[cherdanno]

I think the cuebidders are neglecting the fact that even when we are not off ♦AK, cuebidding might gear opponents to a successful diamond lead - imagine partner with ♦AJx and ♣QJx.
Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

In any case, if you told me that opponents have ♦AK, I wouldn't want to be in slam (and I bet Justin wouldn't either), but it's close - and that doesn't mean that using an uninformative auction where we occasionally get to a slam off ♦AK is inferior.
(I am sure Cascade could quickly find out what "occasionally" means precisely here - I would think it's way less than 5% of all hands for partner. So if we go down 60% of the time when we are off ♦AK, we are talking about less than a 0.1 IMP loss on average.)

[Cascade]

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

[mike777]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠

---

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

I could see three options"

1nt=2h
2s=4s( mild slam try)


1nt=4h
4s=4nt(rkc)




1nt=4h
4s=5c(cue, spades are trumps.)

[ONEferBRID]

cherdanno, on Aug 30 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

It was Winstonm on his 4th post on page 1 where he suggested a "least lie" sort of bid for this hand.... and that was a Cl Splinter with the K x doubleton.
( He said he would not be alone with this bid ).

It is not too far off... afterall, there is a 2nd Rnd Ctrl. It may solicit a Diam cue which is the only thing you need before RKC:

Dealer: West

West
♠ A7
♥ QJ96
♦ K62
♣ AQ97

East
♠ KQ10985
♥ AK5
♦ 98
♣ K4

1nt-2♥!
2♠- 4♣! ( splinter w/6+cds Sp )
4♦- 4NT, etc to 6♠

[neilkaz]

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

Great thread here and certainly two sides of the RKC now or take a slow route arguement.

Of interest would be too look at those 46 hands and honestly assess how often after a RKC sequence and a jump to 6♠ how often will the killing ♦ lead be made ? How often would it be made vs a jump to 6N rather than 6♠?

On the rest of the 954 hands, how often does slam make if bid and how often is a cold slam missed if you take a slower but more informative route.

Texas then 5♣ gets you to this slam, but also helps pinpoint the ♦ lead if pard cannot cue 5♦ or bid slam directly. 5♠ should still have fine play, but it will be tragic if 10 tricks are the limit on said ♦ lead.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Aug 31 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods.

I know the opening post was not using SAYC. However SAYC certainly has a standard method of initiating cue-bids - a jump to 3Major.

It seems a little weird that there is no standard method for a relatively common hand type given we have slam values.

[Cascade]

neilkaz, on Aug 31 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 30 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

In 1000 hands the ♦ AK were missing 46 times.

The issue isn't the size of the loss but whether or not it is avoidable.

Great thread here and certainly two sides of the RKC now or take a slow route arguement.

Of interest would be too look at those 46 hands and honestly assess how often after a RKC sequence and a jump to 6♠ how often will the killing ♦ lead be made ? How often would it be made vs a jump to 6N rather than 6♠?

On the rest of the 954 hands, how often does slam make if bid and how often is a cold slam missed if you take a slower but more informative route.

Texas then 5♣ gets you to this slam, but also helps pinpoint the ♦ lead if pard cannot cue 5♦ or bid slam directly. 5♠ should still have fine play, but it will be tragic if 10 tricks are the limit on said ♦ lead.

Including the 46 hands missing the ♦ AK here are the double dummy numbers for tricks available:

9 2
10 5
11 150
12 532
13 311

[neilkaz]

Wackojack, on Aug 29 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt-2♥
2♠- 3♣
3NT- 4♠

---

This hand came up on BBO yesterday. We were playing Texas, normal transfers and 3M 3154 as per BBO Adv. I held the opening 1NT hand. We had no agreement on what 3♦ would mean after 3♣ but normally I would like it to mean agreeing spades and a control. Why didnt we bid the slam?

Sounds like you weren't sure of your meaning for 3♣. Standard is that bidding 3♣ here shows a 2nd suit and at least a slam invite. After that, opener has to love his hand with the AJ in PD's major and the Aqxx in PD's minor.

However, if 3♣ actually showed a ♣ control and S/I with long ♠ opener's hand becomes stunning !

OTB I think opener wasn't quite sure what 3♣ meant so he was afraid to raise past 3NT with only two ♠ and afraid to cue 3♦ with only 2♠ ?!?

However, after responder pulls to 4♠ opener has to be certain that responder has 6♠ and something in ♣ and can simply move forward towards slam.

Big blame to opener here, but I'll only give him 50% since he was confused by pard's less than standard bidding.

As other's have pointed out it isn't unreasonable for responder to jump straight into RKC and hope to avoid a ♦ lead in the rare times they get to slam and are off AK. It also isn't unreasonable to Texas and then cue 5♣ or to Jacoby and then bid 4♠ as a mild slam try (standard playing Texas)

50% blame to responder for a funny 3♣ bid and for being rather cowardly also.

[neilkaz]

Wayne "Including the 46 hands missing the ♦ AK here are the double dummy numbers for tricks available:

9 2
10 5
11 150
12 532
13 311 "

WOW !! This does seem like slam makes alot and that responder was too cautious.

Were your sim parameters using responders hand opposite any normal 15-17 NT ?

If that is the case, I think responder should just Texas and RKCB although there will be some inference to the opening leader when 4♥ isn't doubled for lead and perhaps a slight inference that an ace maybe missing when responder stops in 6

[Cascade]

Yes the east hand from the opening post opposite any 4333, 4432 or 5332. I did not include other shapes.

