king in a red suit could turn out to be as valuable as all the black honors combined. I would bid 4NT before 5♣. Truthfully 5♣ didn't occur to me until people started bidding it. I mean what's the definition supposed to be, "I don't suck for slam and there is some hand you can have that makes slam where you will pass 5♦"?

[han]

Quote

To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'.

Good luck with your discussion, it might be a short one.

[MFA]

cherdano, on Sep 16 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.
I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!
We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

Do we like our hand?

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

[mikeh]

MFA, on Sep 16 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 16 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.
I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!
We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

Do we like our hand?

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

Wait a second.

I can live with a decision to bid 5♦, if your view is that the opening hand is not worth a slam try.

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

Let's consider the options available.

4♥ is a non-forcing preference, conveying no hint of slam interest..to the contrary, it should slow the auction down, being probably 4=2=3=4.

4♠ is a cue and a slam try. Two issues: the first being that we lack the Ace. The second is that we have no followup: maybe responder should bid 4N if concerned about clubs, but even so, bidding both black suits sure looks like a misdescription to me.

4N is utterly regressive

5♦ is not the slam try some people seem to think it is. While we will usually be bidding 4N with a purely regressive hand, surely we might be bidding 5♦ with many hands on which slam is either hopeless or well against the odds. Unlikely tho it may seem, there will be a lot of hands on which partner will properly fear a club lead against 6♦. There may be good players who would raise to slam with 1=5=5=2 AKxxx AKxxx, but I don't think many top teams become top teams making that sort of leap into the unknown.

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

Now, as Han so snidely pointed out, this call, if intended to begin a discussion, will lead to a short discussion, because there is no room for responder to contribute.. he is in a go-no go as far as small slam is concerned, altho on a different day, grand might still be possible: Ax AKxxx AKJxx x.

Since we get to describe our slam try only once, the key is to decide whether we use this opportunity only when very strongly trying for slam, or whether we use it on most hands with any degree of slam suitability.

This is a matter of style. My preference is to make the slam try on hands that have a reasonable degree of suitability. Others seem to want to have a higher standard.

I simply don't understand those who want a higher standard AND expect partner to guess to bid slam when we show no interest. The reason for the higher standard is to avoid responder bidding too much when we do make a try... if we stretch to make our try, he will accept too often. We destroy that advantage if we then say that responder can guess to bid slam on dubious hands when we show no interest.

I also don't understand the Han's of the world who think, for reasons that escape me, that there exist hands on which opener can drive to slam .... let alone as frequently as 20% of the time... if that is the case, then surely we should be making slam trys with moderate hands, since with great hands, we intend to hang partner anyway.

I do understand those who say: we want partner to be able to count on our expression of interest as showing a very good hand.. we accept that we will miss some slams the less rigid cuebidders will reach, but we will avoid enough bad slams, that they reach, so as to show a net profit.

I disagree, but not because the high-standard cue bidders are 'wrong', but because both styles, if played appropriately, break even. I like bidding slams, so I prefer to lose imps by reaching a bad slam rather than by missing a good one.

And I understand those of both schools who may believe that the given hand isn't good enough to cue.. this is more a question of valuation than method.. I happen to think a little better of this hand than some others.. and I don't claim that I am 'right'.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Sep 16 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

....

4♠ is a cue and a slam try.

....

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

I don't mean to be snide, really, but isn't that two tries that are available?

[mikeh]

TimG, on Sep 16 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 16 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

....

4♠ is a cue and a slam try.

....

So the only slam try (except for huge hands with both black Aces) is 5♣.

I don't mean to be snide, really, but isn't that two tries that are available?

Ok, you got me. I thought that the context made it clear that, on the hand in question, opener has only one slam try available, because the 2nd one made no sense on the hand.. but, I deserve the (snide) shot

[MFA]

mikeh, on Sep 16 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

MFA, on Sep 16 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 16 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

We have very little room. To me the 5♣ cuebid says "I am above average in terms of slam suitability among all hands that do not bid 4N or 4♠", and this shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, it is the only sensible way I can see playing 5♣. It would be different if we could make a cheaper cuebid and reject to cooperate afterwards, then we could obviously cuebid with a greater range of hands.
I also think that our hand is clearly below average in terms of slam suitability.

Exactly!
We have no space and no time to describe our hand further. With one last chance to encourage partner, we should have one concern that comes before anything else:

Do we like our hand?

This one, we don't like at all. Even when it is theoretical possible to construct a hand we would like even less- that is not the criterion.

Wait a second.

I can live with a decision to bid 5♦, if your view is that the opening hand is not worth a slam try.

But I think is is very important to understand that opener has only one try available.

I really have no idea which part of my post it is that could lead to such a misunderstanding .

It's the entire reason for not being able to cuebid with a below average, but not completely hopeless hand, that we have so little room.

We'll get one chance to speak, better to say what we really feel rather than to transfer the decision with an include-all-hands 5♣ cuebid. Sorry, I don't buy that this is much a question of cuebid style, imo is it really not sensible not to require above average hand strength for 5♣.