[fred]

I don't normally use 2C as "clubs or balanced", but my sense is that it is not a good choice with this hand (unless perhaps if you have some very fancy agreements about what happens next).

If not 1S then I would respond 2D even if 2D "promised" a 5-card suit.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on 2011-June-02, 01:57, said:

very dissapointing hehe, how many people think 3♠ shows extras?

I do, but then, I don't play this thing where you bid 2♣ when holding 4♠ without quite a detailed followup agreement, including 2NT over 2♠ as waiting to get more info from the opener. So here I feel back onto that general principle.

[Phil]

@Fluffy - I didn't think anyone played fast arrival in this auction. I guess I was wrong when Ben indicated that he did.

@Frances - I agree that very specific followups are needed when 2♣ is 'clubs or balanced'. Even if you don't play something artificial, its useful for opener to know later when responder actually has clubs.

Regarding Ben's questions. LTTC is one of those mysterious bids, and I hope we have some good discussion.

In this context, Opener makes a serious 4♣ cue indicating extras and responder's 4♦ indicates possession of a card there. It seems unproductive for 4♥ to be LTTC by opener. Opener has already said, "I like my hand". Do we need another call to convey the same meaning? How many times do we need to split hairs when bidding space is so precious? 4♥ has to show a card there, since Opener can simply bid 4♠ with a hand that cannot take control, or advance past 4♠ and take control.

Contrast the actual auction with:

1♥ - 2♣
2♠ - 3♠
4♦ - ?

Here, LTTC makes a lot of sense. In this context it means, "I have the club control you were worried about, but I cannot move past 4♠".

[awm]

First off, I don't think LTTC should be part of BBO Advanced. The vast majority of players don't use LTTC, don't understand LTTC, etc. I don't think throwing conventions into BBO advanced that are not widely known/played in the advanced-expert bridge community is necessarily a good idea.

With that said, it seems to me that LTTC has two primary purposes. First, it can be used to guarantee a control which partner has denied. Second, it can be used to show extra values in a sequence where neither partner has previously expressed "serious" slam interest. I think that if neither of these is a possibility (i.e. there is no bypassed control and one partner has already shown extras) then LTTC should not apply. This is the case in the auction on this hand, where opener has already shown extras (bypassing "non-serious" 3NT) and no control has been bypassed. Here it is important to be able to show/deny a heart control. If opener were to rebid 4♠ instead of 4♥, this would clearly show concern about hearts (since he already showed serious slam interest and we have established control of the minors) and responder could bid on with a suitable heart holding. If 4♥ doesn't guarantee a heart control then I'm not sure what the difference would be between 4♥/4♠ from opener.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

han, on 2011-May-31, 11:36, said:

Hand 3: Qxxx Kx AKQx xxx

1H - 2C*
2S** - 3S
4C*** - 4D
4H - ??

* = (GF, bal or clubs)
** = does not promise extra values
*** = 3NT would deny serious slam interest. Ace, king or shortness.

Han further said:
" My partner ( Opener ) had a 4-5-1-3 distribution, which would be good if I had clubs but maybe not if I had diamonds. He couldn't find out about my shape, and I didn't find out about his."

I've posted ( previously ) my system over a 1H open and a 2/1 GF Response:

When Opener has 4 cards Spades, there are 2 -ways to show it : w/ or w/o "extras" ( 15+ hcp ) :

1) With "extras" :
1H - 2C!
2S = 4 cards Sp w/ extras ( the direct-2S rebid )

2) With a minimum opener:
1H - 2C!
2H! - 2S!( asks distribution; says nothing about Sp... yet )
??
.. 2NT = no 4 cards Sp
.. 3C = 4 cards Sp w/ Cl-shortness
.. 3D = 4 cards Sp w/ Diam-shortness
.. 3H = 4 cards Sp w/ Ht extra length ( 6+ cards ), ergo shortness in a minor
.. 3S = 4 5 2 2

Now Responder has a better grasp of how to proceed.

[nigel_k]

My view on this hand is that, after partner shows serious slam interest, we are certainly bidding slam and want to investigate grand. I suppose it's possible we could be off two key cards though it's not easy to come up with an example. Most times when slam is bad it will be due to weak internal trumps and 4NT doesn't help with that. As for finding grand, I'm not sure what the 4NT bidders intend to do if we have all the key cards. There are still ways to involve partner (who is unlimited) but it would be good if people would post what their plan is and what hands they are catering to.

[fred]

nigel_k, on 2011-June-02, 14:51, said:

My view on this hand is that, after partner shows serious slam interest, we are certainly bidding slam and want to investigate grand. I suppose it's possible we could be off two key cards though it's not easy to come up with an example. Most times when slam is bad it will be due to weak internal trumps and 4NT doesn't help with that. As for finding grand, I'm not sure what the 4NT bidders intend to do if we have all the key cards. There are still ways to involve partner (who is unlimited) but it would be good if people would post what their plan is and what hands they are catering to.

Unless you have an asking bid for the Jack of Diamonds available, if you partner shows all the keycards you have to bid 7.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rogerclee]

I think a really big divisive issue on this hand was, what constitutes a serious cuebid? Every partnership can determine that for themselves, but it's definitely something that needs to be discussed when you agree to play serious/nonserious. This sounds obvious but I have been involved in disasters when me and my partner didn't agree on this.

For me, an average 4513 14 count on this auction is a minimum serious cuebid, say AJxx AQxxx x Kxx

[han]

The hand I had at the table was less interesting (I had a weaker hand with 4 small spades and better clubs), so I started tinkering and tinkering. I didn't realize that the 2C bid had become even more dubious than it was at the table!

Still many interesting comments by the panel so I don't mind.

[gnasher]

In BridgeBase Advanced, if 4♥ is a cue-bid, it shows the AQ:

"A bid of the trump suit below game shows 2 of the top 3 honours if you were the first member of the pair to bid the suit."

Personally I don't think this is relevant, because we've already diverged from BBA by playing non-serious 3NT.

[inquiry]

gnasher, on 2011-June-02, 17:17, said:

In BridgeBase Advanced, if 4♥ is a cue-bid, it shows the AQ:

"A bid of the trump suit below game shows 2 of the top 3 honours if you were the first member of the pair to bid the suit."

Personally I don't think this is relevant, because we've already diverged from BBA by playing non-serious 3NT.

er...when did hearts become the trump suit?

[han]

I think Ben is correct in that the intention of that sentence is that 3S would show 2 of the top 3 honors if we were already cuebidding (which we were not).

[gnasher]

inquiry, on 2011-June-02, 17:33, said:

er...when did hearts become the trump suit?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong bit. Try this:

"When a side suit has been bid naturally, a bid of that suit by the bidder shows 2 of the top 3 honours in that suit."

[han]

I remember that from Fred's writing but didn't realize that it was in BBA.

[cherdano]

rogerclee, on 2011-June-02, 15:52, said:

I think a really big divisive issue on this hand was, what constitutes a serious cuebid? Every partnership can determine that for themselves, but it's definitely something that needs to be discussed when you agree to play serious/nonserious. This sounds obvious but I have been involved in disasters when me and my partner didn't agree on this.

For me, an average 4513 14 count on this auction is a minimum serious cuebid, say AJxx AQxxx x Kxx

A useful general definition (that I think I learned from Justin) is the following: think about the range of hands that are too good to just bid 4S (= terrible hand for slam, rarely ever bid) but not good enough to drive to the 5-level without partner cooperating. The upper half of that range makes a serious cue, the lower half bids non-serious 3NT.
That probably matches Roger's minimum pretty well.

[benlessard]

4Nt WTP was my answer