[Fluffy]

fred, on Dec 11 2008, 01:43 AM, said:

Over my 2H, he rebid 2S and I splintered with 4C. He bid RKCB and I was not sure (neither was Jeff as it turned out) what the "standard" response was for showing 3 keycards and a void. I thought 6C so I bid that.

Not a critic in any way, I know you were not a regular partnership, so it is dangerous to assume anything.

On this sequence, partner had all the 4 level avaible, yet he went straight for 4NT, to me this has to mean he has ♣A and doesn't care about your void, with ♣xxx he would/should go around with a red cue to let you rebid 5♣.

Wonder if this makes any sense for you.

[gnasher]

In my experience there are at least three different "standard" ways to show a void opposite RKCB. Without agreement I just disregard the void and answer the question I was actually asked.

With agreement, I play Inclusion Keycard, where an immediate raise of 4♣ to 5♣ is RKCB, but the respondent is asked to treat a club void as an ace. 4NT is standard RKCB, denying interest in a void.

[awm]

fred, on Dec 10 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 10 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

It may be worth making the point to Ken that LTTC should not be used in auctions where the potential LTTC bidder has already used serious 3NT.

Disagree.

Consider this auction:

1S 2H
2S 3S
3N 4D
4H

Where 3NT is "Serious 3NT".

For me, 4H is LTTC and means "I have the club control that you denied". Opener, the Serious 3NT bidder, is obligated to bid LTTC in this auction whenever he has a club control (unless he wants to bid RKCB or something - the point is that 4S would be a statement that a club control was missing).

No doubt there are other ways you could attempt to handle this and maybe your statement would be correct in some of these scenarios, but the way Rodwell originally defined Serious 3NT and LTTC you are definitely wrong.

If anyone cares, I held the 3550 hand in Boston. I bid 2H at the table, but it occurred to me at the time (as well as now) that 2D might be a better call. That being said, I tend not to make "weird bids" unless I feel more strongly than "might be a better call".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Maybe I didn't make this point very well.

The idea I was trying to convey, was that LTTC is generally useful in a sequence where bidding four of the major absolutely denies slam interest. This can come up for two reasons:

(1) We simply do not have the values to reasonably look for slam.
(2) We are known to have two top losers in some suit.

In these situations, partner is expected to virtually always pass 4M. So it is useful to have a call below 4M which says "I am still interested in slam, so I don't want to bid 4M."

The auction in question, it had already been clearly indicated that there were sufficient values to look for slam. And no cuebid had ever been bypassed, so there was no indication that we have a suit uncontrolled. Again the auction was:

1♠ - 2♥
3♥ - 3♠
3NT - 4♣

By agreement, the 3♠ bid was a cue rather than two-suit agreement (I know this is not Fred's preferred meaning, it's not mine either, but that was the agreement).

In this auction, how can 4♥ absolutely deny slam interest? Opener has shown extras by bidding serious 3NT. Responder has shown controls in two suits and has not denied any controls. The goal here should be to avoid the five-level if we don't have a diamond control.

If 4♦ here is "last train" what does it show? My impression was that LTTC was supposed to:

(1) Guarantee any control that partner had denied in the bidding.
(2) Show extra values for slam, if neither partner has already shown such extras.

But in this auction, there is no control that partner has denied in the bidding, and opener has already shown extra values. So 4♦ should be a cuebid.

In principle I think that LTTC is a nice agreement, but it requires discussion of when it applies and when it does not. A blanket agreement that "4M-1 is always LTTC regardless of the auction" will frequently waste a bid that would be more useful as a natural cuebid.

[fred]

awm, on Dec 11 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

If 4♦ here is "last train" what does it show?

That is a good question (which I will try answer in a minute), but I think your life will be easier if you either don't play LTTC at all or if you play that 1-under is always LTTC and then worry about what it shows/means in specific auctions.

Another alternative is to decide that LTTC doesn't apply in certain classes of auctions (like the rule you propose - the 3NT bidder can never bid LTTC), but I don't think you will get very far with that approach. Your proposed rule, for example, is not a good one to have if the auction goes as I suggested in my previous post in this thread.

As to what LTTC should mean in this particular auction, let's start with the obvious:

1) RKCB will not provide you with the information you need
2) If all you cared about was a diamond control, you would bid something else (5H would do the trick for me)

There are a few reasons 1) may be the case:

1a) Perhaps you have a void
1b) Perhaps your hand is great but your trumps are Qxxxx or similar
1c) Perhaps you won't be able to count the # of tricks/losers even if you know how many keycards partner has
1d) Perhaps there exists at least one response to RKCB that will cause a problem for you (maybe partner will bid 5D, one keycard will be missing, and you will have to guess whether or not partner has the Queen of trump). Yes I know, if you play 4S as RKCB you won't have this problem

So, if you play LTTC in this auction, it would be reasonable (to me at least) to think that partner has one of these problems (and perhaps some other problems that I cannot think of off the top of my head) when he bids LTTC.

