[bill0mates]

---

Uncontested (until final double) auction at IMP
1S..3S
4C..4D
4H..4S
5C..5S
6S(X).P
XX

Hands possibly rotated for convenience (I forget) and any cards below 9 are just Xs.

I (West) opened 1S
East responded with a full value NF invitational limit raise to 3S
Probably without justification I decided to slam force if partner cooperated with any slam try.
I cue'd 4C, heard 4D (which effectively catapulted me to slam).
It continued with more cue bids as shown. The 5C clue was for the practice, I guess, as I should not really be interested in the Granny (although I can construct hands where it is good). Even so perhaps I should have heard the vibe with the 5S bid.

The key, to my mind, is for opener to show the Club shortage, opposite which responder should (I think) put on the brakes and not cue the Ace of diamonds. You may feel that a cue below game is forced if you have one available and that 4D does not show any particular enthusiasm. The problem was that 4C was just a general cue so responder cannot be blamed for the 4D cue in context.

Perhaps playing a serious or nonserious 3N would keep us out, but on this hand I feel that use of 3N as a desire to show (or deny) a shortage may be more useful (other cues denying a 3N-suitable bid).

No doubt you will advise that another key is not to play full value limit raises. Feel free to suggest how you think it should go.

Turned out the doubler just had two black bullets. As he was the only one at the table (apart from me) who knew for certain that I had a Club void I feel justified in the XX. At that time (given the double) I thought that the odds of making were poor, but I thought that the IMP swing for making v going one off justified it.

[blackshoe]

East cooperated, once, with West's slam try. I think West should respect East's subsequent sign-off in game.

[bill0mates]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-17, 00:08, said:

East cooperated, once, with West's slam try. I think West should respect East's subsequent sign-off in game.

Thanks for the help. Would East have reason to bid differently if his King of Clubs had been in Diamonds?
Or if West had held 5-0-4-4 shape instead of 5-4-4-0, and similar values and controls (obviously not identical as East as some of them), how would the (then) good slam be reached?

[Cascade]

West found extras three times. I don't think he has all of those extras.

[bill0mates]

 Cascade, on 2011-April-17, 00:34, said:

West found extras three times. I don't think he has all of those extras.

Thanks again. I agree. And yet he (that is I) still would not have held those extras with the Heart/Club shape reversed or had East's Club King been in Diamonds. Just replace one of East's small diamonds with the 10 and slam is just slightly below 50% despite the club wastage.

Had I simply bid 6S over 4D (which is effectively what I did) then I would not be accused of "finding extras three times". There may be other, justified criticisms, but it rather hangs on whether East's one cooperation is enough on its own to justify West concluding that slam is sound.

The purpose of my post is to find the good slams as well as to stay out of the bad.

If West is aware that East's values are concentrated in Clubs then there is no question in my mind that West is not worth even a single slam try. On the other side of the coin I have difficulty constructing many hands in which slam is bad if East has no values in Clubs. As I see it, the problem with this hand is not the number of slam tries made by either side but the fact that none of the bids elicits this most important feature.

[Cascade]

After cue-bidding clubs twice partner denied the ♦K (or ace if you cue firsts and seconds) so you are hoping for him to have ♦A ♠AQ and not bid slam.

If my partner makes two slam tries and i have those cards - two key cards I will bid a slam.

[1eyedjack]

If you have a way of showing Club short then go for it.
If you do not, then just go with the odds, and the odds are that partner has a Club card for his 3♠ raise

[kenrexford]

There is a fairly well-known solution to this problem. After a limit raise, have one tier for shortness slam tries and another tier for other slam tries. The specifics are whatever you like.

E.g.,

1♠-3♠-?

3NT = any non-shortness slam move
4♣, 4♦, 4♥ = shortness


1♥-3♥-?

3♠ = any non-shortness slam move
3NT(♠), 4♣, 4♦ = shortness


The "non-shortness" might be a suit, instead. In that event, the usual is for the immediate call to be a real suit and for the one-up to be shortness somewhere. Next asks. E.g.,

1♠-3♠-?

3NT = Shortness. 4♣ = where? 4♦ = ♦, 4♥ = ♥, 4♠ = ♣.
4♣/♦/♥ instead of 3NT = two-suited slam move.

1♥-3♥-?

