[andy_h]

This may be based on agreement, but I would like to know what your preferred style is. The topic in question is about the last train cue-bid that's made after partner has denied a control in a particular suit. Assume spades is trumps.

Case 1:
You and your partner have cuebid up to the 5 level. An arbitrary example would be something like 1S-4H(splinter)-5D. The 5D cuebid denied a control in clubs and responder, regardless of how good their hand is, is forced to last train with 5H which says "I have a control in clubs that you have denied" and it says nothing about the nature of the heart shortage. Agree?

Case 2:
This time the cuebid starts at the 4 level. Let's say the auction was something like 1S-3S(limit)-4D (Assume 4D=cuebid and you don't play anything fancy like 3NT asking or w/e). How do you play 4H now? Is it "I have a club cue, says nothing about hearts" or is it "I have a club cue and a heart cue"?

If your answer is the former what would 5C mean?
If your answer is the latter are you always prepared to forgo keycard when you only have a club cue without a heart cue?

(This might be meaningless but) Regardless of which one you choose it seems like you will sometimes (or rarely) need to forgo keycard to show your cuebids. When the opener bids 4D denying a club cue, do you think it's more likely that responder will have a hand that has "club cue no heart cue" than "club+heart cue" so therefore you might not want to deny 4NT keycard when you just have "club, no heart" with a 5C bid, thus making better use of the 4H last train as just "club cue, may or may not have heart cue" and also the fact that opener is likely to have a heart control anyway? (I have no idea if that came out right, apologies if that was a bit confusing)

Case 3:
Same as Case 2 but this time the opponents have bid hearts. Something along the lines of 1S-(2H)-3H-(Pass); 4D
Are the answers the same as Case 2?

Case 4:
Assume you're partnering with a pick-up expert and you haven't really discussed the depths of last train. You can be confident that if the denied cuebid was at the 5level partner will understand that the last train only promises the cue that has been denied (E.g 1S-(3H)-4H-(Pass); 5D-(Pass)-5H), however you are unsure if this is also the case if it was at the 4level. So if Case 3's auction came up at the table, what would you do if you had a club control but no heart control (or, what do you think "expert standard" is, if there is a such thing)?

[kenrexford]

Case 1:

You are clearly right that 5H shows a club control. If anything, though, I would suspect that the call actually is a semi-denial call, as with a void Responder would surely bid the slam. Hence, that LTTC implies a heart problem, strangely.

Case 2:

Neither. The 4H call is a club cue, with a heart hole. This, again, is a denial-type LTTC cue. This is a common theme. If the person bidding LTTC had control in both unknowns, he would bid past game or bid the slam. The LTTC must per force show the bypassed-suit control, the one partner denied. As there is lingering doubt, that doubt must be in the other suit, which is usually the suit where the LTTC call is made. Hence, many LTTC calls inferentially promise the denied control while directly operating as a denial cue of the suit named.

The follow-up questions make no sense in this context, so I have no response to that.

I would say that it is possible for the person bidding LTTC to actually have control of the fourth suit, as he has power to bid further. But, that is not expected. So, perhaps call that a "soft denial" cue.

Case 3:

Same answers.

Case 4:

I would cater to whatever I knew about partner. That's a vague answer, but it is responsive to a vague question, somewhat.

[andy_h]

That makes sense, cheers for that Ken.

[dave_w]

Case 1: (Last train at the 5 level)
I can't imagine not bidding slam when I have the club control. So I'm not sure that 5H is last train. I think it's 1st round heart and 1st round club looking for 7S. (6C would be first round club, but not first round heart) and 6H I guess would be the same as 5H ... so maybe 5H is last train after all - I just can't imagine needing it.

Case 2: (Last train at the 4 level)
I play that the last train cue bid promises the denied control, but says nothing about the suit bid. (so in your example the 4H cue bid would show cllub control and not say anything about hearts). I think 5C should show Heart and Club control - but a hand that isn't sure about slam (eg lots of Controls but no tricks).

