[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

this hand came up during a bidding session with my regular p.

You hold in 2nd seat, being red vs. green the following hand

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?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TylerE]

5♥. Our hand keeps getting worse the more partner bids. Any club ruffs in partners hand would be with high trumps. (If not with high trumps, we're already in way too deep...)

[pooltuna]

TylerE, on Dec 22 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

5♥. Our hand keeps getting worse the more partner bids. Any club ruffs in partners hand would be with high trumps. (If not with high trumps, we're already in way too deep...)

Nevertheless we hold 7HCP in the other 3 non-♣ suits and partner has ignored our signoff so we need to think dummy reversal. Partner has at least 5♦ so we should be able to establish them. 6♥ probably isn't going overboard and in fact 7 could be makeable.

[Codo]

I had a weak bid with 6-9 working points. My hand could be much worse, I could have the high honours in clubs.

So, now I have a quite strong hand with my 7 working points. I bid 6 Heart and finds it obvoius.

Of course, if AKxx, Axxx,AKQxx,- is opened stronger then 1 diamond, I may change my vote.

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on Dec 22 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

<snip>
Of course, if AKxx, Axxx,AKQxx,- is opened stronger then 1 diamond, I may change my vote.

We play fairly conservative 2C / 2D openings (*), which are close to the North American
Standard style, and the hand you gave would have been opened with 1D.

(*) We play Benjamin twos, i.e. both 2C and 2D are strong opening bids.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[andy_h]

6♥. We have boxed our hand given our non-last train previously and now partner has forced to the 5level so we have a pretty decent hand for our minimum. If you feel this is too much then you at least have to bid 5♦ as a last train.

[mike777]

andy_h, on Dec 22 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

6♥. We have boxed our hand given our non-last train previously and now partner has forced to the 5level so we have a pretty decent hand for our minimum. If you feel this is too much then you at least have to bid 5♦ as a last train.

Please no references to Last Train in B/I


anyway I bid 6h......would not be surprised if ...down.

[dicklont]

5♥.
I expect partner to hold 2-5-6-0 so P can use ♠Q to discard a diamond winner.

With:
962
KQ75
Q7
J1062
I would bid slam, now my little bit extra is a *working* queen.

[jdonn]

I bid 5NT as a grand slam try. My hand can't be any better for not bidding 4♦ (last train) last round, as I would have with either Kxx KQxx xx JTxx or xxx KQxx Qx JTxx. 6♥ is fine but I want to make it clear I have KQ of hearts in case partner's hand is solid outside hearts. He may have ATxx and want to bid a grand but be worried I have Kxxxx or something like that.

The 5♥ bids are totally incorrect evaluation, they are simply wrong. Partner forced to the 5 level opposite what might be a totally useless hand, and off the KQ of trumps. I'm closer to just bidding 7♥ now than 5♥.

[mikeh]

Axx AJxx AKQxxx void

Why not?

And there is no reason that he can't have 5 hearts....Ax AJxxx AKJxxx void.

And so on...in other words, I agree with Josh that those who think this is a signoff hand are completely out to lunch.

However, I am not trying for grand here....and I really don't think that partner will draw any inference from my failure to use last train...this is, as someone already observed, the B/I forum.

But it is a good hand for the B/I forum, since it brings into focus a basic principle of hand evaluation. Once we have limited our hand, and partner STILL tries, we have to look at our hand in the context of our previous bidding.

Yes, we have a poor hand....but we already told him that and he is still trying. So...look at it in context. A bad hand might look like Qxx Jxxx xx KQxx.... that is a hand we might well hold and partner still thinks that he has enough 5-level safety to make another try! And we could have worse still.

So, given that we have a bad hand...this is a great bad hand. We have almost nothiing in clubs, and good trump in context... and the possibly useful spade Queen.

I would bid 6♥. Since most constructions I come up with will require a decent split in either one or both red suits, I think grand is too much....I'd try 5N with an expert, maybe, but not a B/I.

I still agree with Josh in that if I were forced to bid an odd number of hearts, I'd bid 7 before I'd bid 5. And it isn't close.

[kenrexford]

5♥. Partner doesn't have a spade control. If he had one, he'd bid 4♠. (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has. Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥. Partner doesn't have a spade control. If he had one, he'd bid 4♠. (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has. Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥.  Partner doesn't have a spade control.  If he had one, he'd bid 4♠.  (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has.  Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

It makes sense in the context of playing with a robot who never skips over a control in a slam-going auction, rather than a bridge player who knows 5♣ not only doesn't deny a spade control, but almost guarantees controls in the outside suits.

