[Jinksy]

You hold this hand:

AKx
Ax
Axxx
QJTx

P opens a weak NT 2nd in (11-14, since you’re NV, but shouldn’t be too junky in that position. Shape is systemically any 5422 or 4441 in the range). With the methods you’ve agreed, the auction proceeds as follows:

2S* 2N**
3H*** 4D****

* Range finder
** Lower end
*** showing 4Cs, slam-hunting
**** cue (KDs) agreeing Cs, also showing either trump A or K

Time’s basically up – any cue by you will obviously solicit 5C by P (4N by either of you would show the trump Q), so you seem to have reached decision time:

1) Sign off in 5Cs
2) Punt 6Cs

Options that didn’t occur to me at the time:

3) cuebid to rightside the contract, since you don’t necessarily want the lead coming toward your hard honours and pass 5C
4) as above, but having rightsided, raise to 6Cs
5) bid 4N, showing the trump Q but implausibly denying a first or second round control in either major to torture P into making the final decision.

Which do you prefer?

[mfa1010]

I think the hand is a little too weak to bid 3♥ opposite partner's 11-12. I would just sign off in 3N after hearing about minimum.
Obviously we could have a slam, but it seems we don't have the methods to investigate in details, and I think it is against odds to just shoot it. Yes, he could have xx, xxxx, KQx, AKxx, but also xx, Qxxx, Kxx, AKxx or xxx, Jx, Kxx, AKxxx. I can't tell.
Since 4♦ was the best possible response I could get, and I have all the controls but no way really to investigate further, 3♥ would not make sense in the first place unless my intentions were to drive to slam after 4♦.
But 3N for me.

[Jinksy]

To clarify, he has 1KC (ie the A or K of trumps), not both.

[Cyberyeti]

So Qxx, Kxxx, Kx, A9xx is in the frame where the slam is good, but so is QJx, Kxx, Kxx, Kxxx where it has very little play. You have no way of telling these two apart fast enough, so are you feeling lucky ? I think there are probably more hands where it has reasonable play than not, but it's close.

[sailoranch]

Can you bid 4♠ to pinpoint a heart control? If you're willing to take your chances on partner's shape opposite the ♥K, this tells partner what you're looking for.

[dake50]

This much into a 30 point slam at best.
If I'm trying after min, I'm going now.

[kenrexford]

I think you might be missing something. I imagine that partner has denied a spade control. If so, you can cue 4H and thus cue both majors, in a sense. Plus, partner can then cue the spade Queen if he has it, and you state control of all suits. That might help in your style?

[sasioc]

I don't understand why I'm looking for slam facing a minimum weak NT. I'm balanced, p is balanced, we have no evidence of a particularly big fit anywhere and we don't have that many points...

I played this board in 3nt and certainly would do so on your start to the auction. If I am stuck with this start to the auction I would sign off in 5C and be happy it wasn't pairs.

[jogs]

Jinksy, on 2012-August-20, 09:21, said:

You hold this hand:

AKx
Ax
Axxx
QJTx

P opens a weak NT 2nd in (11-14, since you’re NV, but shouldn’t be too junky in that position. Shape is systemically any 5422 or 4441 in the range). With the methods you’ve agreed, the auction proceeds as follows:

2S* 2N**
3H*** 4D****

* Range finder
** Lower end
*** showing 4Cs, slam-hunting
**** cue (KDs) agreeing Cs, also showing either trump A or K


Which do you prefer?

Back it up to the 2♠ call. Prefer 2♠ as minor suit system.
Like finding our suit first.
2nd choice lower range is not 11-12 HCP. Lower range is 3 controls or fewer.
Any notrump with two aces may be slam going. Notrumps with too many queens and jacks
are poor for slams.

[SteveMoe]

Other - wishing for 3N instead of 3♥. Opposite a min NT a bal 18 with good internals this doesn't seem enough for 12 tricks.

[Jinksy]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-20, 16:54, said:

I think you might be missing something. I imagine that partner has denied a spade control. If so, you can cue 4H and thus cue both majors, in a sense. Plus, partner can then cue the spade Queen if he has it, and you state control of all suits. That might help in your style?

He hasn't denied a spade control. 3S after 3H would be still seeking a fit, showing 4 (or 5) diamonds.

[kenrexford]

Jinksy, on 2012-August-21, 09:36, said:

He hasn't denied a spade control. 3S after 3H would be still seeking a fit, showing 4 (or 5) diamonds.

