[Manastorm]

I always read Caprera's adventures on Bridgewinners and sometimes present them on BBO forum too. This time the Caprera's (I assume) had a complicated sequence, which stopped short, while some comments suggested that opener needed to have just Kxxx spades for a solid 6♠. However only 5♦ was found. The thread asked for suggestions, but I dont have a good one. I would have bid 5♠ after 3♠ raise and expect partner to pass with no spade honours or bid 6 or 7 depending on agreements. I am ok with a cue-bid sequence, because sometimes partner doesnt show a heart honour and you have no problems. The issue is, if partner does show a heart honour, can you land on your feet. I have no idea, but based on what happened, they didnt. I have one important tip, which the Caprera's know, but seem to have forgotten. It is helpful to show support and more specifically tell partner what she wants to know. You dont have to know why this information is helpful, but when partner begs for a spade support you need to show it happily. In this case maybe the responder wanted to use exclusion blackwood or 5♠ to find the right contract. The opener doesnt know that, but should assume there is a reason behind partner's bidding. When partner bids 4♣, the opener should think: Ahaaa! This is why raising spades was needed, partner wants to cue-bid with spades as trump, not because partner wants to simulate tooth removal.

[pescetom]

---

Admire his courage as always, I would be embarassed to expose such an auction, let alone "coming in spades"

I think they both deserve the couch, but for not having or using effective agreements both over 1X-1Y-1N and over 3♠.
As you say, they each played Dentist with partner. If 2♦ (unalerted) is natural, is 2♠ even forcing?

I like XYZ here which always gives North useful options.
If this is MP then here she could even just jump to 3♠ imposing trumps, but I think I would bid the 2♦ GF to find out more, then over 2♥ jump to 3♠.

1♦(2+) - 1♠
1NT - 2♦ (art GF)
2♥ - 3♠ (trumps, SI)
4♥(ctl) - 4NT(RKCB)
5♥ (2,!Q) - 6♠
P

It gets a bit awkwards because of the ambiguous hearts control opposite void, but luckily RKCB is still on (so would be Exclusion, I guess, but it seems inferior here and would be Dentistry when partner has just bid hearts twice).
The slam is not watertight but looks to have fair chances on many layouts.
At the local club we might get a benign lead of trumps or even ♥A too.

[Manastorm]

A more serious note. All north got from the bidding was that south has 2434 or 2443 (possibly not, since non raise of 3♦ can exclude four card support), a heart control and a NT-looking hand. The inefficiency is something to think about. In actuality north should have looked for AK of ♠, K of ♣ and ♦ length. I admit that extracting the information you need is not easy, but the plan should start from AK of ♠ and try to include other bits as much as possible. I am trying to suggest that setting spades as trump and asking keycards and getting a 3-response is not sensible bidding. However the result didnt even achieve that.

[pescetom]

Manastorm, on 2026-January-05, 22:44, said:

A more serious note. All north got from the bidding was that south has 2434 or 2443 (possibly not, since non raise of 3♦ can exclude four card support), a heart control and a NT-looking hand. The inefficiency is something to think about. In actuality north should have looked for AK of ♠, K of ♣ and ♦ length. I admit that extracting the information you need is not easy, but the plan should start from AK of ♠ and try to include other bits as much as possible. I am trying to suggest that setting spades as trump and asking keycards and getting a 3-response is not sensible bidding. However the result didnt even achieve that.

Other auctions are always possible of course, especially if you play a more artificial system, but I refute your suggestion that this one is not sensible. I think it was reasonable to set trumps and look for controls. If South had the unlikely hand with xx in spades she could always bid non-serious and we stop in game. As it is, the lack of the hoped for clubs control now cramps the auction to a point where it is basically RKCB or game. I think RKCB is justified if we are willing to risk slam opposite either of the hands with 2 keycards or the hand with 3 (I am).

Maybe you slightly undervalue the limited information that North does gain. As you say 2434 with spades AK, but also the hearts control must be K and there is another 2-4 HCP somewhere. The clubs might be headed QJ, the hearts might be headed KQ, diamonds J might be there and the T if not.

Or maybe you are just more pessimistic than I am about what we need. Even the worst case hand AK KJxx xxx Jxxx looks to me likely to make if the diamonds split 3-2 (68%).

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-January-03, 10:47, said:

---

Admire his courage as always, I would be embarassed to expose such an auction, let alone "coming in spades"

I think they both deserve the couch, but for not having or using effective agreements both over 1X-1Y-1N and over 3♠.
As you say, they each played Dentist with partner. If 2♦ (unalerted) is natural, is 2♠ even forcing?

I like XYZ here which always gives North useful options.
If this is MP then here she could even just jump to 3♠ imposing trumps, but I think I would bid the 2♦ GF to find out more, then over 2♥ jump to 3♠.

1♦(2+) - 1♠
1NT - 2♦ (art GF)
2♥ - 3♠ (trumps, SI)
4♥(ctl) - 4NT(RKCB)
5♥ (2,!Q) - 6♠
P

It gets a bit awkwards because of the ambiguous hearts control opposite void, but luckily RKCB is still on (so would be Exclusion, I guess, but it seems inferior here and would be Dentistry when partner has just bid hearts twice).
The slam is not watertight but looks to have fair chances on many clubs layouts.
At the local club we might get a benign lead of trumps or even ♥A too.

The comments over there from presumed and real experts illude me that maybe we are not too bad after all.
They don't seem to have any consensus after 3♠ and the comments that passing 5♦ (with or without that other meaning of FYP) is "the only real error" speak volumes.
I would have passed in microseconds and spent time the next day in sorting out our agreements that derailed.

I am not a fan of ATB deals. Even less so as I grow older.


A really difficult hand.
Yet another cuebid/control accident in a long history of cuebid/control accidents. Auctions that skip ace asking and start control bidding at the five level are really difficult.

Playing XYZ, Why bid 2D rather than 3D?

After 2H why jump to three spades rather than look for the 5-4 diamond fit, even at MP?



A really difficult hand with many bidding decisions.

[Flem72]

Evaluating voids in control bidding is mostly a coin toss

[pescetom]

Flem72, on 2026-January-06, 07:58, said:

Evaluating voids in control bidding is mostly a coin toss

As one who control-bids first and second level together more than most, I woud say that handling voids effectively is one of the strengths of the method, not a limitation. Obviously the void is not always clear to partner early on and the sequence can evolve in a way such that neither is well informed enough to make a good decision, but that risk exists without a void too. Singletons cause more problems, but they too usually become clear in time or fail to matter.