I mean he is right. If 5♣ denies a spade control you shouldn't bid slam. And for him 5♣ denies a spade control. The fact it would make partner's bid impossible given what you hold is apparently irrelevent.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥.  Partner doesn't have a spade control.  If he had one, he'd bid 4♠.  (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has.  Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

So, partner is not in their right mind.

I mean, cover up your hand. If you had ♠Axx ♥Qxxx ♦xx ♣xxx, and partner bid 5♣, wouldn't you expect partner to have something like ♠xx ♥AKxxx ♦AKQxxx ♣--? The mere fact that partner cannot have the hand that he has just shown does not mean that he has a hand that he did not show because he doesn't know how to bid. Why assume that partner's clear error was one of bidding style rather than bidding judgment?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥.  Partner doesn't have a spade control.  If he had one, he'd bid 4♠.  (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has.  Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

It makes sense in the context of playing with a robot who never skips over a control in a slam-going auction, rather than a bridge player who knows 5♣ not only doesn't deny a spade control, but almost guarantees controls in the outside suits.

I mean he is right. If 5♣ denies a spade control you shouldn't bid slam. And for him 5♣ denies a spade control. The fact it would make partner's bid impossible given what you hold is apparently irrelevent.

Thanks for the semi-endorsement, but how does 5♣ guarantee a spade control? I just gave a hand that lacks a spade control where bidding the same 5♣ makes sense. What is 5♣ seeking to learn that 4♠ would not also elicit, except the "ain't got spades stopped" problem?

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥.  Partner doesn't have a spade control.  If he had one, he'd bid 4♠.  (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has.  Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

It makes sense in the context of playing with a robot who never skips over a control in a slam-going auction, rather than a bridge player who knows 5♣ not only doesn't deny a spade control, but almost guarantees controls in the outside suits.

I mean he is right. If 5♣ denies a spade control you shouldn't bid slam. And for him 5♣ denies a spade control. The fact it would make partner's bid impossible given what you hold is apparently irrelevent.

Thanks for the semi-endorsement, but how does 5♣ guarantee a spade control? I just gave a hand that lacks a spade control where bidding the same 5♣ makes sense. What is 5♣ seeking to learn that 4♠ would not also elicit, except the "ain't got spades stopped" problem?

Let's see if we can address this problem.

Let's begin by making the assumption that partner is not a moron. I hope we can agree that this assumption should underly all discussion of constructive bidding theory.

We know that we hold the trump KQ. Therefore, we know that he is looking at a trump suit lacking these cards.

We have by no means implied possession of either, let alone both, of these cards.

He has a hand on which the 5-level is safe opposite Kxxx or Qxxx.

He has made a bid (5♣) that virtually guarantees a spade lead.

He thinks we have a good play for 11 tricks when we sign off with weak trump.

Ok, class....your assignment is to work out if this is possible when his spades are Jx or worse.

Now... if we place him, for the sake of argument, with the spade Ace..... he will know we are missing that card. So, if we have the trump KQ....he will know that we will follow the reasoning set out above and correctly infer the spade control.

While, if we hold weak hearts, we won't be able to infer the spade A....indeed, we might consider that he has great hearts and is looking only for a spade card.....Jx AKxxx AKQxxx. He doesn't care: small slam will be good opposite Axx AJxx AKQxxx void if we hold Kxxx or Qxxx in trump along with the spade King, anyway.

And if we have weak hearts and no spade card, we're going to sign off anyway.

While I doubt that he'd hold Kxx AJxx AKQxxx void we don't care either...all of the above reasoning applies mutatis mutandis (that's in honour of Ken's legal training).

While bids that imply bypassed controls are relatively uncommon, this is hardly a completely esoteric area and, as I suggested earlier, I think this example is an ideal learning hand for B/I....and (obviously) for some who consider themselves expert as well

[Phil]

6♥.

More concerned with making 7 than I am going down in 6.

Of course pard has a spade control, but I wouldn't say he promises 1st round control.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 23 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 23 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

5♥.  Partner doesn't have a spade control.  If he had one, he'd bid 4♠.  (If he has a spade control and slam interest, and I just rejected all of that, and he keeps bidding anyway, he has a club void, or the stiff Ace, anyway.

Why can't partner have (with the 5-card heart suit idea tossed in):

♠Jx ♥AJxxx ♦AKQJ10x ♣--?

