“Advanced players know the rules. Experts know when to break the rules.” - Anonymous
Slam bidding is one of the most exciting parts of the game. Not only are lots of points on the line, but slams also lead to swings because the other table frequently plays at a different level. Slam bidding is also interesting as an area that gives you a lot of freedom in the auction. Since your side invariably holds most of the strength in slam auctions, you will typically have several options of how to proceed.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is also a measure of inherent safety in tactically mis-describing your hand on the way to slam. If you cue-bid a suit with no control, there is obvious danger in the sense that you might reach slam with an uncontrolled suit, but you knew that when you risked the bid. At least there is no danger of reaching the wrong strain or level. Contrast that with far riskier psychic bids, such as an immediate response in a short major on a bad hand.
Following are some of my favorite deceptive strategies in slam bidding that I think are underutilized. A common theme will be weighing the risk of the chosen action against the information provided by a different auction. I will then diverge and use the opportunity to express some thoughts about a common slam bidding convention - Last Train.
I have long believed that the most underused slam bidding technique is simply jumping to slam. If your values tell you that’s where you belong, then you should bid it. From time to time I see people instinctively bid Blackwood and I think to myself they are going to bid the exact same contract no matter what response they get.
If you hold a balanced 20-count, respond in a major suit to partner’s minor suit opening bid, and he raises, consider whether exploring is really worth it. The odds of being off two keycards when holding those values are typically slim, and if you ask the opponents will gain information and be able to double for the lead (or infer what to lead from the lack of such a double). You can almost always think of a hand that will make a grand slam in these situations, but exploring for it might also reach bad grand slams. Maybe you need partner to hold AKQxx of his minor but it will be hard to distinguish from AKQx. Or perhaps you need the right jack opposite your AKQx but you just can’t find it.
There is also a deceptive advantage in occasionally jumping to slam in these situations. If you jump to slam in a suit, the opponents will tend to read you for a more distributional and freakish hand than you actually hold. I have even seen the opening leader holding two aces on this auction assume that they couldn’t both be cashing and lead a trump, giving me the opportunity to discard all of my losers in one suit. Of course no one reading this article would do such a thing, but as I’ve said many times, you gain in unpredictable ways by reaching the normal contract via an abnormal route.
Keycard Blackwood
Interestingly enough, Keycard Blackwood is the convention that I think ranges most from wildly underused to overused. I briefly covered when I think a number of players bid Blackwood too often, which is when they could jump directly to slam. One situation in which I think players could stand to bid Blackwood more often is after a strong raise from partner.
I recently held a hand like ♠AKJ ♥Qxxxx ♦Jxx ♣AK, opened 1♥, and saw partner respond with a 3♠ splinter bid. Many players would cue bid 4♣ here to make sure partner has a diamond control. However, he probably does, and even if not we will make slam if we avoid a diamond lead by discarding losers on the black suits. Also, If I cue bid and partner bids 4♦ then RHO might double, which is a disaster. I could use the prior strategy and jump to slam but I don’t want to give up on a grand slam. If partner holds all the missing keycards then I want to ask about third-round club control. I’m willing to accept the combined chances of partner holding ♣QJxx or ♣Qxxxx or better of clubs, or the queen of clubs with either the singleton queen of spades or spade finesse. So at the table I just bid Blackwood immediately. I happened to break even when we were off one keycard, which was the expected outcome, but I still feel my action was right.
Last Train
I am going to cheat a little and talk about the Last Train convention a little bit, rather than any more uncommon tactics. Last Train is a convention that, as it pertains to cue-bidding auctions, refers to the last cue-bid below the trump suit. It doesn’t promise a control in the suit, but rather says the player has further interest in slam, but only one step below the trump suit to express it. In my opinion, Last Train is a convention imperative for good slam bidding, but I also think it may be the most misused convention in all of expert bridge. Many players seem to bid Last Train almost all of the time without even realizing that they do so.
Let’s suppose you hold ♠KQxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣Ax. You open 1♠, partner responds a game forcing 2♦, you bid 2♠ (not promising 6), and partner bids 3♠. You cuebid 4♣ and partner bids 4♦. This is exactly the situation that Last Train was created for. Your sixth trump and nice honors mean slam is well in the picture, but due to the possibility of heart losers you don’t have safety beyond 4♠. You should bid 4♥ and let partner take it from there. However, change your hand to ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKJ on the exact same auction through 4♦. There are plenty of players who would bid 4♥ here because… well, because it’s there? The shape is bad, the diamond holding is the worst, and the slam interest and club honors have already been shown. This hand is not worth any more than 4♠ at this point. Bidding last train would be a “blame transfer”, allowing you to blame partner for doing the wrong thing.
I didn’t cover every idea in detail. There are many more ways to deceive the opponents in slam auctions. Among them are fake cue-bids, bidding Blackwood with a void , and asking for the queen of trumps when you really hold it, but most of these are well-covered in existing literature. Do any other readers have a favorite?
