[Stephen Tu]

---

Imps vul.
3♠ = nominally "18-19 support points". You play a weak NT, so opener is 18-19 bal/semi-bal, possibly an upgraded 17, or 16-17 with stiff club since no inv-spl in clubs available.

Cue or not? If you cue, what are you doing over partner's 4♦?

[mike777]

4c will bid 6d over pards 4d.

in trouble if pard is:

AKxx...KJx...AKxx..xx


but pard might bid rkc over 4c with that hand.

option 2 is to bid 4c then rkc over 4d.
and play in 5s if missing 2 key cards.

[SteveMoe]

Q 4♣ then Last Train 4♥ describes this hand well.

[rhm]

I do not like your alternatives.
I would bid 4♦ now, because I want to end up in 6♦, not in 6♠, should partner cooperate.
Starting with 4♣ gives you little chance to do that. I consider 4♣ terrible (asking for trouble) and would rather bid 4♠.
4♦ is not a control-bid, denying club control.
It is a slam trial bid showing support and at least one of the top honors in diamonds, something which is likely to be more useful to your partner to evaluate his hand for slam purposes.
Slam is not only about sufficient controls. At least as important is, having enough tricks and playing the right strain. Spades looks to me to be the wrong strain.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

One option that has not been mentioned is to bid 3NT here as a slam try unwilling to start a slam drive. If partner makes a move over that then we can cooperate in good spirit. Whether this hand is too strong for that is another matter; I would think not but do not play 3♠ as strong as you do. The problem with the 4♣ -> 4♥ approach is that partner with ♥xxx(x) will assume we lack a heart control, even when that is an ideal holding. Indeed, if partner signs off over 4♥ we probably want to continue as the hand just improved. I am not quite sure if that is an argument for or against LTTC!

[Codo]

I would not bet that everybody plays 4 ♦ the way you do. And I am not sure whether it is better.
Do we really have more hands where we need to show the double fit to get to a better slam? Or do we need that bid to show a hand like KQTx,x,AKJ,Qxxxx?

I know that many people out there love to show the double fit at the 3. level. But if you do so here, you may ask for trouble...

Anyway, I keep it simple. In my world, 4 ♦ cooperates for slam purpose with partner and denies a club control.

[P_Marlowe]

Cue, and over 4D bid 4H.

I will pass, if partner bids 4S over 4H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rhm]

Codo, on 2012-December-04, 04:10, said:

I would not bet that everybody plays 4 ♦ the way you do. And I am not sure whether it is better.

I know, but I am absolutely convinced it is superior when you start slam investigation at a low level and I am sure there is more support for this treatment at the top level than from second rate players. One strong proponent for this approach is Marshall Miles.
Control bidding has its place, but tends to be overrated by second rate players.

Quote

Do we really have more hands where we need to show the double fit to get to a better slam? Or do we need that bid to show a hand like KQTx,x,AKJ,Qxxxx?

I would bid 4♦ here as well. But my bid shows real ♦ support and that diamonds are a source of tricks for slam.
It says nothing about clubs. My least worry with this hand is that partner, who has shown an above average opening hand, will not have a club control.
I am more interested in the question whether we should play six or seven spades.
But certainly under different, unfortunate circumstances I might reach a slam off two top tricks in a side suit.
It happens. About every second leap. Sometimes you survive.
Meanwhile I will avoid slams, where the control situation might be adequate, but there are nowhere 12 tricks to be found, a much more frequent and severe problem if you analyze slam disasters and much more depressing, since the defense can do no wrong.

The actual hand is a good example. Most seem to suggest that you should make a slam try and continue with 4♣.
If partner accepts you most likely will end up in 6♠.
How likely will the trump suit be adequate?
We do not know whether partner has 3 honors in spades, but simple logic should tell you that this is unlikely given that of the outstanding 9 spade cards only 4 are honor cards.
The a priory chances are less than one in six. You have slightly better odds but not much, since your partner has bid strongly.
Of course you may make 6♠ if partner has 2 honor cards like AKxx or AQxx or KQxx but chances are not good.
Remember that one third of the time spades will not break well scuppering even some slams, which would have been reasonable otherwise.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

I have no idea, why partner should have a club control. One likely set of hands is balanced 18-19- see the OP- and in this case he has no control.
To play 6 or 7 Diamonds or spades, you need tricks and controls. Showing your 5 card suit does not show tricks nor controls. It shows a double fit, but why is this so important, that you give up one valueable step in your slam exploration? Which tricks will you take in a diamond contract but not in spades? And how can partner evaluate the trick situation if you bid 4 ♦ with AKJ and with Qxxxxx? Of course he knows from his hand which diamonds you may hold, but still, how can he count tricks over 4 ♦?
And if he needs a club control- how can you find out whether you need to be in 5,6 or 7?

About the adequate trump suit in spade: If partner holds KQJx in spades, I would prefer to be in 6 Spades then in 6 diamonds. if he holds AQxx,Axx,AKxx,Qx or similar, there is not much to win in 6 diamonds too. So you need the spade honours anyway. of course there are layouts where diamonds are better- but I doubt that your approach will win in enough cases to make up for the downside which you have if partner is balanced or semibalanced.

[Stephen Tu]

Question for the cue bidders:
At what point is partner supposed to know not to bid slam with:
AQxx Axx AKJx xx,
or AKxx Axx AJxx Qx
or AQxx AKx AJxx xx
or AKQx Kxx AJxx Qx
?


I personally thought cue bidding was too aggressive with this hand with the bad spades. I don't think diamonds plays better (not enough clubs to get rid of partner's spades, if partner's hearts are good enough to ditch your spades, then his diamonds get too bad).

[Flem72]

There is only one form of good hand for P, really -- AKQx ??? AKxx ??, with maybe a J or Q in the ?s. There are a lot of "bad" ones.

[Phil]

This hand is good for "help/long suit slam tries", which is a reasonable treatment here.

[the hog]

A simple 4S bid. The odds are too great that we will get to a bad slam on this.

[lalldonn]

I would only try if I could show short hearts and if I could try to reach diamonds at the end. Without both of those things being true it just seems too risky to me with a hand this minimum and trumps this bad.

[jdeegan]

4♠. Maybe a non-serious 3NT, if we play that, intending not to encourage slam in subsequent bidding. Our side is not overly endowed with high cards - maybe 27-28 HCP total. Odds are my stiff ♥ isn't the magic holding. Diamonds look to be our best strain for slam.

[the_dude]

If I had a way to splinter or show shortness in hearts, I would try. This is so clase any wasted values will probably sink us, and I don't see a way of getting that across to partner. We will probably end up in a couple of bad slams (or slams where the key finesse loses or we get a bad break) for every good one we make ... therefore I just bid 4S.