[Fluffy]

5♦ splinter solves problems, assuming partner has no aces for his bidding, 4NT should be semi-bal slam try and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter. Even if you don't play that way partner knows you cannot lack both balck controls and will understand

[the hog]

"and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter."

Why should they be splinters. Fluffy, you are making this up.

[Fluffy]

Cos the hands that wanna invite for slam most likelly are based on shortness Ron.

And you have 4NT for the other hands that need a cuebid. You can reverse 4♠ and 4NT obviously as an improvement.

[OleBerg]

the hog, on 2010-November-30, 04:41, said:

"and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter."

Why should they be splinters. Fluffy, you are making this up.

I guess what Fluffy meant was: "If your agreement is to have splinters at the 5-level, it solves the problems. Thats how I read his post.

So you are correct, since agreement is somthing you make up.

[Fluffy]

I have an agreement that doesn't have a name, it could be named something like last train shortness bid.

the easiest example si this

pass-2NT
3♣-3♦
3♠-4♥
5♣

after the initial pass, any slam try is only justified by shape, and based on a shortness. And 5♣ shows the shortness.

We also don't use serious 3NT, but when a major suit fit is set at the 3 level, 3NT is slam try without shortness and anything else is singleton/void.

I don't have specific agreements on the sequence given by the OP, but with my partner I am pretty sure he would take 5♦ as splinter slam try.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-30, 08:36, said:

I don't have specific agreements on the sequence given by the OP, but with my partner I am pretty sure he would take 5♦ as splinter slam try.

I agree with you that 5 level bids should show shape.

Its unclear to me whether it would be more useful to short shortage as opposed to a fragment of some kind.
Its completely unclear whether some random partner with whom we have no agreements would automatically assume that we're bidding shortness rather than length.

[TimG]

rduran1216, on 2010-November-29, 17:55, said:

Is 5H well defined in this sequence?

Is 4♥ well defined? It sounds to me like you're lacking agreements about 3♥ vs 4♥, why would you then presume that 5♥ might be well defined?

[andy_h]

You can certainly devise a few gadgets over this sequence. Possible ways might be to do the same as what you bid say over a 4M preempt (like 4S-5C), or maybe say 1M-4M-5x. Of course you now have the additional 4NT to be something too.

Not sure what I'd do with this current hand but I agree with Roger that passing is out of the question.

[rduran1216]

TimG, on 2010-November-30, 09:46, said:

Is 4♥ well defined? It sounds to me like you're lacking agreements about 3♥ vs 4♥, why would you then presume that 5♥ might be well defined?

Standard practice is that 4H is weaker than 3H, and that 5H asks about trump strength.

But with AKQxx what kind of trump help can I be asking for haha.

give partner Jxx xxx Jxxxx Qx Now slam is a 3-2 trump break away from a laydown. Is there a chance on earth p will raise 5H to 6 with that holding?

idk if phil was kidding, but in this kind of auction where 4H has denied controls maybe spec Q's is not the worst idea, although we feel more comfortable here holding Q of spades.

[gnasher]

I agree with Fluffy that in this sequence we should have a way of investigating how well the hands fit, but I think it's more useful to show sides suits than shortages. Opposite a 3433 shape, ♣Q is sufficient to make slam excellent, whereas ♠J in the same shape isn't particularly relevant - by itself, ♠J makes the five-level safer, but it doesn't make six any good.

I'm assuming that 4♥ shows what I'd regard as standard - four-card support, no ace, king, or singleton, but not a complete Yarborough

[Fluffy]

Why 4 card support Andy?

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-30, 16:25, said:

Why 4 card support Andy?

Because that's what it said in the first bridge book I ever read.

I do think that a space-consuming bid like this should be fairly specific. With three-card support and a couple of queens, I'd bid 2NT (or whatever the negative is) and then support on the next round.

[Phil]

rduran1216, on 2010-November-30, 12:42, said:

idk if phil was kidding, but in this kind of auction where 4H has denied controls maybe spec Q's is not the worst idea, although we feel more comfortable here holding Q of spades.

Not kidding at all; when I play control showing-responses to 2♣, 4N is Specific Queens's.

What else what you use it for?

[dake50]

You farts are the main joy I have.
Does that inflate y'all?

[MrAce]

As most said, what now depends on what we agreed on 4♥ bid.

Among all responses, the one that Phil wrote (4NT asking specific queens), made sense to me the most.

To me 4♥ is nothing but 4+ ♥ suit, no AK, no stiff, no more than 1 Queen.

5♥ should be asking the trumps imo. Not the honors but if pd has extra ♥ or not.

What would he bid with xx xxxxx xxx xxx or xx xxxxxx xxx xx xx xxxxxx xx xxx ? (not all of them is lay down slam but 5th or 6th ♥ makes the hand much better in a slam even without ♣Q or ♠J

I totally disagree with those who believes 4♥ shd not be total bust. I mean when u have a great fit to a 2♣ opener and wasting the space by jumping to 4, you MUST have reason for that. Not having a bust hand is not the logical option. If u do not have a bust hand, dont waste my space and letme learn what u got b4 we are too high if what u got is worthless for me

[rduran1216]

MrAce, on 2010-November-30, 21:44, said:

As most said, what now depends on what we agreed on 4♥ bid.

Among all responses, the one that Phil wrote (4NT asking specific queens), made sense to me the most.

To me 4♥ is nothing but 4+ ♥ suit, no AK, no stiff, no more than 1 Queen.

5♥ should be asking the trumps imo. Not the honors but if pd has extra ♥ or not.

What would he bid with xx xxxxx xxx xxx or xx xxxxxx xxx xx xx xxxxxx xx xxx ? (not all of them is lay down slam but 5th or 6th ♥ makes the hand much better in a slam even without ♣Q or ♠J

I totally disagree with those who believes 4♥ shd not be total bust. I mean when u have a great fit to a 2♣ opener and wasting the space by jumping to 4, you MUST have reason for that. Not having a bust hand is not the logical option. If u do not have a bust hand, dont waste my space and letme learn what u got b4 we are too high if what u got is worthless for me

I was with u until the end.


With absolutely nothing and 3 card hearts, I'd think standard practice would be 2C 2D 2H 3C! then 3x 4H would show an absolute bust with 3 hearts

[kfay]

I'm sure someone's mentioned this, but I couldn't read past the first few posts.

A jump to 4♥ denies both the ♠A and the ♦K, that's just really standard.

[FrancesHinden]

Without having agreed to anything special here, I would assume a new suit is a long suit try, so I would bid 5C. Partner will know that the queen of clubs is now gold, as is a doubleton. This might get to slam opposite xxx Jxxx xxx Qxx, but not opposite xxx Jxxx Qxx xxx.

I haven't discussed 4NT in this auction with my regular partners, but I would expect to be "rolling" looking for any useful card in the minors.

[mgoetze]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-30, 07:24, said:

Cos the hands that wanna invite for slam most likelly are based on shortness Ron.

And you have 4NT for the other hands that need a cuebid. You can reverse 4♠ and 4NT obviously as an improvement.

Same thing when looking for game, so I guess that makes 1♥-2♥-3♣ obviously a short suit game try, right?

[Fluffy]

not at all, slam bidding depends on shortness fitting, because when shortness fits everything else must fit since yiu have a lot of values.

On games you only need 1 suit to fit for the tricks you need, but with shortness you could end up with AQx opposite the wrong KJx