[spadebaby]

I bid 4s and made 7.
Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

Here is what I had:

S:AK10xxx
H; A2
D:A
C:Q642

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4. My thinking was he had 3 heart support and 6-10 points.
At most we had 27 points.
But he had a void in Clubs....which really made the difference.

I say that there is no possible way I could have known that. Or is there??

Thanks

[Bbradley62]

 spadebaby, on 2013-November-08, 22:37, said:

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4.

You mean that you opened 1♠, partner raised to 2♠ and you bid 4♠?

[spadebaby]

yes. I apologize I was not clear on that.

I opened 1S, partner answered 2 s, and I went right to 4s.

No interference from opponents

[Trinidad]

 spadebaby, on 2013-November-08, 22:37, said:

I bid 4s and made 7.
Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

Tell him ... he should have led a trump.

But seriously, there was nothing really wrong with your 4♠ bid. You cannot always bid every slam that happens to be in the cards.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

What was his hand ? it's possible the void would mean he should have done more than bid 2♠.

I would have made a try for a slam, xxxx, Kxxx, xxxxx, void is enough to make 6 decent (and 7 on a non trump lead), Qxx, xxx, xxx, AK10x is a good 6 (and good 7♣) on a flat hand.

Not sure if you've come across splinters yet, but either 3♣ (long suit game try) if you play that, or 4♦ splinter (showing a singleton or void) would be my choice.

[spadebaby]

Thanks for the input.

If I remember correctly his void was in clubs....which suited me just fine.
Couldn't have worked out better.

And yes, I could not figure out how I could have known that.

No, I have not come across splinters yet. Will look them up.

[ggwhiz]

Very true that you can't bid them all but if you go slower by reason of all those controls you have a chance and it costs nothing as you do it below game.

A long suit game try is the starting point, 3♣ here but many responders will just jump to game with an acceptance and you should have a discussion on what other bids mean ie for us after 3♣, 3♦/♥ means I'm accepting the game try with help in the red suit I bid (if that helps). I may or may not have club help as well but I'll cue them if I do and you give me room to tell you.

We also play that 2nt after the raise asks responder to bid suits they can help with high cards up the line IF they are accepting the game try. None of this is mainstream and whatever you decide will lead to some squirrely auctions that only improve your chances a bit.

[Trinidad]

 spadebaby, on 2013-November-09, 07:10, said:

Thanks for the input.

If I remember correctly his void was in clubs....which suited me just fine.
Couldn't have worked out better.

And yes, I could not figure out how I could have known that.

No, I have not come across splinters yet. Will look them up.

Splinter bids are very useful... but only if you understand why they are useful.

In general, my advice is to play for a long time (several years) with only three conventions:
- Stayman
- Blackwood
- Takeout double of their opening bid in a suit

These conventions are easy to learn and easy to remember. You will do very well with only those. Playing like that teaches you how to bid properly and after a while you will see where you as a pair experience problems.

Make a list with those problems. You will see that these problems are not new. Other pairs have had them too and solutions are available in the form of conventions.

When your "frustration list" is long enough (about 15 problems identified) prioritize your frustrations. Do something about the most frustrating problems. You can ask others for help or you can search the internet (e.g. BBO). You will be most motivated to learn and understand new conventions when they get rid of a frustration.

I would say that splinters are not solving the biggest frustration on your list. Furthermore, this particular situation is not a simple splinter situation, this is a complicated splinter situation. (The simple splinters are in response to an opening bid. Here, Cyberyeti is talking about an autosplinter as opener's rebid. Those are advanced splinters. Don't start on saltos before you can do the somersaults.)

When I learned to play bridge, our bridge teacher adviced us not to learn any conventions other than the three I mentioned. After two and a half years, the frustration just got too big and we started adding conventions. But decades later, I am still grateful for the advice. In those two and a half years my partner (now my wife) and I really learned how to bid.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Natural bidding:

1♠ (I have a spade suit and opening values) -

2♠ (I have a fit for your spades and 6-10 HCP and 8 or 9 losers per the Losing Trick Count*) -

3♣ (I need a little help in clubs) -

3♠ - sorry, can't help you

4♠ - if you'd had help I'd be looking for slam.

Or, as your partner would actually have bid:

4♠ (I can deal with your clubs problem) -

Now you can take another shot. Blackwood would be okay on this hand, particularly Roman Keycard Blackwood if you play that.

