Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:08 PM

Hand Evaluation – Q Bid ( Last Train )

PITBULLS:

The Vinnies had a very tough auction in Calgary compliments of Mr. Willard & Mr. Fowlie doing their dirty work . Osama held ♠Axxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Jxx ♣A , heard his partner open 1♥ everybody vul . Mr. Willard paid his card fees so he overcalls 2♣ , Osama bid 4♣ but RHO bids 5♣ so around to Mr. Nowlan . This is an obvious forcing pass scenario so Vince chooses the pass option which shows a better hand than doubling or bidding 5♥ in their system . Around to Osama for the decision . He does not have much extra then he has already shown from his previous bidding but with partners pass , slam is possible . The Bridge World has a bid for these sequences which Q bid purists would not like . I quote from Bridge World standard 2001

“ Last Train: Any time there is only one call that indicates slam interest or further slam interest without raising the partnership’s level of commitment, it is a “Last Train” slam-try, unrelated to the strain named (unless followed by an uninvited further action like a try for seven).”

A “last train” slam try is not a Q bid in the traditional sense. It is a bid below the trump suit level without forcing the partnership past the level they are already at. This bid is made to show further slam interest. A last desperate attempt at slam so to speak , without showing any control in the suit bid. It usually means I have a Q bid or two in a lowing ranking suit but I cannot show them without raising the level. Mr. Nowlan had ♠x ♥AKJxx ♦KQ10xx ♣xx and definitely would accept the slam try. Should Mr. Nowlan have bid 5♦ over 5♣ ? Not really unless you wanted to be in 7 off the diamond ace , as Osama was still unlimited. He had a choice between a 5♥ bid which says I can make 5♥ based on the bidding or the stronger bid of passing show mild slam interest. If Osama had made the “last train” slam try , Vince should bid 6♥ saying I have no Aces outside the trump suit so 7♥ needs everything from your end.

In my opinion Osama could bid 5♦ as a “last train” slam try. It does not commit the level any higher it just says I cannot bid slam on my own but I am damn close . He had a spade Q bid but could not do it as that forced the partnership to slam. It is also a ”blame transfer” as the ball goes back to Mr. Nowlans court. Partner should have hidden Aces for this type of bid so the strong trump and the two suiter should be enough to bid slam. You would be surprised how often splinters and “last train” complement each other. The opponents had an easier ride at our table as we were not in the auction. Most tables reached 6♥ without the Willard factor.

In Edmonton against Tom & I , Mr. Willard held ♠K10x ♥xx ♦KQxxx ♣xxx , overcalled 2♦ and went for 1100 against an iffy game at our side. This hand was eerily similar except the diamond suit was substituted by the club suit. Steve held ♠K10x ♥xx ♦xxx ♣KQxxx but this time his suicidal 2♣ bid worked as it put pressure on our partners so he won 12 IMPS . With a spade ruff he goes for 1100 in 5♣ doubled or two spade ruffs 1400 ( tricky defense) but the normal defense wins 8 IMPS for his side.

In a recent match, Maurice held ♠A10xx ♥AKQJx ♦x ♣Axx , opened 1♥ with Klimo his partner bidding 1♠. This brought about a splinter to 4♦ but Klimo bid 4♠ . This brought about the dangerous bid of Blackwood which forced the auction to the 5 level which went down. When partner signs off in 4♠ in these auctions he means it as he has horrible duplication of value in diamonds. Why ? because he could have made the “Last Train” slam try by bidding 4♥ when he does not have duplication of value in diamonds. Once you have found a fit , it is useless to find another fit , therefore 4♥ has a meaning attached to it. It also happens to be one level below the trump suit.

The “last train” concept was invented by Rodwell/Meckstroth to compliment their “serious 3NT” theory. The Bridge World does not endorse serious 3NT in the Bridge World 2001 system but they included their “last train” concept as part of Bridge World Standard. Obviously this understanding is for very fine tuned expert partnerships only.

Comments ??