[JanisW]

I held the following hand this Monday and was unsure how to proceed

---

I went for 3♣ (promising Q+ in ♣, kind of Help-suit-Gametry), which is forcing for us and asks Partner to bid 4♥ with good support in clubs and settle for 3♥ otherwise.
After my partner was able to bid 4♥ I liked my hand even more because my QJ♣ greatly improved in value.
I followed it up with 4♠ after which Partner unfortunately cued with 5♣ (I think he should have skipped the club cue in favor for the much more valuable ♦-cue. He almost is marked with a club control for the bidding so far, isn't he?)
Now I'm none the wiser and lack a bid somehow.
Should I have started differently? How would you have proceeded? Is trying for 6 too ambitious anyway?


regard
Janis

[TylerE]

Agree with partner cuebidding 5♣... you don't want him denying "genuine club support" with something like T9xxxx do you?

After 5♣, just bid 5♥. This focuses attention on the diamond suit and partner should raise to 6 with a ♦ control - that's basically the point of cuebidding in the first place.

[JanisW]

TylerE, on 2018-November-27, 13:28, said:

Agree with partner cuebidding 5♣... you don't want him denying "genuine club support" with something like T9xxxx do you?

After 5♣, just bid 5♥. This focuses attention on the diamond suit and partner should raise to 6 with a ♦ control - that's basically the point of cuebidding in the first place.

Agreed my post was too unclear as to what is expected for a 4♥-bid. Changed it. So no T9xxxx is not enough for 4♥ opposite a possible Qxx, but you could not have known when you answered to my post.
Sorry
Janis

[TylerE]

Your methods are confusing to me.

What is parter supposed to bid over 3♣ with, say,

♠QJx
♥KQ
♦AKQJ
♣T9xxxx

If that isn't enough to accept a help-suit try, I don't know what to tell ya.

[JanisW]

TylerE, on 2018-November-27, 14:07, said:

Your methods are confusing to me.

What is parter supposed to bid over 3♣ with, say,

♠QJx
♥KQ
♦AKQJ
♣T9xxxx

If that isn't enough to accept a help-suit try, I don't know what to tell ya.

he´ll obviously bid 3♦ and had not bid 2♥ in the first place...

[smerriman]

As TylerE said, bidding 5♥ now says "I want to be in slam if you have a diamond control". So you're not lacking a bid (and there's no need for partner to skip 5♣).

[JanisW]

smerriman, on 2018-November-27, 14:45, said:

As TylerE said, bidding 5♥ now says "I want to be in slam if you have a diamond control". So you're not lacking a bid (and there's no need for partner to skip 5♣).

I agree with that. In a cue-bidding sequence, 5♥ is not necessarily a sign-off. It just says I have nothing more to tell you, the final decision is up to you Partner. (A fact our Partnership misses sometimes, as we have not been through enough of those sequences

Does it really force to slam if there is a ♦-control? If that is so, then that translates to the fact, that I'll always be in 6♥ after bidding 4♠ once P has both minor suit aces.
Hence the further question, if it was right to try for slam in the first place or if there is a better method, that discloses more information before the 5 level.

regards
Janis

[Winstonm]

JanisW, on 2018-November-27, 13:26, said:

I held the following hand this Monday and was unsure how to proceed

---

I went for 3♣ (promising Q+ in ♣, kind of Help-suit-Gametry), which is forcing for us and asks Partner to bid 4♥ with good support in clubs and settle for 3♥ otherwise.
After my partner was able to bid 4♥ I liked my hand even more because my QJ♣ greatly improved in value.
I followed it up with 4♠ after which Partner unfortunately cued with 5♣ (I think he should have skipped the club cue in favor for the much more valuable ♦-cue. He almost is marked with a club control for the bidding so far, isn't he?)
Now I'm none the wiser and lack a bid somehow.
Should I have started differently? How would you have proceeded? Is trying for 6 too ambitious anyway?


regard
Janis

Some of the best advice on slam bidding I ever read stated that if you can picture the perfect minimum hand from partner that makes slam lay down then your hand is worth a slam try.

In your case, Qxx, Kxxx, x, AKxxx would qualify so I agree with your slam try. Having the luxury of bidding 3 clubs forcing is also nice. But what you really want to hear from partner after 3C is a 4D splinter. As long as partner denies control of diamonds that xx you hold is death.

As for your bidding, I think you might want to discuss with your partner changing meanings, after 3C, 3H should be stronger than 4H so you save room, unless you are using 3C as forcing game try. If that is the case, I would not have started with 3C but with 2S because after a 4H bid you are still guessing about diamonds.

Edit: I see in your post that 3C was a game try. In that case, I think it gets much hairier to bid 3C unless partner can still bid 4D as a splinter. If he held xxx, Qxxx, Kx, AKxxx you really don't want to be in slam and 5 could be too high.

2nd Edit: Also, IMO when trying to reach low high card slams it is important to be able to make tries below game level - to avoid the 5 level.