* The Losing Trick Count (LTC) is another method of hand evaluation. It's a bit more complex than Point Count, and has its own idiosyncrasies, but it's worth learning at some point (though perhaps not right away). Its application to this hand is that you have 4 1/2 losers, so if partner has 8, you have a total of 12 1/2, you subtract that from 24 (never mind why at this point, just do it) and you should be able to take 11 or 12 tricks. Since partner has a void, he actually might well have fewer than 8 losers, so slam is even more likely (other things being equal of course). BTW, a minimum opening hand is normally 7 losers. You have a far better hand than that.

[spadebaby]

WOW

Thanks to everyone for all your input and advice.

I greatly appreciate your sharing your time and knowledge.

My mentor recently said that keeping it simple and getting
good at the basics is more important than learning each and every new
convention out there Can only get you more confused...and that was happening
for me. Glad to see it reinforced here.


Is there any specific book that teaches the intricacies of the takeout double?

[blackshoe]

 spadebaby, on 2013-November-09, 17:00, said:

Is there any specific book that teaches the intricacies of the takeout double?

The Complete Book of Takeout Doubles, by Mike Lawrence. Be advised there's an awful lot of stuff in there, some of which is stuff novices shouldn't be getting into just yet. However, it is, IMO, the best book on takeout doubles ever written.

[Lovera]

 spadebaby, on 2013-November-08, 22:37, said:

I bid 4s and made 7.
Opponent said to me...I should have bid slam.

Here is what I had:

S:AK10xxx
H; A2
D:A
C:Q642

Partner bid 2 hearts and I went right to 4. My thinking was he had 3 heart support and 6-10 points.
At most we had 27 points.
But he had a void in Clubs....which really made the difference.

I say that there is no possible way I could have known that. Or is there??

Thanks

Your hand is about limit 2 clubs declaration:i suggest you to read "The complete Stayman systeme of conctract bidding" and learn his method of valutation of the hand; see also sites of A. Agumperez about research of slam (very interesting and reading more time).(Lovera)

[ahydra]

I suspect partner should have bid more than 2S, holding support + a club void? Can we see his hand?

Not playing splinters I think just bidding 4S is fine. Playing splinters I would bid 4D.

ahydra

[Lovera]

ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY 'OF SLAM. Before a slam can be declared, there must be a decision by the couple to move beyond the heats. There are countless ways in which it can 'derive a slam, but the main lure is madre from awareness, at some point in the auction, which It has been proved sufficient force to put the couple in the slam or close to it. As the auction unfolds, there will be a phase in which one of the players can determine: 1) that a slam is impossible; 2) that a slam is improbable 3) that a slam is probable; 4) that a slam is absoluty certain.(.. Stayman sistema.. pagg. 296 and 297).

[akwoo]

Let me first say that I think this is already an Intermediate/Advanced level problem. For a Beginner/Novice, bidding 4♠ is fine. Half of my local club (some of whom have been playing 30 or 40 years) wouldn't do better. One can certainly occasionally win a club game without being able to better than bidding 4♠ on this hand.

What you should be doing when partner bids 2♠ is to look at your hand and try to imagine if partner can have hands opposite which you should bid slam. Here, you should be in 6♠ if partner has

♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx

or

♠Qxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣AKx (EDIT: Actually, for a declarer who won't figure out the extra chance of a ♥/♣ squeeze when neither black suit splits, missing slam on this isn't so bad.)

or

♠xxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxxx ♣x

or any of a number of other hands consistent with the 2♠ response.

If you need the perfect fitting maximum hand from partner to make slam, it's generally not worth going for. Here, you can make slam opposite most maximums holding a club control and even some well-fitting minimums, so it should be worth trying to find it.

Now that you have figured out that it's worth trying for slam in some way, you need to figure out a way of finding out if partner has the kind of hand you need.

Blackwood won't do the job, because the K♣, or even a singleton club with other extras, is worth about the same as the A♣. Hence you need some sort of control showing (aka cue bidding) sequence.

What you do over 2♠ now depends on your agreements. If you bid a new suit now, that is universally a game try of some kind. If you keep bidding over partner's response of 3♠ or 4♠ to the game try, then your original game try bid gets re-interpreted as a slam try of some sort. The question is how this is re-interpreted, and this depends on partnership agreements.

If it is re-interpreted as control showing, then you should bid 3♥ over 2♠. You should then bid diamonds over partner's response. This shows controls in both ♥ and ♦. Partner should understand that you want to bid slam if he or she has a good hand with a control in ♣.

