[gszes]

p knowing you have 11-12 hcp must have a hand
with enough power to play at least 6 if you have
a good hand for them. A good hand would be
say 10-12 hcp (not counting jacks) outside clubs.
This means with 12 hcp you can leap to 5n with 11
you can bid 6 and with 10 you can bid 5h.

these quantitative bids leave cue bids for hands
containing the ace in the splintered suit and
little else wasted. I dislike last train bids
in a splinter sequence since they waste space
if p is looking for a grand. If p uses the
splinter properly having the A and little else
wasted should make playing at the 5 level safe.

My suggestion is to cue bid 4s which should show
the club A a spade cue and 6-8 hcp outside clubs.
It should also deny a dia cue. That alone might
be sufficient to stop a search for a grand.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-30, 08:36, said:

♠ AJ4 ♥ Q753 ♦ 963 ♣ A93
1♦-1♥
2♥!-4♣ (splinter)
2♥ on our precision context shows exactly 4♥ + 3-4♦ and balanced 11-12 HCP. If this is too complicated think of a 1♥-3♥-4♣ natural bidding where 4♣ must be short suit slam try.

IMO 4♦ (last train) = 10, 4♠ = 9 (or 10 if train cancelled), 4♥ = 7. There are worse 11-12 HCP hands. 4♣ splinter has improved your hand. Agree with MrAce...

[SteveMoe]

Ranking based on LTC, ♣ wastage and In and Out Valuation principles brings me to this view (best to worst): 2 disqualifies (DQ), 9 better 9 worse. 11/12 ratio was 15/3 suggesting another sample...
Hand...................HCP.....CNTLs...LTC..NW♣HCP....Net WP
6. AKQ T7xx Ax Axxx.....17......7.......6.......DQ......NA - out of range
9. A9 Qxxx AJxxx Qx.....13......4.......7.......DQ......NA - out of range
1. Qx KQTx A8xx Jx......11......3.......7.......1.......10
11. Xx KJxx KQxx QJx....12......2.......7.......3.......9
15. Q8xx AJxx Ax Txx....11......4.......8.......0.......11
2. A8x Q9xx xx AJ9x.....11......4.......8.......1.......10
5. QJx T7xx Ax Axxx.....11......4.......8.......0.......11
8. T7xx AQxx Axx Qx.....12......4.......8.......2.......10
3. Ax Q8xx KTx Qxxx.....11......3.......8.......2.......9
7. JT8 Q9xx AKxx Jx.....11......3.......8.......1.......10
17. 9xx KQxx Jx AJxx....11......3.......8.......1.......10
Ref:AJx Qxxx xxx Axx.11......4.......9.......0.......11
4. AJx AT9x Tx QTxx.....11......4.......9.......2.......9
12. A9xx AJ9x xx QTx....11......4.......9.......2.......9
18. Jxxx 8xxx Ax AQx....11......4.......8.5.....2.......9
13. Xxx AJxx Txx AKx....12......5.......9.......0.......12
16. QJx KJxx xxx Axx....11......3.......9.......0.......11
10. A9x J9xx JTx KQx....11......3.......9.......3.......8
19. Jxx AKJx 8xxx Qx....11......3.......9.......2.......9
14. T9x AQxx QJx QTx....11......2.......9.......2.......9
20. Xxx QJxx Kxx KQx....11......2.......8.......3.......8

More importantly, partner should expect 8 losers from my hand. I have 9. I will bid 4♥ and hope partner continues if s/he can handle 9 losers opposite. Note that ♠AJx ♥Qxxx ♦Axx ♣xxx is good enough for me to bid 4♠, but barely. At least all my assets are working completely....

[Phil]

Thanks Steve Moe. I must have copied a few of the samples incorrectly.

[gnasher]

The hands with only two diamonds should be excluded, as we promised 3-4 of them.

SteveMoe said:

Ref:AJx Qxxx xxx Axx.11......4.......9.......0.......11

By treating ♣Axx as zero non-working points, you're treating all aces as equivalent, which is obviously wrong - as you mention in your final paragraph, the ace is worth more in diamonds than in clubs. I would count ♣A as about 1.5 non-working points.

[mr1303]

Apart from anything else, is there any reason why partner can't have a club void here?

[cherdano]

Comparisons within:

Phil, on 2012-May-30, 16:36, said:

Here's 20 random 11-12 point balanced hands that a generator produced.

How many are worse and how many are better? How many are similar?

1. Qx KQTx A8xx Jx
Much better.
2. A8x Q9xx xx AJ9x
A bit better.
3. Ax Q8xx KTx Qxxx
Worse.
4. AJx AT9x Tx QTxx
Slightly worse.
5. QJx T7xx Ax Axxx
Better.
6. AKQ T7xx Ax Axxx
N/A.
7. JT8 Q9xx AKxx Jx
Much better.
8. T7xx AQxx Axx Qx
Similar.
9. A9 Qxxx AJxxx Qx
N/A.
10. A9x J9xx JTx KQx
Much worse.
11. Xx KJxx KQxx QJx
Much worse.
12. A9xx AJ9x xx QTx
Similar.
13. Xxx AJxx Txx AKx
Worse.
14. T9x AQxx QJx QTx
Worse.
15. Q8xx AJxx Ax Txx
Much better.
16. QJx KJxx xxx Axx
Slightly better.
17. 9xx KQxx Jx AJxx
Similar.
18. Jxxx 8xxx Ax AQx
Worse.
19. Jxx AKJx 8xxx Qx
Worse.
20. Xxx QJxx Kxx KQx
Much worse.