3♠ = shortness; 3NT asks; 4♥ short spades
3NT = majors; 4♣/♦ = two-suited slam moves

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 bill0mates, on 2011-April-16, 23:30, said:

---

You can find out about Opener's ♣-shortness ( w/"extras" ) using Swedish-2NT! = limit raise or better w/4+trumps:
1S - 2NT!
??
..3C! = any minimum ( 3D! asks for shortness)
..3D! = Extras but no shortness
..3H! = Extras and Cl shortness
..3S! = Extras and Diam shortness
..3NT! = Extras and shortness in other-Major


.... and Responder will sign-off immediately

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 bill0mates, on 2011-April-16, 23:30, said:

---

You would also fare better with Bergen Raises ( showing 4+ trump support ):

1S - 3D! ( limit raise; upper Bergen )
3H ( cheapest Ctrl cue showing "exras" after a limit raise ) - 4C
?? ( now Opener knows of wasted values in Responder's hand ... and sign's off )

[chasetb]

Since we are talking about methods that aren't that useful (except maybe a modified Swedish 2NT over a limited 1M), why not go for the gusto and use Inverted Majors!
1♠ - 2♠(Limit Raise or better, Forcing 1 round)
3♣ (assuming the min, SSGT) - 3♠ (YUCK)
4♠ (extras, but no slam here)

[whereagles]

Neither opener nor responder could gauge the club wastage. Really no blame here, as East could have had the diamond king instead of the club one.

If something, West could have been cautious due to lack of information. East could also have cued the club king (5♣), after which opener might have signed-off.

But you need a gadget, that's all.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

A good agreement to have - the first cue is never shortness,
always a top honor, i.e. Ace or King.
If you know, p has a long suit, you also may cue the Queen.

This an agreement, that is not only useful in the given seq.,
but applicable to all cue bidding sequences.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

 P_Marlowe, on 2011-April-18, 02:05, said:

Hi,

A good agreement to have - the first cue is never shortness,
always a top honor, i.e. Ace or King.
If you know, p has a long suit, you also may cue the Queen.

This an agreement, that is not only useful in the given seq.,
but applicable to all cue bidding sequences.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I note that in Robson's regular articles in the (UK) Times, he advocates a cue bidding style where the first slam try is never a cue bid at all - just a shape descriptor.

[Yu18772]

 bill0mates, on 2011-April-17, 00:36, said:

Thanks again. I agree. And yet he (that is I) still would not have held those extras with the Heart/Club shape reversed or had East's Club King been in Diamonds. Just replace one of East's small diamonds with the 10 and slam is just slightly below 50% despite the club wastage.

Slam bellow 50% is not a bargain - if you bid 4 and make 6 you loose 530, and if you bid 6 and go -1, you loose 500.....so considering that not all the field will be in slam even if it makes you are about even either way on 50%.

 bill0mates, on 2011-April-17, 00:36, said:

Had I simply bid 6S over 4D (which is effectively what I did) then I would not be accused of "finding extras three times". There may be other, justified criticisms, but it rather hangs on whether East's one cooperation is enough on its own to justify West concluding that slam is sound.

Had you simply bid 6S over 4D on KJTxx in spades you would be accused of far worse. West needs exactly one of 2 possible maximal holdings from the partner to make the slam sound: AQ♠+A♦ or A♠AK♦ (with both of which partner would cooperate to go to slam after making a limit bid). Do you think that these are the only holdings East is allowed to cuebid his A♦ with? Wouldn't you cue bid with xxx,xx,Axxx,AQJx or or Qxx,xx,Axx, KQxxx or Qxxx,xx,Axxx,KJx? - so no West can't conclude that slam is sound just because partner cuebid ♦.

 bill0mates, on 2011-April-17, 00:36, said:

The purpose of my post is to find the good slams as well as to stay out of the bad.

If West is aware that East's values are concentrated in Clubs then there is no question in my mind that West is not worth even a single slam try. On the other side of the coin I have difficulty constructing many hands in which slam is bad if East has no values in Clubs. As I see it, the problem with this hand is not the number of slam tries made by either side but the fact that none of the bids elicits this most important feature.

3NT unserious (if you play it) would be a good way to see if partner has ♣ control. To make slam sound you need E's 10-11 points to take the exact form of 3 out 4 cards: AQ♠,and AK♦. Q♥ is not a great card either. In terms of oversimplified stat - he has 11 points (4 is A♦), the other 7 come from AQ♠ K♦. Q♥ AKQ♣. There are 4 cards that if he holds any one of them slam is bad, and 3 that if he holds 2 of them will produce slam. The latter is less likely. In less simlified stat there are 21 possible combinations of 2 honors except A♦ in E hand, 3 of them are good for you the other 18 are not, opposite some of them you might not make 5. If partner holds AQ♠ and A♦ and signed off- blame him.

