[mikeh]

Jlall, on Dec 23 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

I agree with Ken, 5C must deny a spade control. The only reason we know that partner DOES have a spade control is that:

1) We have no spade control
2) Our trumps are very good

This combination allows us to know that partner must have spades controlled, but if either condition was not met partner could easily have no spade control, and that's what his auction shows.

You are not agreeing with ken at all, from what I can see. you are agreeing that 'given our hand', partner has a spade control...and he is arguing that he doesn't.

partner expects that we will:

1. with a spade control and decent trump, bid slam...not caring whether he has a spade control and weakish trumps or no spade control and great trumps...he expects to lose one major suit trick

2. with no spade control and weak trump, sign off....not caring whether he has great trump and no spade control or weakish trump and a spade control...hoping to lose only 2 major suit tricks

3. with no spade control and good trumps, bid slam, because now we can work out that he must have a spade control to force to the 5 level with weak trump.

So this auction is one of those relatively rare but not unheard of auctions in which his bid, without looking at our hand, doesn't tell us what his spade situation is. And on some hands, where it doesn't matter, we can't tell anyway. But on some hands, as in this one, we can.

[jdonn]

It seemed evident to me 5♣ wouldn't deny a spade control. Having been disagreed with I tried to put my finger on why I believed that.

- Partner is so strong that, combined with his club shortness, he will almost always have one if his hand is this good.
- If partner didn't have one it's really unlikely he would have 5 level safety anyway. In the given hand it's essentially impossible. There is only one possible hand and it probably isn't good enough anyway.
- I think it's possible for partner to be good enough to bid over 4♥ with a singleton club. That makes it really hard to evaluate our hand with the club ace. We can bid 5♣ and I admit probably do fine, but I think that's harder and less clear than knowing for sure partner has a club void ourselves. And if his void was diamonds it would be even harder. If I cuebid 5♦ and he goes back to 5♥, does he have a singleton diamond and need a useful card besides the diamond ace, or did have a diamond void and need two cards besides the diamond ace all along?
- My general idea of this auction isn't the rare problem of having a control in every suit, it's the common problem of knowing if our hand is good enough for slam. His hand will have so few holes that just knowing his range and club void lets us make a good decision consistently.
- We weren't in a cuebidding auction anyway, partner splintered then showed a void in his suit. So I don't think any "meta rules" would say bypassed suits deny controls.
- I agree with Mike that partner must be missing so few useful cards that if we don't hold them we know to sign off, and if we hold any we know those were ones partner needed. Like here where you are saying it's likely partner has a spade control even if you think he shouldn't, we can tell that because we have the useful cards partner is missing that he must want for slam. And he knows if we hold them we can tell that.

Looking back I think the Mike reason is the real one. If we have useful cards we know they are useful, thus we know partner was missing them and would have believed he would lose them if we didn't cover him. It just doesn't matter much what those cards are, if we have them we should know it.

[debrose]

I agree that 5C in no way denies a spade control, and I think jdonn's explanation is excellent.

[kenrexford]

I like Justin's analysis.

This auction cannot exist with me looking at the hand I am looking at. Therefore...

If partner's bidding technique is good, his judgment is off, and he's being WAY too agressive.

If partner's bidding judgment is good, his bidding technique is WAY off.

So, whichever fault of partner explains this impossible sequence is the way I should go.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Partners hand

AKJ7
AJ106
AKQ52
-

I also feared that partner is missing a spade control and
because of this fear did bid 5H, which got passed out.

But 5H is not the right bid, one has to bid 6H with the given
hand, even a grand slam try would be ok.
Given that one is a passed hand, one could even argue that
the 4H bid was already very defensive, my p commented, that
he would not have minded a 4D bid (last train), but 4H is still
ok.

I think partners pass over 5H is ok, he has to fear, that he
never can reach dummy, after all I did bid like a man holding

xxx
xxxx
xxx
KQJx

so passing 5H was showing a lot pf partnership trust, the surprising
thing being only, that partner still has some trust left.