The numbers are double dummy.

However good the numbers look. The real question is can we do better.

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Aug 31 2009, 08:59 PM, said:

Yes the east hand from the opening post opposite any 4333, 4432 or 5332. I did not include other shapes.

The numbers are double dummy.

However good the numbers look. The real question is can we do better.

Better than double dummy? E.g. by not telling them what to lead?

Btw, if you had this hand 100 times, do you really think you wouldn't miss a cold slam a single time by cuebidding? If you miss slam only once, you have already negated your gain from avoiding 4.6 slams off ♦AK. Same if you just go down once by telling them what to lead.

I guess your bidding is really superior to US expert bidding then, and you shouldn't keycard with this hand.

[rduran1216]

the responder's hand is worth 17 playing points in spades.

If you assume just the worst hand in life for the opener, say xx spades, QJx hearts, AKQJx, Qxx clubs, I still think you want to be there, on the chance you dont get a club lead. It is quite unlikely that this is your hand, simply replace the two Q's with the A of clubs or spades and you want to be there in spades.

Point is, if I look at the responder's hand I want to be there, because with just about any 15 points, I've got a shot at it, and its hard to even craft a hand where you are dead from the outset.

A majority of the time, 6S or 6NT is where you want to be with that hand.

So I would transfer to spades, and bid 6S, in the long run, its worth it.

[BillHiggin]

Confessions of an old fart
Sometimes we get a thought and do not think it all the way through. I was Jack's partner and must have just eaten a platter of sliders (i.e. became Whimpy). My first thought when he opened 1N was indeed - texas then RKC. But, I then focused on that diamond situation and got a bit too inventive. Why not bid the non existent club suit and see if he can cue diamonds.

Bad thinking: And if he cannot, then I will avoid a bad slam (oops, failure to cue does not deny the control, it simply means he feels his cards are wrong for a black suit slam, but old brains can get stuck in the wrong rut).

Clearly, I did not catch my faulty logic in time. I am busy writing "Do not invent new agreements at the table" 100 times.

[BillHiggin]

I see one idea in this thread that looks problematic:
That would be using a 3M response to 1N to set trumps and ask for cue bids. If responder has a hand where that seems a useful thing to do, then it really really needs to go through a transfer! He would not see that need if he did not hold an open suit, and that implies that the contract should be right sided via a transfer to protect a possible lonely king in opener's hand.

If a partnership feels the cue bid force is more important than the 1-3 majors, 4-5 minors slam try then there are a couple of ways to do it without wrongside issues.
1) Switch the game invite and the cue bid force (1N-3M as nat game invite but 1N-transfer then 3M as slamish).
2) Simply abandon the game invite with a 6 card major (responder either bids game or stops at 2). This allows you to keep the special (1-3)-(4-5) slam tries.

[aguahombre]

Bill, the concern about wrongsiding is a valid one. Transfers have the side effect of rightsiding, but that is not their only value. they allow more bids to happen because the one who transfers gets to bid again.

In the old (we still use it because we are old) Hardy/Walsh NT system, 1NT-3M was a broken suit slam try, and was frequently only a 5-card suit. the strain was not established and it did not demand cue bidding. But wrongsiding was not a big deal because with a broken suit and a slam try responder was not worried about having to be the declarer (had cards outside). In that style, Opener only cuebid in response to 3M with a fit and a filler in the major.

[gnasher]

BillHiggin, on Sep 1 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

1) Switch the game invite and the cue bid force (1N-3M as nat game invite but 1N-transfer then 3M as slamish).

That seems extremely unwise. Rightsiding matters at the game level too, Game hands are much more common than slam hands; also, the more points responder has, the less important it is for opener to play it.

Quote

2) Simply abandon the game invite with a 6 card major (responder either bids game or stops at 2). This allows you to keep the special (1-3)-(4-5) slam tries.

That also seems unwise. Game hands are still much more common than slam hands.

[ONEferBRID]

Bill.... what about the "false splinter " of 4C!-jump after the simple transfer ?
( see my Aug 30 reply ).

- - Don ( TWOferBRIDGE )

[jdeegan]

I haven't read all the thread's comments, but I think you blew it when you bid 4♠. The auction up to there was good, imho. Slam bidding is conversational. You know slam is possible, but far from certain. So, bid 4♥ over 3NT with the idea that after that you are pretty much done. If pard bids 4♠ you are done. If he bids 4NT, you bid 5♠. If he bids 5♣ (which he probably should) you cooperate with 5♥. After that pard has to bid 6 if you are to reach the slam.

[Chris2794]

Mhh.. i would bid Texas and than RCKB ;-)

With my Regular P i would beginn with Stayman

1NT 2♣
2♥ 2NT
3♣ 4♥
5♣ 6♠

2♣ = Stayman / Both Majors Weak / Asking for Distribution
2♥ = 4 ♥
2NT = Asking for Distribution
3♣ = 4♣
4♥ = RCKB ♠
5♣ = 2 -Q

[aguahombre]

Chris2794, on Sep 8 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

Mhh.. i would bid Texas and than RCKB ;-)

With my Regular P i would beginn with Stayman

1NT          2♣
2♥        2NT
3♣        4♥
5♣        6♠

2♣ = Stayman / Both Majors Weak / Asking for Distribution
2♥ = 4 ♥
2NT = Asking for Distribution
3♣ = 4♣
4♥ = RCKB ♠
5♣ = 2 -Q

2NT asking for distribution? convenient for this hand. I doubt very many people will change their 1NT bidding structure.