Josh Donn is the reigning Blue Ribbon Pairs champion. He also has a junior world and another open national championship to his credit as well as several other top-ten finishes on each stage. His main interests lie in bidding theory and issues of bidding judgment. Outside of bridge, Josh is a Casino Accounting Manager. He has worked at some of the largest casinos in the world and is an expert in casino operations, regulations, and software. He grew up in Syracuse, NY and currently resides in Las Vegas, NV.
Andy Bowles
Jan. 10
Tom Townsend
Jan. 11
Tom Townsend
Jan. 11
http://bbi.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over12.html
Kenneth Rexford
Jan. 11
Phil Clayton
Jan. 11
Frankly I think the use of LTTC is dubious in your example in a serious/non-serious setting. How many times do we need a member of the partnership to say, “interested in slam but can't take charge, sorry”.
LTTC is much more useful in an auction like 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ -3♠ - 4♦ - 4♥ that specifically says, “I have that club control you need but I can't move past game”. Here, LTTC conveys an important message about a control instead of some fuzzy, qualitative nudge.
Otherwise, I think the article is great, and I hope you will give some examples about ‘sting’ cues and the like.
Joshua Donn
Jan. 11
I told Jason this is probably my last regularly scheduled article. After going through my original ideas I've had a harder time coming up with ideas I like, and Bridge Winners deserve to be free from my regular procrastination. If inspiration strikes I can always come up with something new. Thanks to everyone for checking it out!
Hanan Sher
Jan. 11
Ken Mohr
Jan. 11
On the deceptive side,redoubling partner's cuebid with something like xx in the suit can sometimes talk LHO out of the lead;also I agree with Josh that jumping to slam is an underused tactic.
Marc Glickman
Jan. 11
Tom Townsend
Jan. 11
Now here is an interesting sequence. Does 4♥ guarantee club control, heart control, both or neither? Please help us JDonn!
Joshua Donn
Jan. 11
Chris Gibson
Jan. 11
Bob Heitzman
Jan. 11
Re slam auctions that break the rules, my friend Al Stauber told me about a hand from the Spingold maybe 25 years ago where he psyched a splinter with two small, thus making an impossible slam. When he compared with the other table, David Berkowitz had made the same psyche for a push.
Michael Bodell
Jan. 11
That said I'll agree with others that these columns have been terrific and I'll be sad to see the series end.
Josh Sher
Jan. 11
Tom Townsend
Jan. 12
Ron Zucker
Jan. 12
“In the last match Sunday, I held Axx xxx KQTxx Ax. I opened 1NT (12-14), Tibor transferred and bid 4S, a mild slam try. I decided that my good values and 3 card support merited cooperation, so I bid 5C, T bid 5D and I bid 5S. T passed, though he had KJx of hearts. You led the obvious heart to Rusty's Q and ace, and when the hearts weren't 5-2 and the spades weren't 4-0, I claimed. (Dummy was KQTxxx KJx AJx Q)
Did you have a heart lead if the auction had gone 1NT-2H-2S-4S-6S? I was tempted to just bid it. It does take a heart lead to beat it, as I have 5 diamonds, 6 spades and a club good to go. I was loath to engage in such a descriptive sequence, but also loath to bid slam with three heart losers. I'm beginning to think that maybe I ought not have been loath to go for it.
As Steve Robinson and John Adams keep saying, if you never give your opponents a chance to get it wrong, they won't. Is this another hand to add to the data bank?”
Then I read this. The more I think about it, the more I think Josh is right and I should have just blasted. If partner has the HA, no damage. If, as in this case, partner holds the HK, we've already wrong sided this sucker with our weak NT, so I shouldn't give away the information. The problem is that, at the table, I thought, “I can get us to the right slam when it's right and stay out when it's wrong.” I didn't consider the alternative. I think I'd better try considering it more. And if I bid a few bad slams, well, it's not like I've never brought back -100 vs. -650 before…
Ron Zucker
Jan. 12
Joshua Donn
Jan. 12
Kenneth Rexford
Jan. 12
After 6NT, it passed out. Then, LHO, with A-K-J-10-x-x in clubs said, “Oh, crud. Sorry, partner! We are probably getting a zero because I forgot that I am on lead! I have an easy double. Duh!”
Paul Wendt
Jan. 19
When you have three top losers and partner's third control of the suit is uncertain, so that the partnership may have three top losers, there are a couple of extra considerations. Most obviously your scientific auction might get you to the 5-level and direct a lead that scores three top tricks (eg, through partner's Kxx). At the same time there is extra gain from a fake cuebid that works.
If it's true that you know diamonds are running, perhaps because your moderate slam try (Jacoby transfer and raise to four) promises a high card in each suit, then three top losers make the occasion where gain from blasting to slam, or from successful deception, is greatest; and from scientific bidding is least.
Why transfer, however? Partner should respond 3H showing at least moderate slam interest. Responder has the stronger hand, with likely positional value to protect in two suits, and it saves a level.
Please log in to leave a comment.