[kgr]

These questions were triggered by a bidding practice with my partner.
The hands I gave are example hands, but I'm most interested in the bidding and question without the hands.

Bidding 1:
2NT-3♣
3NT-4♣
4H-?

2NT=20-21
3♣=puppet stayman
3NT=No 4c Major
4♣=4+c♣ and some slam interest
4♥=positive for ♣, cue ♥, no ♦-cue

What should responder bid with a minimum hand (marginal slam interest) and a ♦-cue and no ♠-cue?
e.g:

---

Bidding 2:
1♠-2♥
2♠-3♠
4♣-4♥
??

We don't play 2/1,
2♠ shows a hand with less than 15 pts
and 3♠ shows 3c♠ and slam-interest
4♣=We play 3NT is non-serious. 4♣ shows a hand that is not minimal
4♥=♥-control, no ♦-control.
Should opener move above 4♠ with a minimum hand and a ♦-control?

---

[Fluffy]

I haven't agreed this in any partnership yet, but modern trend seems to be that hand one bids 4♠ showing a diamond cuebid and not enough values to go further. Last train is the name given to this agreement.

Hand 2: partner is unlimited, so absolutelly, bidding 4♠ now totally denies ♦ control.

[Codo]

1. Include last train. There is simply no other alternative. The problem is to define what last train shows/asks. If it ask partner to explore slam with a spade control, partner must bid on. Whether you should make one more move with a marginal slam hand is just your choice. Partner cannot cooperate over 4 ♠, he is forced to slam with a control.

2. 4 ♠ would be a crime and miss some lay down grand slams. Give partner Axxxx,AKQx,xx,Kx... and he can hold even more...

[helene_t]

On hand 1 we know that p has a spade control (Q-AKQ-QJ-KJ is only 18 points and he even showed a positive hand!). So if last train forces p to bid slam (or ask/show KCs) with a spade control we might as well blast 6♣. Slam doesn't look good, though. Unless p has ♦QJ and ♦K is onside we have a diamond loser and it is almost impossible to find a discard for it. Even if p is 3325 and his diamond loser can go on the spades, we have helped the defense to find the diamond lead if the defender on lead doesn't have ♦K. I am inclined just to sign off. I find it difficult to count 12 tricks.

On hand 2, agree with Fluffy.

[kgr]

These were the hands and our real biddings.
They are different then OP because I didn't want to make it more complicated with our special agreements in OP.
(The hands come from Becker Archives of Larry Cohen's bidding practice):
Hand 1:

---

Our bidding was different because 4♥ didn't deny a ♦-cue. If responder needed a ♦-cue than he should no bid 5♣(?).
3NT better contract than 5♣.

Hand 2:

---

I did bid 2♣ because I did not need support from partner in ♥. Doing that again I now learned it is better to start with ♥ anyway!
2♦-bid of partner can still be strong if he holds real Diamonds. This doesn't happen very often, but it is probably better if partner bids 3NT, non-serious, to show 12-14 (even with a max in this range). Now he has a problem to go over 4S to show the D-cue

[Codo]

Hand 1: Maybe you should get 4 ♣ as single suited ST with clubs and maybe 4 ♥ as both minors- or just give up on finding 4-4 minor slams? And if you think that slam is bad despite a fit and maximum, why do you look for one in first place? You could have bid a simple 3 NT instead of going to 5 ♣? Or you could have bid 4 NT instead of 5 ♣ now- or is that KC?

Hand 2: 4 ♠ is a beginner mistake.

[kgr]

 Codo, on 2012-November-01, 06:17, said:

Hand 1: Maybe you should get 4 ♣ as single suited ST with clubs and maybe 4 ♥ as both minors- or just give up on finding 4-4 minor slams?

4♥ is slam-forcing with ♥ for us. Probably no very useful

 Codo, on 2012-November-01, 06:17, said:

And if you think that slam is bad despite a fit and maximum, why do you look for one in first place?

Do you think West does not have enough to go over 3NT?

 Codo, on 2012-November-01, 06:17, said:

You could have bid a simple 3 NT instead of going to 5 ♣? Or you could have bid 4 NT instead of 5 ♣ now- or is that KC?

Yes, after opener is positive for ♣ we cannot stop in 4NT. That is RKC.
With a ♣-fit, 5♣ will not often be worse (at IMPs) than 4NT.

[Codo]

Hi Koen,

there are some good slams which you would miss if you just pass 3 NT, but with two balanced hands and marginal point count for a slam it is at most borderline to bid.

Do you need 4 ♥ as slamish with hearts? Why cannot you bid these hands with transfer?

I think one problem is that your partners hand is great opposite 5 clubs but just average opposite 4/4 minors. He cannnot evaluate what to do. Nor can you, because he can hold 4 or 5 card support and/or a doubleton spade. So, you are at the 5. level and still on a blind flight.

If you play pupett stayman with 2344, you try to find a 5-3 major fit and if this does not work, a 44 minor fit. I have no good solution how to find all possible fits in puppet stayman, I play it quite simple- 4♣ and 4 ♦ show a 5+ card suit and with your hand I had passed 3 NT, missing slam opposite Ax, AKQx,KQx,Kxxx and a million other hands, but avoiding it opposite your partners hand.

[mikeh]

I know that it is conventional wisdom (sorry about the pun) to use 4N as keycard in as many auctions as possible, but I truly do not think that it is optimal when you have the sort of auction you show in 1.

You have started a cue-bidding sequence, in which both partners have expressed a liking for clubs. My suggestion: use 4N as a hand too good for a signoff but not good enough to force to slam. Given that opener has denied a diamond control, 4N shows one, else responder would have no further slam interest.