If the purpose is "to find the good slams as well as to stay out of the bad" - cue bidding is a good way to do it as long as you anticipate that your partner may not have what you want and trust his signoffs.
If you invited to slam twice, and he signed off twice, and you went to slam anyway, that means you never meant to ask. In this case you might be better off bidding 5♠ on 4♦ (in my agreements it would ask to bid 6 holding two honors in trump, in uninterrupted auction) - but personally, I would pass 4♠.

[1eyedjack]

 Yu18772, on 2011-April-19, 04:27, said:

Slam bellow 50% is not a bargain - if you bid 4 and make 6 you loose 530, and if you bid 6 and go -1, you loose 500.....so considering that not all the field will be in slam even if it makes you are about even either way on 50%.

I don't think it was being suggested that it was a bargain. Only that it came close to being one despite the inclusion of a trivial card (that would never come to light) in a hand that was otherwise highly unsuitable for slam. If that argument is valid then the extension to it is, I suppose, that in a simulation the slam reckons to be better than a bargain in the long term. That does however discount the effect of responder subsequently discouraging at every turn, thus increasing the relative frequency of his holding such an unsuitable hand. If the only alternatives were to sign out in 4S or bash 6S (after a 4D cue), then it would not surprise me if 6S has reasonable chances. However the purposes of continuing to cue is to refind those odds. Which I think is largely the point made in the rest of your post.

The references to "non-serious" (or "serious) 3N are worth some comment I think. I find that this treatment is valuable when partner is unlimited, but less so when partner is limited, then favouring shape descriptions (whether shortage or second suit source of tricks).

[whereagles]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-April-19, 00:16, said:

I note that in Robson's regular articles in the (UK) Times, he advocates a cue bidding style where the first slam try is never a cue bid at all - just a shape descriptor.

What's a "shape descriptor"? Can you elaborate on that?

I've also been noticing that it might be a good idea using the 1st step of a control sequence not as a control but as a generalized serious slam try, i.e. something like "I have slam interest. Will you cooperate?". Example:

1M 2m
3m 4m
1st step = I have slam interest
Other steps = courtesy cues, no slam interest

[1eyedjack]

 whereagles, on 2011-April-19, 07:56, said:

What's a "shape descriptor"? Can you elaborate on that?

Sorry, not seen a definition as such, just the occasional example hand published in the paper, for which the auction is usually of minor relevance compared with the card play.
There is usually a brief description of points of note in the bidding. Next time an example crops up I will try to remember to post the link.

[fromageGB]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-April-19, 05:02, said:

The references to "non-serious" (or "serious) 3N are worth some comment I think. I find that this treatment is valuable when partner is unlimited, but less so when partner is limited, then favouring shape descriptions (whether shortage or second suit source of tricks).

If you do play non-serious, when partner is limited (as in this bidding with spades agreed) you can use non-serious 3NT as a serious cue bid denying a club control, so in effect inviting partner to cue bid clubs. Useful when you have all the controls apart from the clubs, when bidding your diamonds will not help.

However there will be hands where shortness/non-shortness works better : you cannot have a method that works for all hands.

[Quantumcat]

Seems funny that no one mentioned that he might have passed after he didn't get a 5♦ bid, after his 5♣. If responder had the ace of spades he probably would have found a 6♠ bid after the 5♣.

The 6♠ bid would be becauses he has no cards in clubs and opener says he has 2 rounds of control of clubs, and opener is still cuebidding so he must be missing a control somewhere, thus 7♠ is not in the picture, but 6♠ is, and also he has no more cuebids to add. (and it should be the responsibility of whoever knows the right contract to bid it immediately and save his partner any heartaches)

So, opener should know they're missing one of the ♦AK and the ace of spades, and pass 5♠. He can place his partner with pretty much those exact cards. Slight variations which are still possible give very slim odds of making 12 tricks and even an extreme optimist would pass (most rely on the opponents making a mistake e.g. not holding the spade ace and ducking the ♦A or failing to cover the ♦Q or pard having doubleton diamond AND doubleton ♥Q and them not cashing the ace and also failing to lead a trump).

I think the auction was fine (opener didn't overbid) until the last round when he failed to think about what his partner must be holding, and count up his losers.

Edit: I found a post that agrees with me but a bit shorter:

 Cascade, on 2011-April-17, 01:41, said:

After cue-bidding clubs twice partner denied the ♦K (or ace if you cue firsts and seconds) so you are hoping for him to have ♦A ♠AQ and not bid slam.
If my partner makes two slam tries and i have those cards - two key cards I will bid a slam.