missed slam 2

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
East
KT
AQT75
QJ86
72
5 card majors system, X-IMPS
N E S W
P 1H P 2NT*
P 4H** P 4NT
P 5D P 5H
AP
* Jacoby, game forcing raise.
** Weak opening hand.
4NT - RCKB, 5D - one key card.
AQJ6
K9432
A
KJ3
I made 13 tricks after drawing trumps in two rounds and throwing the club losers on the spades. How should this have been bid?

Once you bid keycard, you should bid 6 off one key. Considering opener
has close to the worst possible hand and it is still on a finesse, west
should just bid it on their last bid. It is hard to construct hands
where it is worse than a finesse, perhaps xx AQxxx KQJ xxx and they'd
still need to find a club lead from either all small or harder still low
from the Axx(x), and easy to construct hands where it is cold, Kx AQxxx
Qxx Qxx or Kxx QJxxx QJx Ax.

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-11-17 16:30:50 UTC

Post by Travis Crump

No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

Carl

ais523

2018-11-18 19:02:34 UTC

Post by Travis Crump
Once you bid keycard, you should bid 6 off one key. Considering opener
has close to the worst possible hand and it is still on a finesse, west
should just bid it on their last bid. It is hard to construct hands
where it is worse than a finesse, perhaps xx AQxxx KQJ xxx and they'd
still need to find a club lead from either all small or harder still low
from the Axx(x), and easy to construct hands where it is cold, Kx AQxxx
Qxx Qxx or Kxx QJxxx QJx Ax.

No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view. I've had hands before now
where I could see slam if the partnership had all five keys, but not if
we had four (it helped that partner's hand was highly limited, having
opened 1NT). So I bid Blackwood, found we were off an ace, signed off,
and the partnership made 11 tricks as expected.

If you expect to lose exactly one non-keycard trick, then a keycard
check is a good way to find out if you can make slam; if you have all
five keys you bid the small slam, if you have only four you sign off.

(As it happens, I've been experimenting with above-game slam tries which
allow both a sign-off and an invite after you get a keycard response;
the sign-off shows two missing keys or certainty that slam can't be
made for some other reason, the invite shows enough keys for slam but
doesn't expect to reach slam opposite a minimum from partner (and thus
requires additional values to continue). Even in such a system, I'd sign
off rather than invite if I could envisage two lost tricks, even with
four keys, due to partner being limited. Obviously, if partner is
unlimited or wide-ranging, you'd give at least an invite whenever the
partnership has four keys, just in case they happen to have a maximum.)

Travis Crump's argument here is reasonable (it's saying "with this
particular hand, slam is likely enough opposite a minimum with 4
partnership keys that it's worth bidding", and tacitly assuming that
there are hands that are willing to ask for key cards but demand five
to continue), but your argument "if you're even considering slam, always
bid it you have four keys" seems like an oversimplification.

--
ais523

Co Wiersma

2018-11-18 20:32:51 UTC

No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view. I've had hands before now
where I could see slam if the partnership had all five keys, but not if
we had four (it helped that partner's hand was highly limited, having
opened 1NT). So I bid Blackwood, found we were off an ace, signed off,
and the partnership made 11 tricks as expected.
If you expect to lose exactly one non-keycard trick, then a keycard
check is a good way to find out if you can make slam; if you have all
five keys you bid the small slam, if you have only four you sign off.
(As it happens, I've been experimenting with above-game slam tries which
allow both a sign-off and an invite after you get a keycard response;
the sign-off shows two missing keys or certainty that slam can't be
made for some other reason, the invite shows enough keys for slam but
doesn't expect to reach slam opposite a minimum from partner (and thus
requires additional values to continue). Even in such a system, I'd sign
off rather than invite if I could envisage two lost tricks, even with
four keys, due to partner being limited. Obviously, if partner is
unlimited or wide-ranging, you'd give at least an invite whenever the
partnership has four keys, just in case they happen to have a maximum.)
Travis Crump's argument here is reasonable (it's saying "with this
particular hand, slam is likely enough opposite a minimum with 4
partnership keys that it's worth bidding", and tacitly assuming that
there are hands that are willing to ask for key cards but demand five
to continue), but your argument "if you're even considering slam, always
bid it you have four keys" seems like an oversimplification.

