[Cyberyeti]

---

Dealer south, IMPs

We got hearts agreed, discovered we were missing an ace and the Q trumps (with the fit known to be exactly 4-4) and played 5♥ making 6 with Qxx onside. I have no objection to losing IMPs to the cold 6♠, but resented losing IMPs to the bad 6♥. Was a teams of 8 county match, one pair from each side bid 6♠, we bid 5♥ and one of their pairs bid 6♥.

I think we could get there via the sequence: (weak no trump, somewhat bent acol context)

1♦-1♠-1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(asking)-3♥(4♥, decent 17-bad 19)-3♠(5+♠)

Now if S decides that he doesn't like the look of his diamond holding in this and bids 4♠ normally showing 3424, I think 6♠ will be bid, but over 3N showing 2434, it can go several ways, very few giving certainty the slam is making, but several of them making it much more likely than not so it will be punted.

[whereagles]

And your question is?

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-18, 03:03, said:

---

Dealer south, IMPs

We got hearts agreed, discovered we were missing an ace and the Q trumps (with the fit known to be exactly 4-4) and played 5♥....

Why 5♥?
Why not 6♠ now?

Hard to see where the 4-4 fit will gain over ♠ once the ♥Q is missing.
But people play Bridge by rules like, 4-4 fits are always better, not by judgment.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

whereagles, on 2011-July-18, 03:24, said:

And your question is?

In the title, bid these. Interested to see how other people bid this hand.

To RHM, S was in control of the auction as it actually happened after N didn't admit to more than 4 spades once he knew partner had hearts, S enquired aces and Q♥ and signed off in 5♥, big call for N to bid 6♠, N didn't know about ♣QJ, Q could be in ♦, 6 anything could be terrible (Ax, AKxx, QJx, Kxxx is 40%ish, clubs QJ10x is worse and 6♠ is not guaranteed even if the hearts behave while 6♥ is), if he bid 5♠ S would probably have got the message and bid 6 however.

[P_Marlowe]

1C - 1S
1NT (1) - 2C (2)
3H (3) - 4NT (4)
5C (4) - 5D (5)
5H (5)

(1) 15-19
(2) art.,
(3) 18/19, 4hearts
(4) RKCB for hearts, 0 or 3 KC
(5) asking for Queen of hearts, No Queen

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

I think you should start

1♣-1♠
2NT-4♦ (self-splinter)

and now opener will drive slam. I would do it via Inclusion Keycard - opener raises the splinter to ask for keycards, but with a diamond void to be treated as an ace.

[xxhong]

A tough hand to bid as it appear.

1C 1S
2N 3D(4 or more H)
3H(4 hearts) 3S(6 spades, now set up S)
4C(cue, showing even number of KC for S) 4D(cue)
4H(cue) 4N(cue for SQ)
5H(cue for HK) 5S (enough, don't have HQ)
6S(CQJ are very important to pitch H under C)

As it appears, responder should show his shape naturally and later use turbo cuebids to find a good S contract.
After opener shows CK by 4C, responder should know that S is almost always better than H because he doesn't need to pitch partner's C losers under his S.

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-18, 03:03, said:

---

Dealer south, IMPs

We got hearts agreed, discovered we were missing an ace and the Q trumps (with the fit known to be exactly 4-4) and played 5♥ making 6 with Qxx onside. I have no objection to losing IMPs to the cold 6♠, but resented losing IMPs to the bad 6♥. Was a teams of 8 county match, one pair from each side bid 6♠, we bid 5♥ and one of their pairs bid 6♥.

I think we could get there via the sequence: (weak no trump, somewhat bent acol context)

1♦-1♠-1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(asking)-3♥(4♥, decent 17-bad 19)-3♠(5+♠)

Now if S decides that he doesn't like the look of his diamond holding in this and bids 4♠ normally showing 3424, I think 6♠ will be bid, but over 3N showing 2434, it can go several ways, very few giving certainty the slam is making, but several of them making it much more likely than not so it will be punted.

[Zelandakh]

I am not sure I am a fan of the 4D splinter option. I am confident that Cyber would have found the slam had responder made a GF bid setting spades as trumps, the challenge here is to find the correct slam whatever is held by the hand that does not take control.

Unfortunately, I am not solving this problem either...

1C = 15+ bal/nat or 18+ any
... - 1H = 4+ spades, GF
1S = relay, usually 18+
... - 1N = 4+ hearts
2C = relay
... - 3C = 6 spades, 4 hearts, 2-3 clubs
3D = relay
... - 3S = 6=4=1=2, min
4C = relay
... - 4S = 3 controls
5S = non-forcing Q ask
... - 6S

Everything is great up to 4S but unfortunately I am now endplayed into asking about the SQ and cannot locate the HQ. Good problem I think - not many systems are so slam-oriented as to be finding out about both of these queens at the 5 level, although I know a couple of relay methods that I think could do it (mostly by compromising on game bidding).