[TylerE]

JanisW, on 2018-November-27, 15:06, said:

Does it really force to slam if there is a ♦-control?

Yes! That's the entire point. If you don't want to be in slam with all suits controlled, don't cuebid! That is, again, literally the point of cuebiding.

[rmnka447]

Rather than cueing 3 ♣, how about cueing 2 ♠ which is your cheapest actual control?

Partner will treat it as a game try and may bid 4 ♥ or try to sign off in 3 ♥. In either case, you can still make a 2nd ♠ cue which converts the "game try" to a a "slam try". It also gives partner the most room to bid something else in response to the try. If partner bids 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ would indicate a concentration of values in the suit bid, then you have the ability to make a second ♠ cue a level lower. That confirms a slam try and highlights the remaining suit as problematic for slam.

Also, once you bid ♣ and follow up with a ♠ cue, it's possible/probable that partner might consider the ♣ bid as showing a control and bid on.

[pescetom]

Help suit game trials are useful if well employed when looking for game in a traditional agreement that does not foresee bidding 1NT with a 5 card major. But I don't see it having much sense here. You have vision of slam and two short suits. Why not start with a 3♠ control bid, that shows vision of slam and asks about control of those two suits?

[pescetom]

rmnka447, on 2018-November-27, 15:36, said:

Rather than cueing 3 ♣, how about cueing 3 ♠ which is your cheapest actual control?

Partner will treat it as a game try and may bid 4 ♥ or try to sign off in 3 ♥. In either case, you can still make a 2nd ♠ cue which converts the "game try" to a a "slam try". It also gives partner the most room to bid something else in response to the try. If partner bids 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ would indicate a concentration of values in the suit bid, then you have the ability to make a second ♠ cue a level lower. That confirms a slam try and highlights the remaining suit as problematic for slam.

Also, once you bid ♣ and follow up with a ♠ cue, it's possible/probable that partner might consider the ♣ bid as showing a control and bid on.

I see you pipped me to the post with 3♠. But we have different styles of control bidding. For me 3♠ is game forcing and thus implies slam interest, partner is obliged to show 4♣ because he has the Ace or the King. Rather than trying to second guess each others intentions we show our actual first and second level controls. At worst we're going to end up trusting a King opposite a singleton, more often than not we stop at the right spot.

[JanisW]

rmnka447, on 2018-November-27, 15:36, said:

Rather than cueing 3 ♣, how about cueing 3 ♠ which is your cheapest actual control?

Partner will treat it as a game try and may bid 4 ♥ or try to sign off in 3 ♥. In either case, you can still make a 2nd ♠ cue which converts the "game try" to a a "slam try". It also gives partner the most room to bid something else in response to the try. If partner bids 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ would indicate a concentration of values in the suit bid, then you have the ability to make a second ♠ cue a level lower. That confirms a slam try and highlights the remaining suit as problematic for slam.

Also, once you bid ♣ and follow up with a ♠ cue, it's possible/probable that partner might consider the ♣ bid as showing a control and bid on.

I think here I find my mistake. I considered it neccessary for slam, that partner can bid game over 3♣, which it surely is. But I also get this information by starting with 2♠, because P will show a good ♣ suit by bidding 3♣ over 2♠ as the answer to the help-suit-gametry. He can never have a 4♥ bid over 2♠ and if he has to bid 3♥, denying good clubs, I simply sign off in game.
Once he bids 3♣, I can bid 3♠ making my gametry into a slamtry a level lower then I achieved it at the table.
I hope I once will be able to figure those things out at the table

thanks
Janis

[Winstonm]

JanisW, on 2018-November-27, 15:54, said:

I think here I find my mistake. I considered it neccessary for slam, that partner can bid game over 3♣, which it surely is. But I also get this information by starting with 2♠, because P will show a good ♣ suit by bidding 3♣ over 2♠ as the answer to the help-suit-gametry. He can never have a 4♥ bid over 2♠ and if he has to bid 3♥, denying good clubs, I simply sign off in game.
Once he bids 3♣, I can bid 3♠ making my gametry into a slamtry a level lower then I achieved it at the table.
I hope I once will be able to figure those things out at the table

thanks
Janis

What would he bid over 2S with xxx, KQxx, A, Kxxxx?

[mikeh]

May I suggest a change to the way you respond to game-tries?

1C 1H 2H 3C

We can bid:

3D: not turned on by the 3C try, but maximum anyway, and here is some diamond help, in case you were worried about both minors

3H: ugh

3S: spade control, accepting the game try and cooperating in case it was a slam try. It is NOT a slam try opposite a game-try, of course. Opener limited his hand via 2H, but responder is largely unlimited

3N: 3=4=3=3 (assuming 2H showed 4 cards, otherwise still 4333 but with only 3 hearts), maximum values, cards in all suits. Allows for the 9 trick game.

4C: cuebid...denies a spade control, but accepting the game-try and cuebidding in case responder has a slam try

4D: cuebid...denies a black control, but accepts the game try and cuebidding in case responder has a slam try

4H: maximum, no cuebid, so inferentially good hearts in context and a soft hand. This will be rare.