OK. Interesting and reasonable treatment. So, after 3♥, I assume that 4♣ is a cue agreeing clubs and showing two of the top three clubs, with a bypass of 4♣ therefore denying two top clubs. 4♦, therefore, shows a diamond control, but it also "shows" a club control because you cannot accept clubs without at least one top club? This would then, I assume, mean that any cue by Responder (4♥ or 4♠) would then show a control in this indicated suit and, by inference, tend (perhaps heavily) to deny a control in the other major?

So, assuming a 4♥ cue, although that would not technically deny a spade control, it would be heavily anti-control as to spades. Assuming this, then what would 4♠ by Responder mean? I would guess a spade control but hesitant values, such as both suits (diamonds and spades) being King-only controls? Sort of last train-like?

This auction ends up rather cramped for space. A theoretical concept I thought about only a few months ago might be of strange benefit to you in this sort of situation. The idea is cuebidding the questionable value. The idea is to define an acceptance in terms of expected cover cards. For instance, the expected cover card holding for this sequence might be 4 covers. Within that group, however, might be one "questionable" cover. Aces and Kings are generall deemed unquestionable (when shortness is unlikely), but a stray Queen "questionable." How would this work?

If Opener has four unquestionable covers, he cues 4♣ (4 cover cards in the form of Aces and Kings). With three unquestionable covers and one questionable cover, he cues the questionable cover. Thus, with something like ♣K, ♦K, ♥K, ♥Q, Opener would hear 3♥ and bid 4♥, cuebidding the "questionable cover."

If two questionables are possible (per agreement), Opener cues the lowest, followed by asking bids by partner. Hence, avfter the example above, Opener would cue 4♥ for the heart Queen and three unquestionable covers, with Responder bidding 4♠ to ask for a spade Queen. In this sequence, however, that is not possible.

But, if the minimum acceptance is two clear and two questionable, there is a solution. Opener cues the lowest of two questionables with two questionables. 4♥ would therefore promise both major Queens and two unquestionables, whereas 4♦ would show the diamond Queen and a major Queen (with 4♥ or 4♠ asking). 4♠ would show four unquestionables. 4NT three unquestiuonables but no Queen. 4♣ would show three unquestionables with a questionable, with a relay asking for the one questionable. Thus, you can show (1) four unquestionables,. (2) three unquestionables plus a Queen, (3) three unquestionables without a Queen, or (4) two unquestionables plus two Queens, and you always can identify the Queen.

Will you possible lack control of a suit? Maybe, but you seem to gain a lot more by hitting this many cover cards accurately.

Just a thought.

[Jinksy]

sasioc, on 2012-August-20, 18:43, said:

I don't understand why I'm looking for slam facing a minimum weak NT. I'm balanced, p is balanced, we have no evidence of a particularly big fit anywhere and we don't have that many points...

I played this board in 3nt and certainly would do so on your start to the auction. If I am stuck with this start to the auction I would sign off in 5C and be happy it wasn't pairs.

I was playing with a glacially slow partner, so at the table I didn't have much time to think through specific hands he might hold. I was basically just following the heuristic that a 4-4 fit is normally an extra trick, esp holding hard values and with 30 points we rate to take about 11 tricks on HCPs alone.

Added the 'I should have signed off in 3N' option to the poll, anyway.

Also this was against Tom Slater and Alice Kaye's team with two inexperienced players on mine, so I had a feeling of an imminent crushing unless we managed to generate a swing.

I think the final contract was marginally odds on - partner put down what Alice generously described as 'a nasty pile of crap', admittedly with an extra C:

Jxx
Jxx
KQ
Axxxx

So it was basically on the finesse with some chance of a squeeze on a non-H lead.

[Jinksy]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-21, 10:06, said:

OK. Interesting and reasonable treatment. So, after 3♥, I assume that 4♣ is a cue agreeing clubs and showing two of the top three clubs, with a bypass of 4♣ therefore denying two top clubs.

Sort of. We were playing a combination of Turbo and minorwood, so bidding four of the agreed minor just shows an even number. There's room in his hand for that to be zero, so if he had bid that I'd have to untangle it either by trying to get him to deny cues in the side suits or bid 5C directly, expecting him to raise with both.

(I should add to all this in case it's relevant that - as you might have guessed - 3C and D bids would have shown Hs and Ss respectively)

Quote

4♦, therefore, shows a diamond control, but it also "shows" a club control because you cannot accept clubs without at least one top club?