Maybe there are hands as you say
But then I am sure such hands would be so rare
or they would be hard to calculate
or the improvent in chance be so small
or
or
or
that the above given rule (do not sighn off with only one keycard out)
must work out better in the long run

Co Wiersma

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2018-11-18 21:32:50 UTC

No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view. I've had hands before now
where I could see slam if the partnership had all five keys, but not if
we had four (it helped that partner's hand was highly limited, having
opened 1NT). So I bid Blackwood, found we were off an ace, signed off,
and the partnership made 11 tricks as expected.
If you expect to lose exactly one non-keycard trick, then a keycard
check is a good way to find out if you can make slam; if you have all
five keys you bid the small slam, if you have only four you sign off.
(As it happens, I've been experimenting with above-game slam tries which
allow both a sign-off and an invite after you get a keycard response;
the sign-off shows two missing keys or certainty that slam can't be
made for some other reason, the invite shows enough keys for slam but
doesn't expect to reach slam opposite a minimum from partner (and thus
requires additional values to continue). Even in such a system, I'd sign
off rather than invite if I could envisage two lost tricks, even with
four keys, due to partner being limited. Obviously, if partner is
unlimited or wide-ranging, you'd give at least an invite whenever the
partnership has four keys, just in case they happen to have a maximum.)
Travis Crump's argument here is reasonable (it's saying "with this
particular hand, slam is likely enough opposite a minimum with 4
partnership keys that it's worth bidding", and tacitly assuming that
there are hands that are willing to ask for key cards but demand five
to continue), but your argument "if you're even considering slam, always
bid it you have four keys" seems like an oversimplification.
--
ais523

It is not an extreme view at all. It is what pick-uo partnerships assume.

Responder to Blackwood must be able to pass confidently despite massive undisclosed values.

Carl

ais523

2018-11-19 04:06:42 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net
No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view.

[snip]

Post by ***@verizon.net
It is not an extreme view at all. It is what pick-uo partnerships assume.
Responder to Blackwood must be able to pass confidently despite massive undisclosed values.

You only do this when you know your partner doesn't have undisclosed
values. (I agree that if your partner is unlimited, you have to let them
know that all the keys are present.)

Typically, by the time you reach the 4NT level, at least one player will
have limited their hand. So that player's partner can Blackwood with no
worries of significant undisclosed values in that partner's hand.

I can see how, e.g., 1H, 4NT; 5D, 5H would be an absolute signoff
showing two missing keys (you've signed off despite opener being
unlimited), but bidding sequences are rarely that abrupt in practice
(and very few experienced players would use that sort of immediate
jump to Blackwood without trying to gain more information first).
Something like a forcing invite in the middle of the bidding sequence,
or a 1NT opening, or opener signing off and responder bidding on
regardless, can easily place a limit on one partner's hand, and then
the limited player's partner has easily enough information with which
they can judge whether a four-keycard slam is possible or whether all
five are needed. (You need a limit on both point count and
distribution, but it's hardly surprising to have that by the time you
reach the four level; you often have that even at the one level!)

--
ais523

d***@pointerstop.ca

2018-11-19 16:22:41 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net
No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view. I've had hands before now
where I could see slam if the partnership had all five keys, but not if
we had four

Most of those hands are hands where you shouldn't be _bidding_ Blackwood (for instance, a hand where you have two quick losers in a suit). If you can properly ask, you should bid the slam when you are only off one key.

In any case, it's IMPS. Where the odds & the scoring favour you bidding slams that are on a finesse.

ais523

2018-11-20 00:30:40 UTC

Post by d***@pointerstop.ca

Post by ***@verizon.net
No "should" about it. Signing off after kcb guarantees 2 missing keys.

That seems like something of an extreme view. I've had hands before now
where I could see slam if the partnership had all five keys, but not if
we had four

If you think you can make five, and might be able to make six, it rarely
hurts to get more information about whether six is possible. "I
shouldn't try for slam because it'll need all five keys" means you'll
miss slam in those cases where you have easily enough trick sources and
only need to worry about fast losers. Why would you not try for slam in
cases where it stands a resonable chance of improving your score, and
it's unlikely to backfire? (Of course, there's the possibility of
non-Blackwood slam tries, but I often play in pickup partnerships
where those often aren't available.)

Obviously, if there's a substantial chance of going down in five, you
don't try.

--
ais523

d***@pointerstop.ca

2018-11-20 09:27:41 UTC

Post by d***@pointerstop.ca
Most of those hands are hands where you shouldn't be _bidding_
Blackwood (for instance, a hand where you have two quick losers in a
suit). If you can properly ask, you should bid the slam when you are
only off one key.

If you think you can make five, and might be able to make six, it rarely
hurts to get more information about whether six is possible. "I
shouldn't try for slam because it'll need all five keys"

I'm not talking about hands where you'll need all five keys. I'm talking specifically about using Blackwood when you have two quick losers in your hand. You won't find a teacher anywhere who thinks that's a good idea

Post by ais523
Why would you not try for slam in
cases where it stands a resonable chance of improving your score, and

Of course I'd try for slam.

Post by ais523
it's unlikely to backfire? (Of course, there's the possibility of
non-Blackwood slam tries, but I often play in pickup partnerships
where those often aren't available.)