See what happens: Responder will have cuebid 4C, over which we cue 4S, already identifying the diamond issue.

Now, opener bids 5H on ALL hands lacking a diamond control. Note that a 5C recue by opener would promise a diamond control since it makes no sense to continue trying for slam when responder has denied one.


This practice of always using the space between the signoff 3M and the accepting 4M is very useful. As with anything, it is not cost free: it allows lead-directing doubles and can provide useful info on opening lead, so on rare occasions, the cuebid leads to an effective defence to game that might otherwise have been missed, but I have played this style for decades and believe it to be well worth this rare cost.

On the given hand, bidding 5H is clear. We have indicated a slam try with a hand unable to bid keycard. We have shown a spade control, partner has cooperated by showing a club control, and now we have to deny a diamond control. Note that we are not retracting our slam try...we are merely showing that we are interested in slam but have no diamond control, and we leave it to partner to look at his hand and act accordingly.

We may well reach a bad slam. Qx Qxxx Kx AKxxx is a terrible slam, and even the 5-level may be too high. But he may hold xx Kxxx Ax AKxxx and grand is very good, so I think you have to make the try.

[apollo1201]

JanisW, on 2018-November-27, 14:14, said:

he´ll obviously bid 3♦ and had not bid 2♥ in the first place...

He’ll probably first of all call TD for having 15 cards, won’t he?

More seriously the sequence’ got f***ed up
1) because of using a game try bid for’something else (slam try), with the non-economical sequence that follows (usually if you are trying just for game, you don’t want to tell your life to the leading opponent)
2) because C’s are not the main issue you want to focus on for slam

I play that suit bids are game tries only, semi-natural, while 2NT (some play 2S when H are agreed to save a level) is either balanced game try, or slam try, preventing partner to jump to 4 unless he has a maxi-is she hand concentrated in the bid suits and w/o controls in the other suits (eg xx AJxx xx AKJxx), so responder can easily picture what he has when basically all bidding space was used.

I know better players use 2NT as slam try artificial relay (and only that), on which opener can describe quality of his minor, shortnesses, etc. But it fits more a style where 2H guarantees a 4-cd support.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2018-November-27, 16:16, said:

This practice of always using the space between the signoff 3M and the accepting 4M is very useful. As with anything, it is not cost free: it allows lead-directing doubles and can provide useful info on opening lead, so on rare occasions, the cuebid leads to an effective defence to game that might otherwise have been missed, but I have played this style for decades and believe it to be well worth this rare cost.

Glad to see we're not the only ones who practice this style here.
But when we changed to opening 5M332 and 5M422 as 1NT when in 15-17 range, we gave up playing help suit game tries over responder's simple raise of a 1M opening, and use those bids for a different convention suited to 18-19 point hands - so now we only play the help suit game tries in situations where the opener makes a simple raise of a 1M response. Do you think we made a good choice?

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2018-November-28, 07:51, said:

Glad to see we're not the only ones who practice this style here.
But when we changed to opening 5M332 and 5M422 as 1NT when in 15-17 range, we gave up playing help suit game tries over responder's simple raise of a 1M opening, and use those bids for a different convention suited to 18-19 point hands - so now we only play the help suit game tries in situations where the opener makes a simple raise of a 1M response. Do you think we made a good choice?

No. In essence you appear to have concluded that the only hands where opener needs to use game tries is when he holds a 5332 15-17. I don’t understand the logic behind this.

In addition, you appear, if I understand correctly, to prefer to look for slam when opener has 18-19 and gets a single raise. I doubt that slam is going to be good on many such hands.

[ggwhiz]

I would like to see your partners hand. Any game try acceptance, min opener but good controls should bid 3♦ over 3♣ if you belong in slam here. At first it is a hedge on whether to bid game or not but is forcing to 3♥ which opener can raise to game now with the good one.

After many missteps over the years my partnership is much better (much tougher at speedball though) at avoiding the slam killing jump to game and using intermediate steps when available to next show good minimums as opposed to lackluster 12 counts at the next turn and therefore happily passing the jump to game on an auction like this.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2018-November-28, 08:52, said:

No. In essence you appear to have concluded that the only hands where opener needs to use game tries is when he holds a 5332 15-17. I don’t understand the logic behind this.

In addition, you appear, if I understand correctly, to prefer to look for slam when opener has 18-19 and gets a single raise. I doubt that slam is going to be good on many such hands.

We saw that game tries were not coming up much after switching to opening 1NT and figured that they would never be useful with 12-14 and only rarely necessary with 18-19, so we looked for an alternative more specific to finding games and slams short on points but with favourable distribution - we found a convention that pinpoints opener's shortages and gets responder to reevaluate his useful top honours and advise about 4-cards in the other major, responding with relays below 4M, and decided to experiment that. But it wasn't a scientific or definitive choice and we're quite willing to return to help suit game tries if it looks wise, that's why I ask.

In this partnership a 1M opening is 11+ and a single raise less than invitational.