There is another argument (purely HCP based) for bidding on
the 30 point deck, which was not yet mentioned, partner will have
a hand with at least 16/17 HCP, this being dead min, there are
only 30HCP relevant given partners club void, and we rate to have
at least 23/24, i.e. 6H will be at least a 50% proposition, and 16/17
is basically dead min. for partners bidding.

But I just blew it.
As Simon said, quite often peoble overbid good hands, and underbid
bad hand, quite often both tendencies meat on the same hand, but
not always.
Simon once asked: "How bad could your hand be in the given context",
and my hand could have been a lot worse.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jonottawa]

Partner's pass of 5♥ is gross. In fact, his whole auction is horrible.

1D-1H
5N-7H

[Winstonm]

From first reading and without reading any of the other posts I would have chosen 6H over 5C. In my mind, the second bid over 4H shows a mountain of a hand I I have way too much to not bid slam. After all, I could have held: xxx, Jxxx, xxx, KQx.

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Dec 24 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Partner's pass of 5♥ is gross.  In fact, his whole auction is horrible.

1D-1H
5N-7H

Wow I disagree. Partner showed a huge hand, if we bid 5♥ he should pass and be glad he got the opportunity to find out slam would be bad. Slam is often not good. There are holes in both majors, there may not even be an entry to finesse hearts, and if we have to ruff a diamond to set them up and then draw trump we won't even be able to pitch a spade and ruff one.

Think of it this way. Several people (who I agree with since I'm one of them) tried for a grand slam or at least wanted to after the 5♣ bid, and of course partner would have accepted that try. That means his hand is within the range of what he showed. So if we don't even try for a small slam with 5♦ opposite that range, then he is making a really bad bid to overrule us.

Btw, if you respond 5NT do you have methods to distinguish between Kxxx(x), Kxxxxx, and Qxxxx(x), where you only want to be in 7 opposite one of them?

The only other thing I can see partner doing is opening 2♣ if he doesn't have to rebid 3♦. Like if playing the method where a 3 major rebid shows that major with longer diamonds, this could be the auction opposite the actual hand.
2♣ 2♦
3♠ 3NT
4♥ 7♥!

[nige1]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 22 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

This hand came up during a bidding session with my regular p. You hold in 2nd seat, being red vs. green Q96 KQ75 97 J1062
The opponents pass through out, you play a system similar to standard american, although with a weak NT (but this wont play a role).
Pass - 1D
1H  -  4C (1)
4H  -  5C (2)
???
(1) splinter
(2) a void, not exclusion key card
Your bid, and why?

IMO 6♥ = 10, 5N = 7, _P = 5, 7♥ = 3.
Partner should have at least ♠ KJ ♥Axxxx ♦AKxxxx ♣ -

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Dec 25 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Dec 24 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Partner's pass of 5♥ is gross.  In fact, his whole auction is horrible.

1D-1H
5N-7H

...

Btw, if you respond 5NT do you have methods to distinguish between Kxxx(x), Kxxxxx, and Qxxxx(x), where you only want to be in 7 opposite one of them?

I try not to play for pard to have the magic hand.

I also try not to play for pard to have the hand from hell.

If you want to give pard headaches, be my guest, that's not my style. If all I need from pard is a Q in the suit he bid to make slam playable, I'm allowed to play him for that. It drives me nuts when I think partners have a close decision and are asking me to weigh in when in reality all they're worried about is that I have some incredibly unlikely 'nightmare hand'. Somehow I'm supposed to guess which.

I think B/I especially should be encouraged to keep their auctions simple. I think my auction fits the bill and gets you to the right spot the vast majority of the time. It's also fun/hot.

If I had exclusion available and agreements on Q ask after exclusion, sure, that would be better, in that you could find the grand opposite the k6th.

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Dec 25 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

I try not to play for pard to have the magic hand. 

I also try not to play for pard to have the hand from hell.

I'm not playing him for either, or for anything in particular. I'm telling him what I have and putting him in a position to tell me what he has so no one has to play anyone for anything.

Quote

I think B/I especially should be encouraged to keep their auctions simple.  I think my auction fits the bill and gets you to the right spot the vast majority of the time.  It's also fun/hot.

On that I agree. It's very fair to say B/I should be practical and not go into some difficult auction. But that doesn't mesh with you saying opener bid horribly, which he didn't.