[Phil]

1. ♠AKTx ♥Ax ♦K5xx ♣Kxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣*
3♦ - 4♦
5♦ - ?


2. ♠xx ♥AKTxxx ♦KJxx ♣K

1N - 2♦
2♥ - 3♦
3♥ - 4♣
4♦ - ?

3. ♠x ♥JTx ♦Axx ♣AKQxxx

1N - 4♣
4♠

4♠ is two aces and a minimum (sorry, no single suited minor suit slam try here)

[whereagles]

1. 6♦. Expect pard to have x KQxxx AQxxx xx or similar.

2. 4♥. Pard is supposed to move on with spade control. If he has it and doesn't move, you'll agend a cueing agreements discussion session.

3. 5♣. 6 losers opposite 4 cover cards --> 5 level tops. Anyway, change system after this hand and get rid of the dreaded g-convention.

[TimG]

1. 3D would be the bid of choice over 4st suit with many 2542 hands and opener might have bid 5C along the way with a singleton; we could easily need the club ace onside plus a little something else for 6D (Qx KQJxx AJxx xx). I pass.

2. 4H. I'm confident that partner will bid again with a spade control.

3. Really no way to make a forcing bid in a minor? I guess I'll just shoot out 6C. 6N could be just as good (or just as bad), but I have no way of knowing. And, 6C does not preclude partner from converting.

[mikeh]

1. 6♦. It's tough to construct any 5-5 hand on which slam is hopeless. However, there is one concern: what is his correct rebid over 3♣ with, say, Q KQJxx AJxx xxx? Anyway, while slam may certainly fail, we have to bid it.

2. 4♥. I've made a game force then a slam try, sometimes you have to leave the driving to partner. If he has spade control, he will know your problem. If he doesn't, then game is high enough.

3. Gerber? with J10x in a side suit? I abstain.... this is silly. What were we doing opposite: Axx KQx KQxx J10x? Only one Ace... but slam is laydown while opposite AKQx Qxx KQx Jxxx, a stronger hand, slam is off 2 cashing hearts. And opposite AKQx xxx KQJx Jx, we are going to fail in 4N or 5♣.

We don't have to play any special methods to be able to bid this hand better than gerber at round 1.

[kfay]

1) Pass. Pay off to partner having the ♣Q. I would rather not guess slams.

2) 5♦. Don't understand this talk about spade controls, 4♦ shows a spade control in my book.

3) 6♣. If 5♣ asks Ks then I'll bid that I guess. But I'm out of room here already to stop short of slam.

[jdonn]

1. Pass, we could even be off two aces if partner has most/all of the rest. I am assuming I can trust partner, there are certainly lousy players opposite whom I think it's with the odds to raise since they won't cuebid when they should.

2. 5♥, bidding 4♥ now will give partner no idea at all of our good trumps. I think it's a trap to say we have already made a slam try, I would certainly have done so on a king less. I have the strength to justify one further move without giving the wrong impression of my suits or controls.

Very strongly disagree that partner is obligated to move over 4♥ with a spade control.

3. I guess 6♣. Obviously not my auction of choice...

[se12sam]

1. 6NT -- If partner has 5-5 with good diamonds, good hearts and no club stoppers, I want to be declaring this one.

2. 4♥

3. If 4♣ is Gerber, then is there a King asking continuation available? At IMPs, I might try to use one...

[Gerben42]

Quote

1. ♠AKTx ♥Ax ♦K5xx ♣Kxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣*
3♦ - 4♦
5♦ - ?

Pass. I tried for slam and partner said no. Probably off two key cards.

Quote

2. ♠xx ♥AKTxxx ♦KJxx ♣K

1N - 2♦
2♥ - 3♦
3♥ - 4♣
4♦ - ?

4♥. If partner cannot ask for aces, neither can I.

Quote

3. ♠x ♥JTx ♦Axx ♣AKQxxx

1N - 4♣
4♠

4N to play. If we want to bid slam, we basically play partner for:

♠AJxx
♥Axx
♦KQJx
♣xx

On most other hands we'll be stuck with two red suit losers.

NT rates to score better than 5♣.

P.S. What happened to transferring to ♣?

[kenrexford]

Phil, on Apr 7 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

[questions without sufficient info]

1. ♠AKTx ♥Ax ♦K5xx ♣Kxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣*
3♦ - 4♦
5♦ - ?

One objection -- the obvious. I would respond 2♣.

Having started in a painful manner of responding 1♠, I ended up in the mess I created. I hate partner's 5♦ call, though. Taking it literally, I have to assume that he could not show anything. I have no idea what our agreements are, but he doesn't have anything that he should have shown if he had it.

So, no answer. Insufficient information.

2. ♠xx ♥AKTxxx ♦KJxx ♣K

1N - 2♦
2♥ - 3♦
3♥ - 4♣
4♦ - ?

I don't know our agreements. Did I deny a spade control, or did 4♣ just advertise my shortness? I'm not sure. Is 4♦ LTTC?

Guessing wildly, I will bid 5♣, hoping that this is a slam move focusing on the absolute lack of a spade control. I'll give up on finding the slam.

Seriously, though, how are we supposed to help with slam decisions if we have no idea what agreements you have and what any bids mean?

3. ♠x ♥JTx ♦Axx ♣AKQxxx

1N - 4♣
4♠

4♠ is two aces and a minimum (sorry, no single suited minor suit slam try here)

Gerber???

