[jdonn]

It seems to me like if you bid 4♠ it should only be on a hand that has a clue what to do when the opponents then come in on the 5 level.

[AlexOgan]

jtfanclub, on Jun 14 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

So as raises, agreeing on spades, you have...

2♠
2NT
3♣
3♦
3♥
3♠
4♣
4♦
4♥
4♠

Did I miss any?

Using a much less fit-oriented Precision system, my choices would come down to:
1NT- forcing, asks for shape, intending to bid diamonds later as a GFTI.
2NT- Game forcing, asks for specific controls.
3♥- Minisplinter

Any of those should work fine. With 10 freakin' raises, surely one of them will tell me what I need to know without going to the 4 level. For example, 2NT or 3♣ ought to be asking for specific controls.

2NT isn't a spade raise, even though several posters in this thread seem to have thought it was. It's natural/GF.

We started playing this way after reading Gitelman's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" article series. It looks to me like he still plays something like this with Moss (in response to 1S, all calls from 3C through 4S show some kind of spade raise -- although 4H might be natural).

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

It seems to me like if you bid 4♠ it should only be on a hand that has a clue what to do when the opponents then come in on the 5 level.

Right.

So many Precision players are so enamored with their 'wide ranging' 4♠ call. The last time I made this call, I did it on a 7 loser 14 count. It was MPs, and the opps bid 5♦. I didn't have a clue what to do, not to mention that we weren't close to having a forcing pass available

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 14 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

4♠. Splinter doesn't make much sense.. we can hardly have a slam here.

QJxxxx Axx x AQx

This is not even remotely close to a 1♣ bid, yet slam is cold.

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx: not even close to a 1♣ bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold.

I'd splinter, even tho I hate splintering into the suit below trump... but that dislike is based on standard methods where opener is wide-range.. in a big club method, it seems ideal

You don't even need the queens for slam to be good!


To Phil: how could partner not bid blackwood after a 4♥ splinter with your example!

Josh, I suppose it depends on the strength of your splinters. I usually don't make slam tries with perfecto minimums after a splinter. In this case, opener doesn;t have a clue what duplication exists across from his diamond shortage.

I realize the OP said that 4♥ was slammish, so this is OK.

[awm]

A lot of people seem to have strange ideas about what precision openers promise. I've seen a number of people claim that a precision opener "will not produce a game opposite a single raise with less than constructive values" but this is simply not true. In fact playing precision about 20% of opening 1M hands may be worth a game bid after 1M-2M (basically these are hands with 5 losers or less). This is obviously less than the about 40% of 1M openings after a fairly conservative standard opening bid that might be worth game, but it's still a fairly substantial percentage.

This thread is more about the same considerations in the slam zone. Opposite a nice control rich ten count with shape like the example hand, it is still quite possible to have slam opposite a precision opening bid.

The hands that do well by bidding 4♠ on a "good hand" are normally those with relatively flat shape and lots of kings/queens. With these types of hands, it's harder to produce a slam because there's no shortage in the short trump hand, and if the long trump hand has shortage it will often by opposite some wasted king or queen. Hands with shape and controls are better not to bid 4♠ directly, since they can produce slam opposite the right minimum and are also harder to figure out what to do with if opponents bid at the five-level.

Something like ♠Kxx ♥KQxx ♦KJxx ♣Qx is an ideal 1♠-4♠ hand. In order to make slam here you pretty much need partner to have three aces plus the trump queen, and even some hand like AQxxxx Axxx x Ax doesn't have great chances (okay reverse the minors and you need only hearts 3-2 and spades not 4-0, but even that is just about 50% and that's really close to a perfect max). Of course, 3NT may play better than 4♠ on this hand too, but at least by bidding 4♠ direct you make things hard on the opposition.

[jtfanclub]

AlexOgan, on Jun 14 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

2NT isn't a spade raise, even though several posters in this thread seem to have thought it was. It's natural/GF.

We started playing this way after reading Gitelman's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" article series. It looks to me like he still plays something like this with Moss (in response to 1S, all calls from 3C through 4S show some kind of spade raise -- although 4H might be natural).

Ah, OK, my mistake.

There seems to be two reasons to not bid 4♠ directly...
1. You don't know what to do if the opponents bid 5.
2. You think there's a possibility of slam.

I can't imagine, for option 2, that 4♥ is better than the oversized Golady of 3♣. Heck, you even mention that responses show Min/Max and specific shortness. Surely that's more useful than partner trying to figure out if slam can be in the cards if he has, say, AJx and Qxx in the minors. If you Splinter with this hand as a slam try, then Splinters are going to be useless, since you could have a freakin' 17 count and still want to Splinter.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jun 14 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

I can't imagine, for option 2, that 4♥ is better than the oversized Golady of 3♣.  Heck, you even mention that responses show Min/Max and specific shortness.  Surely that's more useful than partner trying to figure out if slam can be in the cards if he has, say, AJx and Qxx in the minors.  If you Splinter with this hand as a slam try, then Splinters are going to be useless, since you could have a freakin' 17 count and still want to Splinter.

