Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:08 PM
Last Train Slam Try
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 and heard his partner open 1♥ everybody vul . Mr. Willard paid his card fees so he
overcalls 2♣ and Osama bid 4♣ and RHO bids 5♣ and around to Mr. Nowlan . This
is an obvious forcing pass scenario so Vince chooses the pass option which
shows a better hand then 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 . Even at the 5
level , 5♦ which is a bid under the trump suit , is a last
train slam try. At this rarified level , he can not Q bid his black aces nor
does he want to give up. 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 . It is a bid below the trump suit level without forcing
the partnership past the level they are
already at 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 but I can not 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 can not 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 & 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 got to 6♥ without the Willard factor.
In
a recent match Maurice held ♠A10xx ♥AKQJx ♦x ♣Axx and
opened 1♥ and Klimo his partner bid 1♠. This brought about a splinter to 4♦ and 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♥ if he did 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.
Tom
Gandolfo gave a hand where he used partners splinter suit as the “last train”
slam try at the 5 level. He opened 1♥ , they overcalled 1♠ so partner leapt to 4♦. Tom could not take control via KCB as he lacked a club control. He bid 5♦ as the last train slam try. Partners should always
ask themselves , “why did partner not use KCB” instead of a Q bid ? Partner was looking at the club Ace so
he bid 6♥ and that made.
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
??