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-18, 11:31, said:

I am not sure I am a fan of the 4D splinter option.

I do not understand this comment, particularly when you then go to admit you can not come up with a reasonable sequence. Maybe you should have a change of heart.
Well I am not a fan of bidding weak suits, e.g. ♥JT72, in slam oriented hands.

With regard to the 4♦ auto splinter option, a better hand could hardly be constructed and what else should 4♦ mean, say after

1♣-1♠
2NT

than a hand, which wants to play in ♠ opposite minimal support, slam interest, short ♦.
What else needs South to know now? He will start looking for a grand.

5♦ as inclusion key-card Blackwood (treat a ♦ void like an ace) another great idea.

So

1♣--1♠
2NT-4♦
5♦--6♣
6♠

sounds to me simple and effective.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I did not say that I could not come up with a reasonable sequence but I try to be honest about how I would bid a hand. Over 3S, 5H from Opener would specifically be an ask for the major queens, the perfect bid on this hand! However this was not my first choice (I wanted to know how many controls before committing to slam) so I did not give it as my sequence. I have been thinking over whether this was a good decision or not. I also mentioned that with different design decisions it is trivial for a relay system to get this right - I expect a few such auctions to be posted here presently.

The reason why I do not believe the 4D splinter solves the hand is for the case when Opener has, for example, the HQ instead of the CK. Now you surely prefer to be in 6H over 6S - make the clubs slightly weaker still with a touch more in diamonds if you like - 6H is still the spot. I agree entirely that if North has to choose between setting spades or agreeing hearts opposite any 4 then spades is the better option. Perhaps there are possible methods where North can show 6 good spades and 4 medicore hearts though? After Cyber's 1NT response it seems to me that there ought to be enough bidding space to get this right all of the time. Perhaps a good start would be to get the continuations outside of a 2C ask and see if there are spare bids that might be used.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-19, 04:43, said:

The reason why I do not believe the 4D splinter solves the hand is for the case when Opener has, for example, the HQ instead of the CK. Now you surely prefer to be in 6H over 6S - make the clubs slightly weaker still with a touch more in diamonds if you like - 6H is still the spot. I agree entirely that if North has to choose between setting spades or agreeing hearts opposite any 4 then spades is the better option. Perhaps there are possible methods where North can show 6 good spades and 4 medicore hearts though? After Cyber's 1NT response it seems to me that there ought to be enough bidding space to get this right all of the time. Perhaps a good start would be to get the continuations outside of a 2C ask and see if there are spare bids that might be used.

I agree with much of this.

Our relevant agreements over 1♣-1♠-1N

2any to play
2N inv
3new 5-5 inv Kxxxx, KJxxx and out sort of thing NF
3♠ can be used here if you don't want to put the heart suit into the mix or find out anything about partner's range or shape
4new not fully discussed, but probably void autosplinter.
4♠ weak hand lots of spades

If you bid 3♠, partner will have Ax, AKQx, QJx, J10xx, 6♥ will be excellent and 6♠ close to no play.

[the_clown]

Playing strong club the auction will start 1!♣-1!♠-1NT-3!♦- and after RKCB opener will setle for a small slam.

1NT 17-19 balanced
3!d splinter

[the_clown]

Playing strong club the auction will start 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♦- and after RKCB opener will setle for a small slam.

1NT 17-19 balanced
3!d splinter

Sry for the double post

[Cyberyeti]

the_clown, on 2011-July-19, 07:53, said:

Playing strong club the auction will start 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♦- and after RKCB opener will setle for a small slam.

1NT 17-19 balanced
3!d splinter

Again, fine but, how do you distinguish the actual S hand from Ax, AKQx, QJx, J10xx where you want to be in 6♥.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-19, 04:43, said:

I did not say that I could not come up with a reasonable sequence but I try to be honest about how I would bid a hand. Over 3S, 5H from Opener would specifically be an ask for the major queens, the perfect bid on this hand! However this was not my first choice (I wanted to know how many controls before committing to slam) so I did not give it as my sequence. I have been thinking over whether this was a good decision or not. I also mentioned that with different design decisions it is trivial for a relay system to get this right - I expect a few such auctions to be posted here presently.

The reason why I do not believe the 4D splinter solves the hand is for the case when Opener has, for example, the HQ instead of the CK. Now you surely prefer to be in 6H over 6S - make the clubs slightly weaker still with a touch more in diamonds if you like - 6H is still the spot. I agree entirely that if North has to choose between setting spades or agreeing hearts opposite any 4 then spades is the better option. Perhaps there are possible methods where North can show 6 good spades and 4 medicore hearts though? After Cyber's 1NT response it seems to me that there ought to be enough bidding space to get this right all of the time. Perhaps a good start would be to get the continuations outside of a 2C ask and see if there are spare bids that might be used.