My experience (and I have played this way for many years) is that I have never reached a silly slam off 2 keys or with a terrible trump suit and never missed a good one either. That isn't a reflection of my 'brilliant' judgement: remember that both sides, by definition, are slam-interested and the auction is fairly well-defined by this stage.

Both partners know that cards in the trump suit are important, that side controls are important and, in essence, 4N merely asks opener to evaluate within the context already shown.

I really don't like last train 4♠ here. It presumably shows a diamond control but now we get into more distortions about who shows what spade control. Admittedly, on the auction shown the odds are that opener has a spade control. More to the point, responder is unlimited and may want to look for grand. Wasting a cuebid here seems wrong. I would use 4♠ to confirm the diamond control as well as showing a spade control, and keeping the bidding moving....not only is responder slam positive (which means going to slam since both partners have shown slam positive values and all side suits are known to be controlled) but allows for grand exploration as well.

I truly believe that cuebidding, including the use of 4N as advertised above, allows for very accurate slam bidding provided both partners are listening to the auction.

[gszes]

HAND 1

You have made a mild slam try and p has said they also have slam interest.
Your partner has expressed slam interest missing the trump AQ and the
dia A if your side does not have enough to make slam your p hand evaluation
was most likely wrong. There appears to be no good reason to avoid slam
at this point so just bid it you were never interested in 7 anyway so cuebidding
the dia ace is treading water. Bidding 6 immediately gives away less information.
Save the cute bidding for hands that have real problems (like how to get to 7).

HAND 2

NON-SERIOUS 3N does not mean you have no cue bid to make merely that you are
minimum and cannot make a cue bid BELOW 3N. The cue bid of 4C (bypassing 3N)
was designed to show extra values which you really just do not have (your not totally
hopeless but lets face it this hand falls well into the minimum opening bid category).
Having made one mistake do not compound it by denying a dia control. Bidding 5d
now tells p you still cannot take control of the auction despite knowing all of the suits
are controlled. At least p will have the advantage of that information before proceeding.

[Codo]

 mikeh, on 2012-November-01, 11:35, said:

I really don't like last train 4♠ here. It presumably shows a diamond control but now we get into more distortions about who shows what spade control. Admittedly, on the auction shown the odds are that opener has a spade control. More to the point, responder is unlimited and may want to look for grand. Wasting a cuebid here seems wrong. I would use 4♠ to confirm the diamond control as well as showing a spade control, and keeping the bidding moving....not only is responder slam positive (which means going to slam since both partners have shown slam positive values and all side suits are known to be controlled) but allows for grand exploration as well.

I truly believe that cuebidding, including the use of 4N as advertised above, allows for very accurate slam bidding provided both partners are listening to the auction.

But isn't the problem with your approach that you have no convincing way with a diamond control but no spade control if you use 4 ♠ as showing both? I guess with diamond and spade control and such a well defined partner hand, you should simply move on, whether with KCs, Controlbids or whatever feals right in your partnership.

[Zelandakh]

 Codo, on 2012-November-01, 02:53, said:

1. Include last train. There is simply no other alternative.

There is a very good alternative to LTTC and that is denial cue bids. In this method you bid the suits where you do NOT have a control and therefore show controls in any suit skipped. In cases where one hand is in a position to take control they can now use the denial cue bids as a form of asking bids in order to get the exact information they require before moving on to key cards or whatever.

So on Hand 2, if Opener has serious slam interest with controls in both minors but not hearts they bid 4♥ and Responder is well placed to move forwards. If they have non-serious slam interest then they bid 3NT and now Responder can ask for a club control with 4♣. Opener's 4♥ would now again show controls in both minors but not hearts, while a 4♠ bid instead would deny a club control.

Having looked into this method quite a lot, it is my opinion that it is considerably simpler to play for intermediates/advanced since the rules are consistent and you do not need special add-ons such as LTTC and the jump to 5M.

Note that exactly the same methods would work on Hand 1 as presented in the OP: ... 4♣ - 4♦(no ♦ control); 4♥(no ♥ control), etc. However, I suggest a different approach in auctions with minor suit agreement at the 4 level, namely that the first step is discouraging for slam (non-serious) and higher steps are positive and show key cards simultaneously. So, over 4♣: 4♦ is negative; 4♥ = positive and 1 or 4; etc. It is true that you might be off 2 cashers in a suit but you cannot have everything here and overall this seems to work out quite well. As far as I know, Roland (Codo) plays a 4m agreement this way too. If you prefer control bids then this is fine but in that case you should probably either use denial cues or 4NT as LTTC.

[Codo]

AS usual, you are right Zel, denial cuebids are a great tool. I played them for a while in the situation where one hand was weak and limited and the other still had slam interesst.

But I doubt that it is easier: Now, you need to know, whether 1 ♠ 3 ♠ 4 ♦ 4♥ shows or denies a heart control. And if I have to explain that 4 ♥ now shows a diamond control, I can play LTTC too.

This post has been edited by Codo: 2012-November-09, 05:32

[Zelandakh]

 Codo, on 2012-November-09, 03:38, said:

But I doubt that it is easier: Now, you need to know, whether 1 ♠ 3 ♠ 4 ♦ 4♥ shows or denies a heart control. And if I had to explain that 4 ♥ now shows a club control, I can play LTTC too.

4♦ shows serious slam interest with a club control and asks for a diamond control. 4♥ shows a diamond control and denies a heart control. You bid the lowest suit where you do not have a control, except that a hand able to take control can also bid a suit where they do have a control as a bonus. Therefore, the 4♦ bid will usually deny a diamond control but could also be a hand just checking the diamond situation before going past 4♠. The point is that when you bid the middle control suit, you have already dealt with the lowest suit. This is the key problem with standard cues that LTTC and denial cues fix.