[foo]

Phil, on Jan 16 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Since when does a five loser hand like:

Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x

start making slam tries opposite a single raise. Is 2♥ inverted or something?

Pard rates to have a much better hand; something more like:

Axx_AKJxxxx_Ax_x

Whatever pard interprets 4♦ as, I'm happy. Yes, I think LTTC should apply in this sequence, if only to keep things consistent with other Last Train auctions.

*shrug*

I'd make a slam try with either of your examples. We rate to have 5 level safety with either hand.

If Responder has few wasted values in ♣'s, both of your example opening's could easily belong in slam.

[Phil]

foo, on Jan 16 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

"Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x"

2nd hand snipped (not sniped)

I'd make a slam try with either of your examples. We rate to have 5 level safety with either hand.

If Responder has few wasted values in ♣'s, both of your example opening's could easily belong in slam.

A few raises with no "wastage in clubs"

KQx xxx Kxxx xxx

Kxx xxxx xxx Axx

Qxx Jxxx AJx xxx

I wouldn't want to insure my favorite contract opposite any of these.

Making a slam try with the quoted hand is pretty silly. It's easier to construct hands that go down in 4♥ instead of making 5.

I will concede that xxx xxx AKxxx xx give us a good play for slam, but this is a very specific hand.

[foo]

Heh. I note your "bad" responder examples are 4333's. I suspect we both know why...

The only one of which I'd make a direct raise on playing 2/1 is KQx_xxx_Kxxx_xxx (9 losers)

With either Kxx_xxxx_xxx_Axx, or Qxx_Jxxx_AJx_xxx I'd bid 1N first and then either raise ♥'s or pass (1H-1N;2H-??)
(In general, I do not like directly raising Opener with a minimum and 10+ losers)

[Phil]

Heh

Kxxxx xxxx Ax xx

Qxxxx Jxx KJx xx

Kxxxx xxx AJx xx

Do these fit into your single raise structure?

Did the OP mention "constructive raises" (which the 1st and 3rd clearly fall into by the way).

I could go on, but I can see that you are the same poster you were three months ago when I bagged this.

[Fluffy]

congrats Roland, you guessed the bidding without looking at it!. (and the 6NT bid was hilarious as well )

About what to do after splinter, it is wasy to imagine hands where slam makes when partner has singleton ♣, however, if he happens to have void we have no 5 level safety probably.

Awful trumps, a slow ruffing value that might not fit opposite doubleton, and a possible third round diamond loser, I am bidding only 4♥, but with as little as an extra trump I would cue.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Jan 17 2009, 01:44 AM, said:

. I would bid 4♦ with a partner I can trust to not bid blackwood or something simply because I cuebid, unless he has a good reason.
I enjoy the logic that 5/8 of our strength is wasted in clubs. I guess our hand would be better without the club jack at all, since then only 4/7 of our strength would be wasted, which is less than 5/8!

4 ♦ is a nice idea- besides the fact that it is a violation of your partnership agreements. Your partner forces you to play FIRST round controls. Maybe this is a translation problem, but here we take the king normally as a second round control.

With different aggrements however- like the normal approach, where 4 ♦ shows just a second round control or with some LTTC stuff, 4 ♦ is a close call. But I echo Gonzalos thought that this is just a little too weak.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Jan 16 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 17 2009, 01:44 AM, said:

. I would bid 4♦ with a partner I can trust to not bid blackwood or something simply because I cuebid, unless he has a good reason.
I enjoy the logic that 5/8 of our strength is wasted in clubs. I guess our hand would be better without the club jack at all, since then only 4/7 of our strength would be wasted, which is less than 5/8!

4 ♦ is a nice idea- besides the fact that it is a violation of your partnership agreements. Your partner forces you to play FIRST round controls. Maybe this is a translation problem, but here we take the king normally as a second round control.

Sorry I missed that agreement. One of these days I'll learn to speak English as well as you.

If the choice must be between 4♥ or 5♣ or 4NT, I would bid 4♥. My later comment made it clear that I think forcing to the 5 level on this hand is too risky.

[Ant590]

Hey all, thanks for your comments.

The reason I agreed to play first round controls only was that this was the first time I was playing with this person and I vetoed a lot of stuff, so thought I had to accept some of his ideas.