That's what he's showing, so that's what he has.  Whether his bidding makes sense or not, from a judgment perspective, I have to trust his definitions as limited by what I am looking at.

Jx AJxxx AKQJ10x void makes no sense...no player in his or her right mind would assume 5-level safety with that hand.

It makes sense in the context of playing with a robot who never skips over a control in a slam-going auction, rather than a bridge player who knows 5♣ not only doesn't deny a spade control, but almost guarantees controls in the outside suits.

I mean he is right. If 5♣ denies a spade control you shouldn't bid slam. And for him 5♣ denies a spade control. The fact it would make partner's bid impossible given what you hold is apparently irrelevent.

Thanks for the semi-endorsement, but how does 5♣ guarantee a spade control? I just gave a hand that lacks a spade control where bidding the same 5♣ makes sense. What is 5♣ seeking to learn that 4♠ would not also elicit, except the "ain't got spades stopped" problem?

Let's see if we can address this problem.

Let's begin by making the assumption that partner is not a moron. I hope we can agree that this assumption should underly all discussion of constructive bidding theory.

We know that we hold the trump KQ. Therefore, we know that he is looking at a trump suit lacking these cards.

We have by no means implied possession of either, let alone both, of these cards.

He has a hand on which the 5-level is safe opposite Kxxx or Qxxx.

He has made a bid (5♣) that virtually guarantees a spade lead.

He thinks we have a good play for 11 tricks when we sign off with weak trump.

Ok, class....your assignment is to work out if this is possible when his spades are Jx or worse.

Now... if we place him, for the sake of argument, with the spade Ace..... he will know we are missing that card. So, if we have the trump KQ....he will know that we will follow the reasoning set out above and correctly infer the spade control.

While, if we hold weak hearts, we won't be able to infer the spade A....indeed, we might consider that he has great hearts and is looking only for a spade card.....Jx AKxxx AKQxxx. He doesn't care: small slam will be good opposite Axx AJxx AKQxxx void if we hold Kxxx or Qxxx in trump along with the spade King, anyway.

And if we have weak hearts and no spade card, we're going to sign off anyway.

While I doubt that he'd hold Kxx AJxx AKQxxx void we don't care either...all of the above reasoning applies mutatis mutandis (that's in honour of Ken's legal training).

While bids that imply bypassed controls are relatively uncommon, this is hardly a completely esoteric area and, as I suggested earlier, I think this example is an ideal learning hand for B/I....and (obviously) for some who consider themselves expert as well

There are so many assumptions and errors here...

I started to go over them, but the elephant in the room screams out and explains why everything you wrote is so terribly wrong, and why what I wrote is so clearly God's truth.

Your assumption that partner is assured that the five-level is safe is an assumption that defies real life experience. People make slam tries all the time when they should not. People make unsafe slam tries all the time when they should not. I would not be remotely surprised if I faced this auction and found partner with Jx-AJ109x-AKQJxx-V. Heck, I have seen players who routinely score well in Flight A competition blast to slam with hands like that, insane though that may be. And you expect a B/I to slow this one down because of Binsky concerns? Please.

There was a hand given to me a while ago by a pro player, playing with a partner who probably has 10,000 masterpoints. The hand was some magic mess of goodies. The bidding was some obscure competitive nonsense. In any event, at a certain point, his partner leaped to slam, and the question was what to bid. It seemed 100% to bid the grand, but there was a remote chance that the partner had a specific hand where he bid like a lunatic, where the grand would only be about 80%. So, I was forced to pass. Then, a 7-level sacrifice was passed back, clearly egging a grand, as the auction was 100% forcing. The winning call was to double, which was idiotic. But, "Walter gave the charge" to my friend, because his partner bids like a loon in these situations all the time.

And you expect a B/I to fine-tune slam bidding theory to the degree that partner cannot have a lack of a spade control?!?!?

[Jlall]

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.

[Jlall]

That being said, Ken I think this thread should be an indicator that given that we know that:

A ) Partner has made a ridiculous slam try or

B ) Partner has bypassed his spade control to show his club void

B must be more likely. I mean jdonn and mikeh are good players and they seem to think you can bypass a spade control on this auction. I still don't understand what would compel one to think that, but if they both think that then I think that it is much more likely that that is what has occurred than that partner has made a crazy slam try.

If partner was you or me, then it would be 100 % that partner has made a crazy slam try rather than bypassed spades. Since partner is unknown, we must figure out which is more likely in general, and I'll go with B.