If it is re-interpreted as weakness showing, then you should bid 3♣ over 2♠. You should again bid diamonds over partner's response. This would show a control in ♦, a problem in ♣, and interest in slam if partner covers the problem. Partner should again understand what to do.

(Then there is the possibility that you have agreed to play game tries that show shortness. That's another approach that will change what the re-interpretations of your game try will be and again change what your bids would be.)

[Lovera]

 Lovera, on 2014-June-05, 08:12, said:

ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY 'OF SLAM. Before a slam can be declared, there must be a decision by the couple to move beyond the heats. There are countless ways in which it can 'derive a slam, but the main lure e'data from awareness, at some point in the auction, which It has been proved sufficient force to put the couple in the slam or close to it. As the auction unfolds, there will be a phase in which one of the players can determine: 1) that a slam and 'impossible; 2) that a slam and 'uncertain; 3) that a slam and 'probable; 4) that a slam and 'absoluty certain.(.. Stayman sistema.. pagg. 296 and 297)

This knowledge can occur immediately prior to the declaration or, later, during the bidding process. When the slam will only depend on the strength, a simple arithmetic calculation, made at the beginning of the auction, it will be enough to determine whether it is appropriate or not the search for a slam. On the other hand if you slam depends, as well as distributional factors, including the high cards, the awareness of the possibility of slam can come out ahead in the second or third round of bidding. To this point, for the first time, the prospects for slam proved by the discovery of some distributional factor, which had been hitherto unknown (pag. 297).

[Fluffy]

The best advice I can give you: when you have found a fit and you have an unbalanced hand, forget about high card points, they are not a good meassurement of how many tricks you make. Your next step would be to count losers I guess, but later on you can just imagine partner's hand and calculate how many tricks you make.

[Lovera]

In order to reach a slam in a trump sui,the couple must have a good method to determine the extent to which it exercises control in all suits.There are two techniques generally adopted for this purpose. The first method 'called "direct or conventional, the second" indirect or cue-bidding. "The indirect method employs statements that show the controls of the hand are able to make the first or second round in a suit . Ordinarily, the cue- bid 'started after agreement was reached on the suit in which the contract will be played. (..) The first cue-bid has several functions: 1) states that the registrant has an ace or a chicane in the suit bid, 2) says that manche is sure and that it is worth probing for the slam, 3) urges the partners to continue further with the cue-bids, even if he wishes to show slam interest, or return immediately if not agreed in suit for it has no optimism. Conventional method 'used only when the conduct of the slam depends on the number of Aces and Kings owned by the couple.

[gszes]

One of the first steps is to realize hand potential---your 1s opening bid
is fine but look at what happens when your partner bids 2s. You correctly
identified the probability that your combined assets were worth a game bid
and that is a good start. Next you need to imagine if there might be more
and if there is more how do you find the information you need.

After you see the 2s bid how would you feel about being in slam if p held
as little as xxxx Kxxx xxx Kx??? That holding (and many similar) can be
readily explored using a help suit game try of 3c. If your partner does not
like the 3c bid and tries to sign off in 3s you can simply bid 4s and forget
about slam.

It is too large of a topic to cover here but I can at least offer some
suggestion as to how your current bidding might have allowed your side to
reach slam---
1s 2s
3c 4d A cue bid and a really great hand opposite 3c (within the limits of 2s
anyway)
4n 5c (0 or 3)
6s

The largest inference is that responder is relatively short in clubs as they
could have bid 4c to show a "doublefit" and they would consider a really great
hand with (relative) club shortness only of they held 4 or more trumps which gives
us a ten card trump fit and so we need not worry about the trump queen so much.

This is one example how HSGT can be used to search for slam also not limited to
getting to game. Keep up the good work and if the opps felt you should bid slam
it might be a good idea to ask them (after the game) how the hand could be bid
better since they are taking at least a modest interest in your learning but leaving
it up to you to pursue the knowledge.

[Interrobng]

This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

I am a beginner, and in my life I think I might have used cue bids once. My impression was that cue bids generally show control. So, if I open 1S, partner responds 2S, and I realize slam is a possibility, on the given hand I might have bid 3D (had I remembered that cue bids exist). That would have said two things: I can't control clubs, and I can control diamonds.

I have never before heard of using a cue bid to ask if partner can help with a suit, as earlier responders have recommended.

When does a cue bid show weakness in a suit, and when does it show strength in a suit?

Thanks very much!

RobR