Bidding options and inferences

[jcreech]

This hand came up recently.  I thought there were some interesting bidding options and inferences that could be taken.  Since it was a first-time partnership, with the only discussion being 2/1 and fake the rest.  Even in this hand, the opponents were kind enough to let us discuss during the auction how we were treating Drury, partner removed the need for additional discussion with his next bid.  I do believe the choices each of us made, took into consideration that there had been no discussion, trying to avoid bids that might be ambiguous.

I rotated the hands for convenience and there was no opposition bidding.

West
  KQJ
  875
  A85
  J852

East
  A976543
  AK
  Q
  AK7

West                              East
Pass                              1
2 (Rev Drury)             4 (Splinter)
4                                4 NT
5 (2 keys + Q)            5 NT
6   (no K's)                  Pass

The partnership was first-time, and the only discussion was 2/1 and fake the rest.  The opponents allowed us to clarify that Drury was reverse one-way Drury, but the splinter would have eliminated the need for that information.  However, I thought the hand had some interesting possibilities and inferences that neither my partner nor I were willing to "fake."

I am certain that we could have bid more confidently had we had a different version of Drury in place.  However, even without discussion, there were things that should have been reasonable to deduce even with our limited discussion.

First, and this escaped me at the table, but makes complete sense to me in retrospect, is that I should have treated 4NT as exclusion blackwood.  Why?  If partner is going to splinter, and then ignore my attempt to signoff, he should be showing a void in diamonds.  I think I was so excited about not having to worry about the difference between 1430 and 3014 responses, I did not stop to think (and went on automatic) - a potentially dangerous thing to do,  Nonetheless, partner had an easy time interpreting my response correctly, since the only way I could have two keycards was to also have the A.

Second, I think partner misbid by splintering.  After Drury, he probably should want to be in slam opposite virtually any holding I have that includes a keycard.  By splintering, if I respond under the exclusion premise, I will potentially have a lot more room under my limit raise that might be useful.  In other words, in the actual auction, he could place 9 of my 10/11 HCPs, but if I respond excluding the A, now he can only place 3 HCPs immediately, and  then 2 more with the queen-ask, and now there would be no room for any other questions.

Third, my response over 4 should have been 4 .  I did think about this response and decided it might confuse partner.  That should not have stopped me.  The reason for possible confusion is that it could be interpreted as showing a control in hearts, but the standard expert-meaning is that is a Last-Train bid.  Last-Train bids come up when there is limited space to make a slam try.  In this case, the splinter was the slam try, and so 4 would simply say, given that I am a passed hand showing a limit raise, I could not have a much more perfect holding for you to proceed toward slam.  I think that KQJ of trump and a side ace fits that description.  Now if partner bids 4NT, I should be less certain that partner is showing a diamond void.

Fourth, partner asked about kings, which should be a wasted effort.  I simply do not have enough room as a passed hand to have any kings.  More useful would be the Q, xx in clubs, or the Qxx to pitch the small club.  The way to do that would be bid 6 , which under the circumstances asks useful holdings in clubs, and if I have something like Qxx, but not what is needed in clubs, I can try 6 to say I have something useful in the heart suit.  This is another inferential bid.  Partner has the ability to ask about aces and kings, but by bypassing the king ask to bid a new suit, has to be looking for something more in the suit bid - third round control seems about right.

There are probably more, but I will leave room for others to bring to the table.

The full hand can be found by following this link: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|yleexotee,jcreech,North,East|md|2ST82HQT92DKT3CT64,SKQJH875DA85CJ852,SHJ643DJ97642CQ93,SA976543HAKDQCAK7|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%2036|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1S|mb|P|mb|2C|an|rev%20drury|mb|P|mb|4D|an|Splinter,%20I%20hope|mb|P|mb|4S|mb|P|mb|4N!|an|RKC|mb|P|mb|5S|an|2%20with|mb|P|mb|5N|an|Specific%20kings,%20I%20suppose?|mb|P|mb|6S|an|no%20outside%20kings|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S8|pc|SK|pc|D6|pc|S3|mc|12|

[kenberg]

First: Congrats on stopping in 6.

As to what E needs from pard, the club Q would do it, but Qxx in hearts would also do it.  7+3+1+2=13.  And, I guess,  W could have KQx in spades, the diamond ace, and one or the other of the queens. A Qx doubleton in hearts would be unlucky.

I think that the 5NT is usually played as (of course) it promising all the keys and then asking for either the bid of a king or, if W holds some undisclosed values, he can just bid the grand. Now is a gypsy queen enough to bid 7? I suppose that such an argument could be made: Hey pard, you noticed that I didn't open, I have shown the spade KQx and the D A, what else could I possibly have, so if you are saying that a Q is enough, well, I have one.