There's no such thing. I play a lot of pickup partnerships, and with some very bad players, and if they're reasonably intelligent they can work out that bids at the four or five level in an unagreed suit might show _something_. It's far safer to cue-bid an ace and see where it goes than to use Blackwood with two quick losers. I'll grant that cue-bidding "first or second round controls" in a pickup partnership may not work well!

ais523

2018-11-20 11:59:17 UTC

Post by d***@pointerstop.ca

Post by ais523
it's unlikely to backfire? (Of course, there's the possibility of
non-Blackwood slam tries, but I often play in pickup partnerships
where those often aren't available.)

There's no such thing. I play a lot of pickup partnerships, and with
some very bad players, and if they're reasonably intelligent they can
work out that bids at the four or five level in an unagreed suit might
show _something_. It's far safer to cue-bid an ace and see where it
goes than to use Blackwood with two quick losers. I'll grant that
cue-bidding "first or second round controls" in a pickup partnership
may not work well!

The club I play at has players at a wide range of levels, and in a
pickup partnership, I'll often encounter an inexperienced player who's
never heard of control-showing cue bids (inexperienced players are
more likely than experienced players to not have a regular partner,
and thus need a pickup partnership). If I made such a bid, I'd be
worried about hearing a pass, and even if I got an answer I'd have no
idea what it means.

I appreciate this is potentially an unusual situation.

--
ais523

Co Wiersma

2018-11-20 15:47:33 UTC

Post by d***@pointerstop.ca

Post by ais523
it's unlikely to backfire? (Of course, there's the possibility of
non-Blackwood slam tries, but I often play in pickup partnerships
where those often aren't available.)

There's no such thing. I play a lot of pickup partnerships, and with
some very bad players, and if they're reasonably intelligent they can
work out that bids at the four or five level in an unagreed suit might
show _something_. It's far safer to cue-bid an ace and see where it
goes than to use Blackwood with two quick losers. I'll grant that
cue-bidding "first or second round controls" in a pickup partnership
may not work well!

The club I play at has players at a wide range of levels, and in a
pickup partnership, I'll often encounter an inexperienced player who's
never heard of control-showing cue bids (inexperienced players are
more likely than experienced players to not have a regular partner,
and thus need a pickup partnership). If I made such a bid, I'd be
worried about hearing a pass, and even if I got an answer I'd have no
idea what it means.
I appreciate this is potentially an unusual situation.

My club has many players that do not use control showing cue-bids
And who would not know how if they wanted to
But those players do not know RKCB either
And all use 4C as Ace-asking if possible

Still I am sure
if you do not cuebid
and only bid slams where you know for sure no two tricks could be lost
in one suit
you will miss out on a lot of slams

So really honestly do not go the way of bidding blackwood and sign off
with one keycard out
Even if you avoid the 'hesitation Blackwood' , you are complicating
things without any benefit at all

Co Wiersma

Co Wiersma

2018-11-17 13:17:32 UTC

Well your partner had a brain-standstill by bidding 5H in stead of 6

Do not ever bid Blackwood and then sign off after you see to have enough
Aces

Co Wiersma

Ars Ivci

2018-11-17 14:24:46 UTC

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
East
KT
AQT75
QJ86
72
5 card majors system, X-IMPS
N   E   S   W
P 1H   P 2NT*
P 4H** P 4NT
P 5D   P 5H
AP
* Jacoby, game forcing raise.
** Weak opening hand.
4NT - RCKB, 5D - one key card.
AQJ6
K9432
A
KJ3
I made 13 tricks after drawing trumps in two rounds and throwing the
club losers on the spades. How should this have been bid?

Well your partner had a brain-standstill by bidding 5H in stead of 6
Do not ever bid Blackwood and then sign off after you see to have enough
Aces
Co Wiersma

He could not figure out if AQ of trumps were out. 1430 key-card
responses could have helped. I would have bid the slam, though.

--
peace,
t.

Jean Pierre Fontenille

2018-11-19 04:17:32 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I made 13 tricks after drawing trumps in two rounds and throwing the club losers on the spades. How should this have been bid?

and on a club lead ?

a***@yahoo.co.uk

2018-11-19 10:53:45 UTC

Post by Jean Pierre Fontenille

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I made 13 tricks after drawing trumps in two rounds and throwing the club losers on the spades. How should this have been bid?

and on a club lead ?

I make 12 tricks if I guess right. Is the opening leader good enough to lead low from an ace to try and encourage me to play the jack? If they are, then I can class it as another wrong-pair-at-wrong-time situation.

KWSchneider

2018-11-20 14:11:28 UTC

The problem IMO is 100% responder. After a 1H 5cM opening, my objective on this hand Is not WHETHER to bid slam, but rather do I have a grand. If your version of Jacoby forces partner to bid 4H on a minimum opening, then it needs to be reworked, as cuebidding above game is expensive.
After a 1H opening and a 2N response, our auction would have proceeded: 3H-3S-3N(heart control)-4C-4H-5D-6H.