Maybe this is a matter of bidding philosophies.
My attitude is that there is only so much you can scientifically accomplish in the bidding and for the rest it is sensible to rely on probabilities like in the play of the hand.
Let's assume you find out with opener's notrump rebid that he is balanced with a maximum of 19 HCP and you are looking at responders hand.

You know that you have a slam invitation. What is the most important information to decide this issue?

My answer: Whether we will have duplication in ♦ will most likely be the deciding factor whether slam will be a good bet.
Showing your shortage will allow opener to make an informed decision below game.

Will the trump suit matter? It could, but that is remote. For starters, for a 6♥ contract to compete with 6♠, opener will need a 4 card ♥ suit including the king and the queen.
Otherwise it is very unlikely that 6♥ will be a better contract than 6♠. Even when opener meets this condition it may not matter which major you choose as trumps.

I did a computer simulation (1000 deals ) with responders hand.
Opener 18-19 balanced, at most 3 ♠s, ♣ longer than ♦ unless 3♠=4♥=3♦=3♣:
Under those conditions the chance that opener has been dealt 4 cards in ♥ including the king and queen (either ♥AKQx or ♥KQxx) is only 18%.
Assuming this favorable conditions for ♥ to be present in opener's hand, 6♥ makes double dummy on 738 (73.8%) deals and 6♠ on 693(69,3%) deals.
Average number of tricks in a ♥ contract is 11.82 tricks and in a spade contract is 11.66 tricks
when 6♥ makes, 6♠ makes in 79%
when 6♠ makes, 6♥ makes in 84%
when 6♥ is down, 6♠ will make in 41%
when 6♠ is down, 6♥ will make in 50%

Is searching for an alternative ♥ strain really more important than telling opener what is needed for slam and to stop in game safely when the conditions are not present?

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I think we can solve this one by using transfers over your 1NT rebid...

1C - 1S - 1NT
=============
2C = relay (move the 5-5 INV hands here)
2DHS = to pay
2NT = INV
3C = 5-5 pointy suits, GF
3D = 5-5 majors, GF
3H = spades only, GF
... 3S
... ... 3NT = strong slam int
... ... 4CDH = splinter
... ... 4S = mild slam try
3S = blacks (I think 5-4 should be enough in acol-ish), GF
4C = 6 spades, 4 hearts, weak spades, slammy
4D = 6 spades, 4 hearts, good spades, slammy
4H = 6 spades, 4 hearts, c.o.g.

I am not saying this is optimal, but it does allow an extra hand type to be shown (6-4 majors) and is certainly great for this hand. The structure is also applicable to all 1m - 1M - 1NT auctions making it easy on the old noggin.

[Zelandakh]

I think you might be right about it being a matter of bidding philosophy Rainer. My philosophy is always that if you have a problem hand in the system that you search for redundancy so that you can better accomodate that hand. If there is no redundancy left then you have to play the probabilities and hope you do not strike unlucky. The advantage of this method is that you both reduce the likelihood of having to make that guess and make the gap between the possibilities smaller when they do crop up. The disadvantage is having to remember more.

Of course, perhaps if I could play the cards as well as you I would focus less on bidding solutions and be happy having a rare squeeze to make the slightly lower % slam...!

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-18, 03:03, said:

---

Dealer South, IMPs

I sure would like to make a Diam splinter -- because that seems to be one of the reasons for Sp as a better slam -- but no space available for me.
North can, however, find out about "Diam wastage" in partner's hand.
( Don't worry, I would never consider this at the table ) :

1C - 1S
2NT ( 18,19 ) - 3C! ( Wolff: 5s/4h, or Sp/Cl, or Sp sign-off )
3H ( 4h ) - 4C ( Ctrl-cue; can't bid 3S as a cue because 3S = sign-off; 3NT/4NT would show Sp/Cl hands )
4H ( no Diam Ctrl ) - 4NT ( RKC )
5C ( 0/3 ) - 5D ( hQ-ask; pard must have sA and hAK )
5H ( no hQ ) - 6S ( pard has to have nice Cl honors for his 18,19 and no Diam wastage; just hope he has 4 cards Cl )

With all due respect, is my sequence more or less "resulting" than Gnasher's "self-splinter" sequence ?

[gnasher]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-July-19, 12:34, said:

With all due respect, is my sequence more or less "resulting" than Gnasher's "self-splinter" sequence ?

Rather more, I guess. You tell us that you would never have your sequence at the table, whereas I'm certain that I would bid 4♦.

[Phil]

Don's version of Wolff is unlike anything I have ever seen.