Note that 1a) through 1d) all contain diamond controls so, if you want to consider LTTC here to mean "a cuebid in diamonds", you won't be far wrong. More accurate would be to say it means "a cuebid in diamonds but a hand that is unsuitable for taking control".

Note also that if reasons 1a or 1d are present, you plan to keep bidding even if partner cannot bid any more than 4H. The same may or may not be true if reasons 1b or 1c are present.

So in this sense LTTC also means "please bid more than 4H if you like your hand".

Serious 3NT, though a strong statement, does not narrowly limit opener's hand especially when Serious 3NT is bid by a person who has opened the bidding at the 1-level in "standard" or has made a "standard" 2/1 or FSF bid. That being the case, I think there should still be scope for quantitative/do-you-like-your-hand type bidding after Serious 3NT has been bid.

LTTC can be a useful tool in this regard (as in 1c above).

Agree with you completely that it would be foolish to play LTTC except with a regular partner with whom you have had a lot of discussion.

Not sure where you got the idea that I like to play 1S-2H-3H-3S as support-showing. For as long as I can remember, I have used this sequence as a cuebid of a high honor in spades (typically at least a doubleton, but I suppose a singleton Ace or King would also be OK).

Quite possible my memory is bad or wrong. Not sure it matters so please don't bother trying to find an quote from me that contradicts what I think I remember

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Actually, this has developed into an interesting discussion (admittedly, "interesting" means "I'm not so confident now with my position" LOL).

Let's play out the sequence under discussion:

1♠-2♥
3♥-3♠(cue)
3NT(serious)-4♣
?

If we are operating under the principle that 4♦ is LTTC, then the question raised is what the difference is between 4♦ and 4♥, as a 4♣ cue cannot have denied anything and, hence, Opener cannot be signing off.

One of these two sequences should, in theory, show a diamond control, whereas the other should, in theory, deny the diamond control.

LTTC has as a primary default a meaning of an inability to commit to RKCB for some reason (or to commit to some other similar sequence). That could be values-based, or it could be control-based. However, as a general "feel," the existence of a serious 3NT call suggests, similar to what AWM is saying, that the focus should be primarily on control.

Hence, when I do what Fred suggests (know that 4♦ is LTTC and then figure out what each means), I view 4♦ in the "control need" light, meaning a diamond-control denial bid. By process of elimination, then, 4♥ would be the call with a diamond control but insufficient values to commit.

Or, in other words:

If the club control did it for me, I will bid RKCB (or some other gadget)
If I still need a diamond control, I will bid 4♦ LTTC
If I have no control needs at this point, but need "more stuff," I bid 4♥.

I don't see any particular reason why the alternative is illogical, though. It seems equally plausible to switch the meanings of 4♦ and 4♥, such that 4♥ expresses the sole "I need a diamond control" and 4♦ as "I just need more stuff but diamonds are OK." It just does not fit with how I would view this sequence.

I mean, in a way, both 4♦ AND 4♥ are "last train" bids. Their meaning could be either way (either one could be "LTTC for a Diamond Control" and the other "LTTC with a Diamond Control"). Granted, usually you bid what you have (bid diamonds means I have diamonds). However, in most other auctions, this is not actually the case. Very often, LTTC shows the implied control but not the bid control. In other words, imagine the auction 1♠-2♥-3♥-4♣. In that sequence, Responder has denied a spade control. Hence, Opener's 4♦ shows the missing spade control but essentially asks about the diamond control, even though he just bid diamonds. That "paradox" seems to recur a lot. As a result, when the auction is one like we are discussing, my tendency to try to have consistency suggests the application of the "paradoxical" approach where 4♦ asks and 4♥ assures.

I mean, a 4♦ call does not actually "ask" for the diamond control. It is just Last Train. Hence, Lackwood. But, in auctions where overall strength is not really in issue, then it is a pure ask. As 4♥ alleviates the need for the "general strength" question, then 4♦ seems more pure as the control question option.

I suppose, in the end, my analysis way back when was off, in that Opener would have the option, therefore, of a simple 4♥ call, in the end, as the "strength ask" option.