Splintering on a 17 count is wrong unless you think you are good enough to bid again over a signoff, they should be minimal (but useful for slam) game forcing hands.

If partner is AJx Qxx in the minors he has 4 losers he needs you to cover, not to mention that he is off AK of spades. He will NEVER expect a splinter to cover 5 out of 6 losers outside the splinter suit. 4 would be nice.

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

[foo]

AlexOgan, on Jun 13 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

MP,
♠AKT8♥2♦T97532♣KT

Partner deals and opens 1S in a strong club context (5+S, ~11-15HCP).  RHO passes.

I have a control rich 6 loser hand. Odds are we make or are +1 in 4♠. pd needs the right, and unlikely, 6 loser or 5 loser hand for 6♠ to have play.

I am not:
a= forcing to slam. Nor

b= splintering. A splinter implies a 3 suited hand with values in all of the side suits. My hand is not that hand. Nor

c= "pinging 4♠ off the wall". After all, we could miss a slam.
Also, a 4♠ bid by me on such a shapely hand absolutely =hangs= pd if They compete to 5♥. The pass vs compete vs X decision is hopeless for pd under such circumstances.


I have a GF hand that needs a delicate auction to decide what level We should play. 2♦ it is.

[jdonn]

How is bidding your worst suit an improvement over a bid that you would like to have an honor in every suit? Or I'll ask differently. Show me the hand for partner that reaches slam after 2♦ but not after 4♥.

If you don't like splintering then the game forcing raise (3♣ in this case) seems to do things nicely. 2♦ will simply cause partner to think diamond shortness is bad and Qx or Qxx is good, which is quite opposite of the truth.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

I don't know....I just don't know.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=19768

On that thread, people (including you) are bidding 4 diamonds, on a hand where I think 5 diamonds is so obvious that I wouldn't have even considered 4. Some of the comments (not including you) are to the effect of why bid 5, they haven't even bid 4 yet! This is an auction where both opponents have bid.

Now on this thread, we're discussing whether to make what I like to call a 'courtesy slam try'. The opponents have been silent so far, and to make a 4 level bid because of a 'what if they suddenly come in at the three level'.....

This may just be a question of my skill, or rather the lack thereof. I keep imagining being opener, and 4♥ just doesn't tell me whether I want to go on or not. For one thing, I'm going to look at my hand and say "I'm missing the AK of trump. Partner hasn't promised those, and that could be two losers right there." If I have the Axx in a minor, is that no losers, or one, or two.... Just hand after hand, we make slam, and I wouldn't even be willing to take a crack at it. It's not like I have intermediate bids to show an some interest. I'm not going to try anything (as opener) unless I'm 100% sure we can make 5. Not many hands I can say that about.

[cherdano]

I am a little confused by the confidence of the 4♥ bidders. I would probably bid it too, but note that EVERY SINGLE example given in this thread so far are examples where slam would be horrible if you switch opener's minors. If you really all think opener will "of course" blackwood with the given hands, then we will get to many no-play slams by 4♥, too. I think there is a lot of merit in a GF raise if you can find out about partner's diamond shortness quickly.

I will note in passing that I just love it how many of the example hands have 6 trumps.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Jun 14 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

I am a little confused by the confidence of the 4♥ bidders. I would probably bid it too, but note that EVERY SINGLE example given in this thread so far are examples where slam would be horrible if you switch opener's minors. If you really all think opener will "of course" blackwood with the given hands, then we will get to many no-play slams by 4♥, too. I think there is a lot of merit in a GF raise if you can find out about partner's diamond shortness quickly.

I will note in passing that I just love it how many of the example hands have 6 trumps.

They have 6 trumps because they are (intentionally, at least in my case) examples of the lightest hand partner can reasonably have that make slam, and because they will excite partner greatly if his controls are good. I have no doubts a splinter will sometimes get us too high. On the other hand, where is partner most likely to be short if anywhere, our 6 card suit or our doubleton?

I don't think its soooooo obvious to splinter. I think it's obvious to do something investigatory and not just bid 4♠ though. I don't hate 3♣ at all. I like 3♣ and I like 4♥ better, that's all.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jun 14 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

3♣ is fine for slam investigation, except for if the opponents start to interfere. With this much shape but not overwhelming highcard strength I like describing my hand as quickly as possible to partner, plus although not deceptive 4♥ is nearly as preemptive as 4♠.

I don't know....I just don't know.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=19768

On that thread, people (including you) are bidding 4 diamonds, on a hand where I think 5 diamonds is so obvious that I wouldn't have even considered 4. Some of the comments (not including you) are to the effect of why bid 5, they haven't even bid 4 yet! This is an auction where both opponents have bid.

Now on this thread, we're discussing whether to make what I like to call a 'courtesy slam try'. The opponents have been silent so far, and to make a 4 level bid because of a 'what if they suddenly come in at the three level'.....