That's consistent with being slightly above average. However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative.

[Fluffy]

One thing I am noticing latelly is that trump honnors are incredibly more useful than outsides, obviously club ace is better somewhere else, but on trumps it is even better. ♥KQ compared to ♠♦KQ happens the same, and unless I am playing some abnormal hands latelly this difference is huge.

[ahydra]

Phil, on 2012-May-30, 10:00, said:

OK. I was having a great morning until I read ahydra's comment about KnR evaluation for this hand.

That is about as relevant here as the color of the deck.

Please could you clarify - what in particular about K&R evaluation makes it unsuitable for this particular scenario (assuming one is also going to refine the evaluation based on the auction)?

As for trump honours being more useful than outside honours... well, don't you need both Certainly trump honours = avoids a sure loser whereas side honour = maybe avoids a sure loser. But (!(2 losers)) != (12 winners). It's the lack of winners that makes me want to treat the OP hand as a min.

ahydra

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2012-May-31, 04:20, said:

However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative.

I would expect Phil's sample to be unrepresentative, but in the opposite direction. He produced "random 11-12 point balanced hands", presumably not taking into account what responder has shown. With responder known to be short in clubs and to have high-card strength elsewhere, we would expect opener to have more club wastage, not less.

[Phil]

ahydra, on 2012-May-31, 04:56, said:

Please could you clarify - what in particular about K&R evaluation makes it unsuitable for this particular scenario (assuming one is also going to refine the evaluation based on the auction)?

As for trump honours being more useful than outside honours... well, don't you need both Certainly trump honours = avoids a sure loser whereas side honour = maybe avoids a sure loser. But (!(2 losers)) != (12 winners). It's the lack of winners that makes me want to treat the OP hand as a min.

ahydra

Sorry, I can be brusque at times.

The reason is that a tool like KnR is less valuable on a hand like this is it would evaluate as follows:

Original: 10.00

Axx QJxx xxx Axx = 10.1 (a lot better)
Axx Qxxx xxx AJx = 10.0 (worse)
AJx AQxx xxx xxx = 10.65 (way, way better)
xxx xxxx Axx AQJ = 10.3 (way worse)

In a sense we are splitting hairs on some of these hands, but dispersion of honors after partner shows shortness seems at least as important as what KnR indicates.

[MrAce]

cherdano, on 2012-May-31, 04:20, said:

. However, this sample contains only one hand with no club wastage, I am not sure that's representative.

I too agree with Andy that i expect more hands with club wastage.

It was surprising to me most posters did not even try to construct hands for 4♣ splinter, vs a known 11-12 hcp balanced hand. I personally expect a lot of meat in the hand that made the splinter and we know he doesnt have this meat in club suit.

[gwnn]

cherdano, why is 16 slightly better? Otherwise nice analysis.

[JLOGIC]

QJx of spades is a strong holding in this auction where partner has lots of points outside of clubs. Whatever partners spade holding is it is good except for AKx. And the importance of the trump jack cannot be underrated, it is a really big card for slam. It is possible it's wasted if partner has AQxxxx I guess but overall I think QJx KJxx is better than AJx Qxxx so I agree with cherdano.

[mike777]

interesting thread and comments

as a nonexpert I would hve bid 4h in a flash.

[awm]

I see 4 similar, 1 better, 1 13-count, 1 17-count, and 1 hand with 12 cards only. I also find it surprising that all 20 hands have at least the club ten and 19 have at least the Jack.

[Fluffy]

awm, on 2012-May-31, 18:42, said:

I also find it surprising that all 20 hands have at least the club ten and 19 have at least the Jack.

Why do you think the imaginary opps didn't overcall clubs?

[dave_w]

MrAce, on 2012-May-31, 14:06, said:

I too agree with Andy that i expect more hands with club wastage.

It was surprising to me most posters did not even try to construct hands for 4♣ splinter, vs a known 11-12 hcp balanced hand. I personally expect a lot of meat in the hand that made the splinter and we know he doesnt have this meat in club suit.

I find this to be a waste of time. Partner has said "slam if you have no wastage in Clubs" (it must mean that due to us being so limited - if we were wider range then maybe it would be possible slam opposite no wastage).
We have a hand with some wastage (the Ace) and very minimum (4333 11 count - as someone pointed out KnR says 10 .... that's what it looks like to me too).
So this hand should bid 4♦. It's not good enough to go past 4♥ and it doesn't have enough wastage to sign off.

For all the people who are signing off I'm guessing you wouldn't open this hand. Yes, it's a shocker - I'd have passed too. But if this is a normal opening hand for this partnership then there is no way it can sign off now.

[Codo]

dave_w, on 2012-June-02, 01:28, said:

For all the people who are signing off I'm guessing you wouldn't open this hand. Yes, it's a shocker - I'd have passed too. But if this is a normal opening hand for this partnership then there is no way it can sign off now.

No, I guess most thought it was a question between going to slam and staying in game. The OP did not mentioned last train, so it seemed not avaiable. If it had been, it has been an easy choice, hadn't it?

[Fluffy]

In case someone cares partner had:

♠xx
♥K10xx
♦AKQ10xxx
♣K

slam would make on a club lead but sadly opening leader had ♠KQ10x ♥AJ.