[CSGibson]

mikeh, on 2013-December-12, 17:40, said:

Indeed, for those of you who claim both that the responding hand is a limit raise and that one shouldn't even try for slam as opener, you are presumably accepting that you are going to miss a lot of good contracts.

This is another effect of the notion of having a wide range for limit bids and having a relatively narrow range for the lower raise, and this makes very little sense, unless I am missing something.

What I am worried about, Mike, is that the hands that you need for slam are very specific (good trumps, working Q of clubs, spade values or diamond KQ), and it is going to be hard to either show or ask for what you need after a limit raise without getting too high on the occasions that partner's trump are not robust. Since I don't think I have the tools to evaluate whether slam is good in the space I have, I would not make a try.

[rmnka447]

Just for the record, ....

The responding hand is a limit raise.

The opening hand is not enough for a slam try. If the ♣ K was a small ♣, you might well pass the limit raise.

[mikeh]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-12, 19:22, said:

What I am worried about, Mike, is that the hands that you need for slam are very specific (good trumps, working Q of clubs, spade values or diamond KQ), and it is going to be hard to either show or ask for what you need after a limit raise without getting too high on the occasions that partner's trump are not robust. Since I don't think I have the tools to evaluate whether slam is good in the space I have, I would not make a try.

If responder has what I would have for a limit, and it need not be much more than he has, that needn't get us too high.

Now, I appreciate that this is the IA forum. I risk sounding condescending but the reality is that most bridge players I have encountered, below the expert level, don't understand how to bid cooperatively, which explains the devotion to keycard, minorwood, and so on that we see in these forums and at the table. Most players seize the opportunity to take charge even when doing so leaves them guessing what to do, and my experience suggests that this is because the partnership (and it is a partnership issue, not a player issue) lacks the confidence or skill to know how to bid more delicately.

So: as opener I would cuebid...matters get complicated if one plays serious or frivolous 3N, but actually such gadgets may help (I don't usually play either for reasons that don't matter here).

If we can make a non-serious cuebid, then we are basically never at risk. Responder has no side Aces, so cannot logically be interested in slam opposite a non-serious try unless he has good trump. If he is looking at weakish trump, then he will assume either that we have trump issues where he can't help or that we have good trump and therefore, because we made a non-serious try, we need some Aces outside....how can we make a non-serious try with all 3 side Aces and good trump? We'd make a serious try most of the time.

I confess I can't use this inference...I don't have this limit raise in my repertoire. So I cuebid. But, and this is the key, in my preferred style, which is (I think) the most prevalent expert treatment in NA, a cuebid below game doesn't force partner to cuebid. A cuebid below game, other than when serious etc 3N is available, is an indication of at least mild interest and responder's primary responsibility isn't to cue back....it is to see whether he has some corresponding interest. Only if so does he cue...otherwise he makes a regressive call.

Once again, when we hold all 3 side Aces, it seems to me unlikely that responder would see his hand as slam suitable absent good trump.

That isn't to claim that this is perfect. I admit that there would be a small number of hands on which we might still reach the 5 level and be in jeopardy when partner has a bad hand for us that still looked good after our first cue. Frankly, in the short time I was writing this, I couldn't construct one but I am sure they exist.

On the other hand, it is trivial to construct hands on which small slam is great and where we even have a decent play for grand. We don't need magic cards, in the sense that we need the club Q or the diamond KQ, etc. A doubleton club will usually suffice to give us no losers in that suit, and remember we are entitled to play him for a decent 10 count or so if he says he likes his hand after we cuebid.

Now, if you play that once opener cues, responder has to cue regardless of his hand, so long as he has a 2nd round control somewhere....I can't help you and I wouldn't play your method.

[CSGibson]

mikeh, on 2013-December-12, 19:51, said:

(lots of quality stuff)

Thanks Mike, that makes a ton of sense to me - I do play serious/non-serious, and I would put a non-serious 3♠ on the table effectively; partner would likely only cooperate with good trump for the prior bidding, you are correct. I was thinking more of the style of cue-bidding where people would show first round controls, but even then surely 3N after 3S would say "I have interest, but nothing convenient to cue-bid". Just lazy thinking.

[monikrazy]

Max Hardy 2/1 would likely advocate bidding 3D here as an 'under jump shift'

An under jump shifts shows 9-12, 4 card trump support and a singleton or void in side suit.

This is about the weakest an under jump shift can be (its 9.1 K&R). If opener has slam interest he can inquire about the shortness by bidding 3H. With no interest he can sign off in 4H.



I tend to think a limit raise here slightly over-represents the strength of your hand and could create problems if opener has a strong hand.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2013-December-11, 15:23, said:

IMO 3♣ (mini-splinter) = 12, 2N (Limit+) = 11
3♥ = 10, 4♥ = 8, 2♥ = 6, 1N = 4, 1♠ = 2.

What score are you giving 2♠ = mini-splinter or maxi-splinter with undefined shortage, Nige?

[nige1]

microcap, on 2013-December-12, 13:27, said:

You hold

So here's the followup: After 1♥-3♥ limit raise promising at least 4 trump, are you making a slam try?

---

Yes, a try below game over 3♥ (but over a 3♣ minisplinter, probably No).

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-13, 10:45, said:

What score are you giving 2♠ = mini-splinter or maxi-splinter with undefined shortage, Nige?

I'd have to give that at least 10 because some of my partners insist on it, especially by a passed hand. They claim it combines accuracy with camouflage (The flavour of the month)

[mfa1010]

I think splinters as opener after a LR is better than serious or nonserious 3NT, because responder's strength is supposed to be narrowly defined.

We play that. In my system we could bid 1♥-3♥-4♦ to show a slam try with short diamonds, if we wanted. It looks aggressive here, and stiff ace is not perfect.

With a slam try without a splinter opener bids 3NT (or 3♠ actually, since we have agreed to switch 3♠/3NT).

[Zelandakh]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 11:09, said:

We play that. In my system we could bid 1♥-3♥-4♦ to show a slam try with short diamonds, if we wanted. It looks aggressive here, and stiff ace is not perfect.

In related news, Andrew Robson recommends playing a new suit after a limit raise as a natural slam try, since Opener can still be 2-suited here.

[mfa1010]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-14, 11:17, said:

In related news, Andrew Robson recommends playing a new suit after a limit raise as a natural slam try, since Opener can still be 2-suited here.

Makes good sense. The point is the same, to give responder better grounds for evaluating.