Case 3:
I don't think 4D is a cue bid! It's natural slam try. 4H would thus promise heart control. (In this auction you can make slam tries with a source of tricks - bid the suit or with Heart Control - bid 4H).

Case 4:
Expert standard depends on who you ask. Best if you ask your partner. If we'd agreed last train and case 2 came up I'd bid last train with the missing control (unsure if I was promising Heart control) - but partner should also be UNSURE whether it promises Heart control and only know it promised the missing control and would have to bid with this uncertaintity

[mikeh]

At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd suggest a slight change in splinter methods that would resolve at least the first question. Instead of splintering into your stiff at the 4-level, use 3 of the other major as a unspecified splinter.

This works well, especially if, as do most, you play that the splinter shows limited high card values. Opener will often have no interest in slam opposite a limited splinter and so will just bid game, leaving the opps in the dark on opening lead, and (on rare occasions) missing a good save since a save-suggesting double is available only in the 'other major'.

In turn, this leaves a 4-level splinter into a suit below opener's as a void (I actually prefer to use 4♥ over 1♠ as natural, long chunky suit, nothing much outside...semi-preemptive, but one can certainly make a case for a splinter).

If we define the 4 level splinter as void showing (and I think that for play purposes there is an enormous difference between a stiff and a void), then in your auction of 1♠ 4♥ 5♦ 5♥ becomes unambiguous....it has to be a club control. One could build in distinctions between 5♥, 5N, 6♣ etc.

BTW, over the 3OM, opener asks via next step and responder bids 1st step clubs, 2nd step diamonds, 3rd step other major.

[dave_w]

mikeh, on 2011-November-14, 18:29, said:

At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd suggest a slight change in splinter methods that would resolve at least the first question. Instead of splintering into your stiff at the 4-level, use 3 of the other major as a unspecified splinter.

And what about when you hold a void in the opposite Major. Or perhaps one wishes to split the HCP of the various splintrs (using 3OM to show a 13-15 HCP splinter and the direct 4 level to show a 10-12 splinter). Whatever methods you choose are always a compromise - but I think this discussion is valid whatever methods one uses.

For example: your auction on the first case would go 1S-3H (unspecified splinter) 3S ask, 4H showing a Heart splinter. 5D cue bid.

Or maybe you'll tell me that 3NT is used for the Heart splinter since that saves room ... what about the auction:
1H - 3S (unspecified splinter)
3NT- 4D (diamond splinter)
5C

Now this auction is the same as Andy's simplified 5 level auction and your system isn't unambiguous.

Sorry for the long, slightly off topic reply, but I don't think that conventions have a place in a discussion about bidding system principles. (People's conventions are interesting, and I in fact agree with using somthing similar to your idea but I don't think this thread is the place for it).

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2011-November-14, 18:29, said:

At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd suggest a slight change in splinter methods that would resolve at least the first question. Instead of splintering into your stiff at the 4-level, use 3 of the other major as a unspecified splinter.

Or you can use both 1S - 3H and 1S - 4new as splinters with split ranges. This also works rather well. For hearts I would suggest that using 1H - 3D is nicer than 1H - 3S for the ambiguous splinter, but then you do need to re-arrange your other raises around this, for example using Jacoby 2S and 2NT as a Bergen 3D raise. When I used this method I played 1M - 3M-1; 3M - 3M+1 to show a void, thus separating splinters out both by strength and by length.

Also, on the subject of cue bids I would like to mention again that denial cue bids are simpler than standard cues and avoid the requirement for LTTC in most auctions. Thus to take your Case 2 example the auction might run: 1S - 3S (limit); 4C (I have serious slam interest, do you have a club control?) - 4D (yes, but no diamond control); 4H (I have diamonds covered, what about hearts?). Simple rules that work all the time are perfect for intermediates.