Realistically I think this requires mind-reading. At Bermuda Bowl level, maybe it's routine. Maybe.

[jcreech]

When I wrote the post, above,  I may not have been clear on "Fourth."

I am talking about a situation where 5NT is eschewed in order to bid 6 .  At the table, having never encountered that sort of bid except when there were two possible suits under consideration.  When there are two suits in play, and clubs is one of them, then it is a choice of slams.  But when there is only one suit - partner opened spades, and I raised spades conventionally, and there are no other potential suits for the slam - that should mean that partner wanted me to be able to figure out what the bid means.  He asked about aces, declined to ask about kings, that can only mean that he is looking for third round control in clubs for a grand.  Granted, it might be beyond me to figure it out at the table without prior exposure to the concept, but I had friendly opponents that would have given me the time to think, and I did think of the possibility shortly after partner did ask about kings, and went into the tank again (presumably to guess whether I had a useful card or not).

And if I did not have the sort of club holding he was looking for, and there is room below the expected final contract, then I should be able to suggest an alternative bit of undeclared strength, in case it might be a useful cover card.  So, lets say I had the Q, so I could bid 6 as a secondary try, and partner, if we are on the same wavelength, would be pleased and might bid the grand (partnership confidence should certainly have a place in all of this).  In the actual hand, I don't have either, so the question is moot; I bid 6 and we play it there.

[kenberg]

Yes, that seems right. 6C can ask about clubs but lacking the club Q, why not show the heart Q? It's logical.

[wackojack]

West
  KQJ
  875
  A85
  J852

East
  A976543
  AK
  Q
  AK7

West                              East
Pass                              1
2 (Rev Drury)             4 (Splinter)
4                                4 NT
5 (2 keys + Q)            5 NT
6   (no K's)                  Pass

"First, and this escaped me at the table, but makes complete sense to me in retrospect, is that I should have treated 4NT as exclusion blackwood.  Why?  If partner is going to splinter, and then ignore my attempt to signoff, he should be showing a void in diamonds.  I think I was so excited about not having to worry about the difference between 1430 and 3014 responses, I did not stop to think (and went on automatic) - a potentially dangerous thing to do,  Nonetheless, partner had an easy time interpreting my response correctly, since the only way I could have two keycards was to also have the A."

An interesting idea but I don't think I buy it.  Partner by bidding 4 over the 4  splinter is denying a control in hearts what else can he do?  It says nothing about anything else.  Partner has already defined his hand within 8-11. 

"Second, I think partner misbid by splintering.  After Drury, he probably should want to be in slam opposite virtually any holding I have that includes a keycard"

Yes agreed.

"Partner asked about kings, which should be a wasted effort.  I simply do not have enough room as a passed hand to have any kings.  More useful would be the Q, xx in clubs, or the Qxx to pitch the small club.  The way to do that would be bid 6 , which under the circumstances asks useful holdings in clubs, and if I have something like Qxx, but not what is needed in clubs, I can try 6 to say I have something useful in the heart suit.  This is another inferential bid.  Partner has the ability to ask about aces and kings, but by bypassing the king ask to bid a new suit, has to be looking for something more in the suit bid - third round control seems about right."

Yes it seem entirely logical that after 4NT-5 that 6 is now an ask about clubs.  However, could it not be a 3rd round control ask rather than a specifically the  !CQ?  So any doubleton  ? .  It also makes sense that a 6 response would be saying "No I do not have 3rd round control of clubs but I do in hearts".   

Thanks for the interesting conjectures

[Masse24]

Agree, after splinter, signoff—then 4NT anyway is often treated as Exclusion. Presumably with at least a little discussion? I have never done this, only read about it.

Agree that the splinter on his auction is unnecessary noise. I am not fond of splintering (ostensibly an ask about slam viability) then bidding 4NT anyway.

A Last Train 4 (assuming the splinter auction) would be nice here. Like Jim, I thought of it when I kibbed this hand and he was bidding it. But I would never trot out a Last Train bid without an agreement between partners. Interestingly, that is exactly is how Rodwell was introduced to the concept by Meckstroth. It was “sprung” on him with no discussion!

As to the “third round control ask” in clubs. With no discussion, with the Q—bid the grand. (The “simple” treatment.) Without the asked for control, bidding another Q in a suit below trump seems viable. There is, however, a prescribed set of “fancy” responses set forth by Kantar. Especially useful (he states) if playing Matchpoints.

First Step                  =  xx (or a singleton with 2+ trumps).
Second Step              = the Queen.
Raise of ask suit         = QJ(x).
Jump in agreed suit    = Singleton with 3+ trumps
Sign-off in agreed suit = xxx(x)

I would have to have a ten-year partnership for that sort of detail. Goodness, is it worth the memory strain?!