This may just be a question of my skill, or rather the lack thereof. I keep imagining being opener, and 4♥ just doesn't tell me whether I want to go on or not. For one thing, I'm going to look at my hand and say "I'm missing the AK of trump. Partner hasn't promised those, and that could be two losers right there." If I have the Axx in a minor, is that no losers, or one, or two.... Just hand after hand, we make slam, and I wouldn't even be willing to take a crack at it. It's not like I have intermediate bids to show an some interest. I'm not going to try anything (as opener) unless I'm 100% sure we can make 5. Not many hands I can say that about.

What does that have to do with this? I didn't bid 5♦ there because I don't like going for huge numbers. I guess what 4♦ there (instead of 5♦) and 4♥ here (instead of 4♠) have in common is they involve partner in a decision rather than making a random guess. So on second thought, yes these problems do have something to do with each other.

Your examples keep being thoughts about a particular suit, like gosh I don't know how this Axx looks. Try thinking about entire hands and I think you will see 4♥ will usually (not always) help partner make a good slam decision, and virtually without fail help partner make a correct 5 level decision if the next hand bids.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

1= How is bidding your worst suit an improvement over a bid that you would like to have an honor in every suit? Or I'll ask differently. Show me the hand for partner that reaches slam after 2♦ but not after 4♥.

2= If you don't like splintering then the game forcing raise (3♣ in this case) seems to do things nicely. 2♦ will simply cause partner to think diamond shortness is bad and Qx or Qxx is good, which is quite opposite of the truth.

I plan on bidding this as if it were a GF =4153:
1S - 2D;
2something - 3S; (assuming 2S here is unavailable or a Preference.)
something other than 4S - 5C;
(if pd bids 4S, they are showing a 7 loser hand w/o interest and I go quietly.)
I have now "told my story".


1=
a= QJxxxx Axx x Axx.
"A direct splinter is possible, but how will pard understand the value of short ♦'s?"
b= QJxxxx Axx x AQx
"This is not even remotely close to a 1♣! bid, yet slam is cold."
c= Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx:
"not even close to a 1♣! bid and grand is good... add the trump J and grand is cold."

Opener should be able to "see" the play for 6 if they have these hands.


2= since we are looking at 6/13 of the ♦'s, there are only 7 of them out. 5/7 of them are honors. And pd Opened.
Once I pattern out a =4153 shape, ♦ shortness or hard ♦ values become positive assets. (and the only reason I could be taking such a long route bidding my hand is that I have aspirations beyond game. That implication should be crystal clear.)

[jdonn]

Since when is shortness good opposite partner's main suit? And why do you want partner to like diamond honors??

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2007, 10:50 PM, said:

Since when is shortness good opposite partner's main suit? And why do you want partner to like diamond honors??

This is a side suit we are talking about. Responder already knows that Our "main" suit is Something Else ( ♠'s in this case.)

Shortness implies less losers.
Honors imply that the suit will be an easier to set up source of tricks.
Either means increased playing strength.

The problem holdings in side suits for playing evaluation are voids or soft values.

Say Responder describes a GF =4153 and you as Opener have something like one of the original 3 example hands:
QJxxx Axxx x Axx
"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something. Hmm. AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

QJxxx Axxx x AQx
Similar story.

Q9xxxx Axx void AQJx
"♠Kxxx♥x♦who cares♣Kxx is a claim for 6♠."

Now examples from the other side of the coin:

Qxxxx Axxx AKx x
"A 9 card fit plus a side 8+ card fit and =I'm= looking at the high ♦'s? pd is not bidding this way w/o values. They must be in S+C. Lot's of holdings where 6♠ looks good."

KQxxx.AKxx.xxx.x
"Riigghht. If pd had the hand I need for 6, he'd have bid it differently."

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 14 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

QJxxx Axxx x Axx
"0 H losers, 1- D losers, 1- C losers, 2 S losers, but pd is bidding like they Have Something.  Hmm.  AKxx.x.xxxxx.KQx or AKxx.x.Axxxx.Kxx or ... and 6♠ is cold."

Yes obv partner always assumes you have NOTHING wasted in diamonds. And opposite his aces you always have a singleton or KQ, never another holding. Very fair. When he has QJxxx Axxx x Axx he won't be able to sign off fast enough. Unless he has never played bridge before. He knows you have Axx KQx AQxxx xx. Ok from now on partner makes a 2/1 he never has the K, Q, or J of his suit, I hope I'm short there.

Sometimes you are too ridiculous for words.

[cherdano]

I see. 2♦ is now an advance empathetic splinter. So much new bidding theory everyday, I can't keep up...

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jun 15 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

I would bid 4S with this hand. I would never splinter with it and think we will get to way more bad slams than good slams that way. If I wanted to investigate it I would go through my forcing raise, but I think tactical considerations trump accurate constructive bidding here. I really don't like a splinter and would expect partner to blackwood with a lot of hands where slam is just bad or hopeless.

Your forcing raise is 2♦, what now.