[awm]

I would have gone with a rule more like:

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

[fred]

awm, on Dec 11 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

I would have gone with a rule more like:

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

That seems like a reasonable enough rule-set to me. The fact that you can express everything in only 3 relatively simple rules is very good. It might be more effective to make rule 3 "murkier", but at least you won't have any misunderstandings if you do it your way

So far I can't think of any auctions in which your rules will break down (not that I have tried very hard). If something comes to mind I will let you know.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

awm, on Dec 11 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

I would have gone with a rule more like:

(1) If there is some control which partner has denied holding, then the Last Train bid shows that control.

(2) If partner has denied holding extra values (bypassed serious 3NT) and we have not yet guaranteed that we hold extras, then the Last Train bid shows extras.

In either of these cases, bidding four of the major denies any interest in slam (either because we are missing some control, or because we both hold minimums). Partner is essentially never supposed to remove such a 4M bid.

(3) If there is no control which partner has denied holding, and it is already known that we have sufficient values to look for slam (one of us bid serious 3NT, or one of us already cuebid after partner bypassed serious 3NT) then Last Train is "off" and bidding the suit just below four of the major shows a control of that suit, whereas bidding four of the major would deny a control in any bypassed suit. In this case partner can remove four of the major if he holds a control in all suits we have bypassed.

I'm not attacking the end result, because, as I said earlier, I dont see any specific reason to do things one way or the other. However, I'm not sure that this set of rules makes as much sense as phrased as Fred does.

Rule #1 is not really a rule. Any cuebid shows a control that partner has denied. The fact that the bid is Last Train is irrelevant. I mean, you are right, but this does not really further the problem situation in any way.

Rule #2 also is not really a rule of any significance either, for the same reason. If partner has no slam interest, then you obviously would not make any call other than a signoff unless you have slam interest. What I mean is that this does not further the discussion of what Last Train shows.

So far, then, Rules #1 and #2 simply establish a rule that partner is not allowed to bid like a moron. I cannot disagree with that as a rule, even if I violate that general principle quite frequently.

So, what about the corollary to Rule #2? Well, that does not really help us either. The rule essentially states that partner, if he has no slam interest, is not supposed to bid slam anyway when partner agrees with that sentiment. In other words, the corollary to the rule that I am not supposed to bid like a moron is that partner will also not bid like a moron. Again, a good rule, often violated, buit not helpful in the actual discussion.

How about Rule #3? This is the only relevant rule to apply. The elected decision is for Last Train to be off and the cue to, therefore, be a cue for any suit that might not have been shown. Four of the major would, then, be the denial cue (or, the asking bid).

What you seem to have done, then, is to put a whole lot of meaningless fluff out front, stuff that looks impressive but furthers nothing. This merely builds up to a crescendo on a lengthy resolution to just play that the bid that would be Last Train shows the unshown control and is telling whereas the bypass of that call is asking.

Great! You want to do it the other way.

If you have some particular reason for why one way makes more sense than the other way, I'm interested. I see no particularly compelling benefit to my way, either, except the possible slight benefit that an asking Last Train call might be used when Opener has the control anyway because Opener wants to know whether Responder does or does not have that feature or, perhaps, where Opener would rather answer than ask if Responder has that feature. I don't see much benefit to using a "fake last train" bid with the hand that features just borderline values.

[awm]

My logic is just that I think bidding four of our major should indicate that maybe we should play four of the major, whereas bidding something other than four of our major should show some feature conducive to a possible slam.

You seem to be suggesting that it is "normal" for a 4♦ bid to just mark time without showing any control in any suit, or indicating anything about values.... whereas a 4♥ bid is actually quite forward-going and guarantees a control in some other suit.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Dec 12 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

My logic is just that I think bidding four of our major should indicate that maybe we should play four of the major, whereas bidding something other than four of our major should show some feature conducive to a possible slam.

You seem to be suggesting that it is "normal" for a 4♦ bid to just mark time without showing any control in any suit, or indicating anything about values.... whereas a 4♥ bid is actually quite forward-going and guarantees a control in some other suit.

Not exactly; not even close really. What I am saying is that a Last Train bid carries "denial" or "ask" tendencies. Some cues show. Some cues deny. Last Train tends to ask/invite, which is IMO on the denial end of the spectrum. Hence, I think denial-ask-invite when I think LTTC.

As the situation discussed is one where either agreement works well, I want one that fits my basic thinking best and one that handles the odd situation best. It seems that retention of the denial-ask aspect of LTTC as to the diamond control fits both bills for me.

As to how that helps to understand 4♥, consider 2NT (as I play it, as a denial of good trumps). If I bid 2NT, I deny. If I instead bid above 2NT, I show that which 2NT would have denied.

How about RKCB. If the relay asks for the trump Queen, but I instead bid 5NT as a specific King ask, I am not specifically "showing" the Queen myself. However, I have it. So, a "bypassed ask" shows.