Also, why wasn’t a 4D splinter considered?

a***@yahoo.co.uk

2018-11-21 23:23:11 UTC

Post by KWSchneider
The problem IMO is 100% responder. After a 1H 5cM opening, my objective on this hand Is not WHETHER to bid slam, but rather do I have a grand. If your version of Jacoby forces partner to bid 4H on a minimum opening, then it needs to be reworked, as cuebidding above game is expensive.
After a 1H opening and a 2N response, our auction would have proceeded: 3H-3S-3N(heart control)-4C-4H-5D-6H.
Also, why wasn’t a 4D splinter considered?

The Jacoby we play is the standard version AFAIK. 4H is a fast arrival saying no interest of going any further unless responder has a powerful hand, which makes sense to me. Fast arrival is normally used to show weak hands in a game forcing auction.

As far as splintering is concerned, is it really suitable to do that with a singleton ace? If I held KQxx of diamonds I would be inclined to downgrade my hand with a known singleton or void opposite, but opposite a singleton ace, the KQ is worth two tricks on which losers can be thrown.

Douglas Newlands

2018-11-22 00:32:51 UTC

The consequence of this is that partner with a strong hand is put in the
same boat as the LOLs in guessing whether to use RKC or not.

Use a method where 3C shows all minimums (and 3D asks again about
shortage).

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
As far as splintering is concerned, is it really suitable to do that with a singleton ace?

FWI, I don't think it's a good idea.
Same badness as cuing shortages in partner's suit.

doug

If I held KQxx of diamonds I would be inclined to downgrade my hand with
a known singleton or void opposite, but opposite a singleton ace, the KQ
is worth two tricks on which losers can be thrown.

Player

2018-11-22 01:40:37 UTC

Post by Douglas Newlands

The consequence of this is that partner with a strong hand is put in the
same boat as the LOLs in guessing whether to use RKC or not.
Use a method where 3C shows all minimums (and 3D asks again about
shortage).

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
As far as splintering is concerned, is it really suitable to do that with a singleton ace?

FWI, I don't think it's a good idea.
Same badness as cuing shortages in partner's suit.
doug
If I held KQxx of diamonds I would be inclined to downgrade my hand with
a known singleton or void opposite, but opposite a singleton ace, the KQ
is worth two tricks on which losers can be thrown.

Ye verily, a Daniel come to judgement.

Player

2018-11-22 01:42:53 UTC

The Jacoby we play is the standard version AFAIK. 4H is a fast arrival saying no interest of going any further unless responder has a powerful hand, which makes sense to me. Fast arrival is normally used to show weak hands in a game forcing auction.
As far as splintering is concerned, is it really suitable to do that with a singleton ace? If I held KQxx of diamonds I would be inclined to downgrade my hand with a known singleton or void opposite, but opposite a singleton ace, the KQ is worth two tricks on which losers can be thrown.

Fast arrival is a 1950's concept that good players no longer use. The 4M bid here should show no first round controls, no shortage, but very good trumps.

Steve Willner

2018-11-26 22:38:30 UTC

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
The Jacoby we play is the standard version AFAIK. 4H is a fast
arrival saying no interest of going any further unless responder has
a powerful hand, which makes sense to me. Fast arrival is normally
used to show weak hands in a game forcing auction.

As others have written, there are better methods. In general, fast
arrival to show weakness is a bad method when partner is unlimited, but
any agreement is better than none.

The real problem here is that responder simply didn't appreciate that
AQJ6 K9432 A KJ3 opposite a 1H opener is a slam drive. There are
various bidding approaches possible to avoid missing the grand, but
Blackwood then stopping in 5H when one keycard was missing was just a
blunder.

As to those approaches, I think I like starting with a SJS to 2S, then
setting hearts and using RKCB. I expect to show partner we have all the
keycards and let him decide, but when we are missing one, 6H will be
enough. The full auction will be 1H-2S-3H-4NT-5D-6H. Of course this
depends on agreements -- SJS and responses thereto -- that may not apply
in the OP's partnership. In a partnership with no agreements, the
original responder's auction was fine until the final pass.

Player

2018-11-22 00:28:23 UTC

Your major problem is the failure to have decent responses to Jacoby. 4M to show a minimum is very poor. I suggest you refine this.

a***@yahoo.co.uk

2018-11-25 00:15:18 UTC

Post by Player

Your major problem is the failure to have decent responses to Jacoby. 4M to show a minimum is very poor. I suggest you refine this.

This is the version I use.

http://www.bridgewebs.com/porthcawl/JACOBY%202NT%20RESPONSES%20TO%201%20MAJOR.htm

If you are aware of a superior version out there, feel free to point me to it.

Travis Crump

2018-11-25 15:57:27 UTC