WAG 6♣

[awm]

1) I like a 6♦ bid here. Partner's failure to cuebid certainly denies the club ace, and should also deny a really strong heart holding like KQJxx. This pretty much forces partner to hold strong diamonds, so I expect a hand like xx Kxxxx AQJx Qx or x KJxxx AQxxx xx at worst. Even if we add the ♣Q to the second hand (making slam very cold) it is not clear how partner would bid differently than he has. With the 5-4 example hands others have suggested that include ♥KQJxx, I would've bid 3♥ over 3♣ (hearts that strong are a better rebid than a weak four card diamond suit).

2) I'd bid keycard here. Agree with Kfay that 4♦ guarantees a spade control. The sixth heart is huge in this hand, and in my methods 3♥ shows a better hand for slam than 4♥.

3) The methods are pretty awful; I'd much rather transfer to clubs and show a spade splinter. But having bid gerber and found two aces, it seems that we ought to at least have play for slam (no idea what to do opposite one ace). I'll try 6♣.

[Phil]

Ken:

1. Partner hasn't graduated from Genius Bridge U., so I doubt 2♣ occurred to him.

2. Nothing special here. You denied a spade control with 4♣ - which doesn't show shortness. I would have mentioned these treatments in the OP.

[Lobowolf]

whereagles, on Apr 7 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

1. 6♦. Expect pard to have x KQxxx AQxxx xx or similar.

Expect RHO to have first round control of clubs (A, void, or similar)

[jdonn]

Have people really considered what partner might have on the first one?

Qx KQJxx QJTxx Q?
QJ Qxxxx AQJxx x?
x Qxxxx AQJxx QJ?

How should these hands bid differently? Yes I'm giving him a lot of queens and jacks, but that is the point, he didn't cuebid so it's the type of hand he should hold. And all those even have five diamonds.

[cherdanno]

I agree strongly with everything Josh wrote in this thread. Except for problem 3, not that I disagree, but my mind just refuses to think about this auction.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 7 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Have people really considered what partner might have on the first one?

Qx KQJxx QJTxx Q?
QJ Qxxxx AQJxx x?
x Qxxxx AQJxx QJ?

How should these hands bid differently? Yes I'm giving him a lot of queens and jacks, but that is the point, he didn't cuebid so it's the type of hand he should hold. And all those even have five diamonds.

1. ♠AKTx ♥Ax ♦K5xx ♣Kxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣*
3♦ - 4♦
5♦ - ?

If I were to consider what partner has, with assumptions I would make:

Partner's 3♦ call seems to deny three spades, which is the easy part. If he doesn't have any club stopper, then I think he bids 3♦ even with something like 2542. So, I am not assured that he has a fifth diamond.

When I bid 4♦, and he bids 5♦, I can reasonably assume that he has a minimum. A minimum with 5-4 is about an 11-count. With 5-5, it might be 10.

I'll assume that 4NT would be RKCB for diamonds. If it is not, then 4NT probably should show whatever cue is taken up by whatever RKCB would be. So, partner probably has three ways to proceed -- ask, show, or deny.

I would assume that 4♥ would show KQ in hearts (as I have the Ace), but I'm not sure if it simply shows the King. I would also assume that 4♠ shows a spade card, but it might also show a control. Not sure if shortness is OK in partner's suit. 5♣ would surely show a club control, but maybe that has to be honor-based.

Sign-offs in this sort of sequence probably have a maximum holding limitation, such as "worse than two with the Queen," but not sure. If so, partner should not have the A-Q of diamonds and the club Ace.

So, I would expect slam to be hopeless.

However, some people use different rules. If so, maybe he could not cue 4♥ without the KQ both (Kxxxx is a good contextual holding) and maybe he has no cue to show good trumps. What if he could have Jx-Kxxxx-AQxxx-x? I would ask with that, but maybe the partnership cannot resolve that holding.

[Hanoi5]

6♦
4♥
6♣

[spotlight7]

Hi:

I was a bit lost here. You did not mention your agreements.

I assme Redwood and Last Train are missing from your agreements. You might like one or both of them for better slam bidding.

Adding a club transfer and later shortage showing seems to also be a good idea.

Regards,
Robert

[Echognome]

1. 6♦ - Partner has some soft cards, but should have the fillers needed to make slam good.

2. 4♥ - Partner has a spade control in my book, but I don't think our hand is worth more than the one slam try.

3. 6♣ - Guessing, but dislike not having methods to bid more scientifically on the hand.

[Phil]

Gnome nailed it.

On #1, your pard held x KJ9xx QJTxx Ax. Didn't want to cooperate I guess.

#2, Pard held AKQJT, 9xx Ax QTx. Trumps did not split, so you win 11 opposite the other table that bid slam.

#3, Pard held AKxx AKx Jxx Jxx. The heart hook worked, so you win 9 or so against 3N.

Obviously some luck involved here.

[kenrexford]

On #1: Bidding slam and finding a partner who bid like a moron, such that it makes, is silliness.

On #2: Strange hand for a 1NT opening. FWIW, I think Opener saves the day by bidding 6♠. If there is no spade lead, you can ruff one club in dummy and might have a diamond trick or threat to have a backup plan to bring in a slam. When he finds out that you have two spades (no spade control, hence two spades), bidding 6♠ makes sense.