On current system if you have a C fit you have to admit to it, regardless of honours. Since we play a weak NT, our auctions are more geared towards bidding the right game/rightsiding to the less defined and equal or stronger hand/getting out at a low level than toward slam bidding (also since I want to play the same system with various partners I can only make it so complicated).

Quote

This would then, I assume, mean that any cue by Responder (4♥ or 4♠) would then show a control in this indicated suit and, by inference, tend (perhaps heavily) to deny a control in the other major?

Yeah.

Quote

So, assuming a 4♥ cue, although that would not technically deny a spade control, it would be heavily anti-control as to spades. Assuming this, then what would 4♠ by Responder mean? I would guess a spade control but hesitant values, such as both suits (diamonds and spades) being King-only controls? Sort of last train-like?

On current agreement it would just deny a H control, basically forcing P to bypass 5C if he had one (or bid 4N if he had the QC).

Quote

This auction ends up rather cramped for space. A theoretical concept I thought about only a few months ago might be of strange benefit to you in this sort of situation. The idea is cuebidding the questionable value. The idea is to define an acceptance in terms of expected cover cards. For instance, the expected cover card holding for this sequence might be 4 covers. Within that group, however, might be one "questionable" cover. Aces and Kings are generall deemed unquestionable (when shortness is unlikely), but a stray Queen "questionable." How would this work?

If Opener has four unquestionable covers, he cues 4♣ (4 cover cards in the form of Aces and Kings). With three unquestionable covers and one questionable cover, he cues the questionable cover. Thus, with something like ♣K, ♦K, ♥K, ♥Q, Opener would hear 3♥ and bid 4♥, cuebidding the "questionable cover."

If two questionables are possible (per agreement), Opener cues the lowest, followed by asking bids by partner. Hence, avfter the example above, Opener would cue 4♥ for the heart Queen and three unquestionable covers, with Responder bidding 4♠ to ask for a spade Queen. In this sequence, however, that is not possible.

But, if the minimum acceptance is two clear and two questionable, there is a solution. Opener cues the lowest of two questionables with two questionables. 4♥ would therefore promise both major Queens and two unquestionables, whereas 4♦ would show the diamond Queen and a major Queen (with 4♥ or 4♠ asking). 4♠ would show four unquestionables. 4NT three unquestiuonables but no Queen. 4♣ would show three unquestionables with a questionable, with a relay asking for the one questionable. Thus, you can show (1) four unquestionables,. (2) three unquestionables plus a Queen, (3) three unquestionables without a Queen, or (4) two unquestionables plus two Queens, and you always can identify the Queen.

Will you possible lack control of a suit? Maybe, but you seem to gain a lot more by hitting this many cover cards accurately.

Just a thought.

Interesting... so on the hand in the post below, you'd sign off in 3N as a sort of second minimum, after which presumably 4C or D by me would be natural (not necessarily showing extra C length?), forcing and demanding (some sort of) cues with a fit?

[kenrexford]

Jinksy, on 2012-August-21, 10:56, said:

Interesting... so on the hand in the post below, you'd sign off in 3N as a sort of second minimum, after which presumably 4C or D by me would be natural (not necessarily showing extra C length?), forcing and demanding (some sort of) cues with a fit?

Yes, assuming that method. However, the lighter Opener is, the more likely he has multiple "questionable" values, the more likely that there are holes, and the more likely the need to unwind, all the while as space has been consumed. So, you might end up in a sort of quantitative bash scenario. However, you might also do a sort of reverse approach, where Responder's initial call assumes clubs but asks for "questionable values" where indicated. In other words, 4♣ asks for trump help, 4♦ instead asking for the diamond Queen. Something like that. I have not really thought through very cramped and intermediate-honor rich sequences.

[manudude03]

I hope partner wasn't forced to cooperate. Scoring might help, if it's MPs, then its automatic to bid 6C. At IMPs, I guess I bid 4H. I hope partner can bid 4N as a sort of last train saying that he has something else to cue (ie. the king of hearts). If partner bids 5C, I pass.

But yes, I'd have bid 3N over 2N.

[jogs]

Jinksy, on 2012-August-21, 10:27, said:

I was playing with a glacially slow partner, so at the table I didn't have much time to think through specific hands he might hold.

This makes 3NT a clearcut bid. End the auction. Move on to the next board.