My hand was:

♠ AKxx
♥ AKQxxxx
♦ J
♣ K

What would you choose after 1♥ - 2♥ (not only-constructive). In hindsight perhaps this is just a keycard punt? I was just worried that partner is unlikely to have an ace given the simple raise and if spades don't behave I might be down one at the 5-level.

[suokko]

How about starting with 2♠ and see what partner reacts to it? If he accepts the game try then there is good chance for slam and you can just go for keycards

[gwnn]

If you are going to splinter, 4♦ has to be better than 4♣ for obvious reasons:)

But I too prefer 2♠ to a splinter and am going to bid 4NT over 4♥. Not something very scientific, but probably good enough.

[foo]

Phil, on Jan 16 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Heh

Kxxxx xxxx Ax xx

Qxxxx Jxx KJx xx

Kxxxx xxx AJx xx

Do these fit into your single raise structure?

Did the OP mention "constructive raises" (which the 1st and 3rd clearly fall into by the way).

I could go on, but I can see that you are the same poster you were three months ago when I bagged this.

Please don't get worked up. This is a perfectly germane discussion and should be just as civil as well.

These three examples of yours are, of course, fine ♥ raises.

In fact, change the the opening hand from Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x by as little a modification as Axx_AKJxxx_Kxx_x , and your 1st example is one that starts looking awefully interesting for a slam. Are you going to explore with the 2nd of these but not the 1st? Certainly the 2nd is a better hand, but are the odds of a slam =that= much better between the two?

Give opener Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x while responder's hand is any maximum raise with the ♠K, 3+♥, short ♦'s containing the ♦A, and long empty ♣'s, (which means that to have a maximum 2H raise Responder has a good chance of having the ♠Q or the ♥Q) and We may very well have a playable slam. At the least we should be cold for 5.
And how are We ever finding such a slam if it exists if the auction goes 1H-2H;4H or some other similarly nondescriptive path to game?

Just as importantly, if not more so, if Opener makes some sort of descriptive slam try, something in ♣'s or ♦'s (disguised as a game try of course) given the examples we have been discussing...
...Responder can still turn down the invite without Us going past the four level.

IOW, making one try has very low cost and may have a very large reward.

So why not "play the hand in your head" and explore the possibility of a slam as long as the cost/reward ratio for such exploration is good?

[kenrexford]

Ant590, on Jan 17 2009, 05:44 AM, said:

Hey all, thanks for your comments.

The reason I agreed to play first round controls only was that this was the first time I was playing with this person and I vetoed a lot of stuff, so thought I had to accept some of his ideas.

My hand was:

♠ AKxx
♥ AKQxxxx
♦ J
♣ K

What would you choose after 1♥ - 2♥ (not only-constructive). In hindsight perhaps this is just a keycard punt? I was just worried that partner is unlikely to have an ace given the simple raise and if spades don't behave I might be down one at the 5-level.

I echo the 2♠ idea. Good things could happen.

1. Partner might raise spades.
2. If partner signs off at 3♥, you can repeat spades. This should be "bidding around two stiffs," IMO.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I enjoy the logic that 5/8 of our strength is wasted in clubs. I guess our hand would be better without the club jack at all, since then only 4/7 of our strength would be wasted, which is less than 5/8!

Wrong logic IMO - if the jack were moved to the heart suit then only 4/8 of our strength is opposite shortness, and our 1-point jack is worth more like 1.25 points when in the heart suit than in the club suit, where it carries a value of something like 0.25.

[jdonn]

I like 2♠, but for neither of the reasons Ken mentions at all lol.

[Winstonm]

I would have opened 2C. Don't know if that helps or hurts the auction but at least I don't have to be concerned about a rebid after 1H-2H.

[Phil]

"Gang" splinters are really tough to convey. Splintering in one does not work.

I would have started to 2♠ too. It nominally shows length, and pard's followup may help us out. I think eventually I might get a clue about pard's spade length but probably not.

[mtvesuvius]

I bid 2♠ after 2♥. In theory we could even have a grand slam . If partner accepts, then I will ask for Keycards (Through Kickback or RKC...) and hopefully bid some sort of slam. If partner denies the GT, then I think 3NT Serious is nice here... I bid slam if partner cuebids a minor. I can sympathize with a splinter, but if I am going to splinter, I will do it in ♦, for obvious reasons.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 17 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

I like 2♠, but for neither of the reasons Ken mentions at all lol.

I only mentioned the less obvious as examples, but you would not be pleased in either of these sequences?