[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner opens 1NT 15-17
1NT-2♠
2NT-3♠
4♣-??
 
2♠=Transfer ♣
2NT=good hand for ♣
3♠=singelton ♠, slem interest for ♣
4♣=too positive to play 3NT
Do you agree with the bidding till now, and what do you bid now?

[kenrexford]

So, let's give partner a "good hand for clubs" of Qxxx support.

Let's also give him "too good to play 3NT" and the perfect holding of AKAK in the red suits.

Maybe ♠xxx ♥AKx ♦AKx ♣Qxxx?

That's a fairly nice 16-count with the perfect no wasted values. 6♣ will be down one.

So, I'm signing off if I bid this way so far. If partner has this hand PLUS a trick source (AKJx in hearts?), then he better bid this slam himself.

Back way up, though. What the Heck am I looking for when I show slam interest? I mean, sure. Four little clubs, AKAK in the reds, and the diamond Queen or heart Jack does it if clubs split 2-1, and no freak thing happens, but that's shooting for quite the target.

If 3♠ simply says, "GF with a spade stiff" and if often a probe, then the situation is different. But, you defined 3♠ as showing a slammish hand. If partner has the hand where slam makes, he will bid it opposite that description. In fact, he might have just bid 6♣ over 3♠ with that hand.

[Hanoi5]

5♣.

[jdonn]

5♣, you have what you've shown with nothing extra. The hand can simply be bid quantitatively, you are (totally) minimum so you sign off.

Even though you said 3♠ promises slam interest, I don't really believe it.

[Jlall]

If kenrexford won't try for a perfecta slam then nobody can!

[Phil]

5♣. I keep staring at this hand and its the same 9 count with a stiff spade we've already shown.

By the way, if we play some form of minorwood or kickback, I think 4N by me would be Last Trainish.

[kgr]

jdonn, on Sep 24 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

5♣, you have what you've shown with nothing extra. The hand can simply be bid quantitatively, you are (totally) minimum so you sign off.

Even though you said 3♠ promises slam interest, I don't really believe it.

It is actually defined as 6c♣, single ♠ and GF

[ArtK78]

I agree with the way the hand was bid if the purpose of bidding it this way was to avoid 3NT when partner does not have much stuff in spades. I certainly did not have any slam interest.

I bid 5♣.

[billw55]

jdonn, on Sep 24 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

Even though you said 3♠ promises slam interest, I don't really believe it.

This.

If south suddenly regains his sanity, then 5♣ is clear at this point, and hope it doesn't go down with 9 cashers ready at NT.

[pooltuna]

billw55, on Sep 24 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 24 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

Even though you said 3♠ promises slam interest, I don't really believe it.

This.

If south suddenly regains his sanity, then 5♣ is clear at this point, and hope it doesn't go down with 9 cashers ready at NT.

This deserves the best response so far award

[the hog]

Agree with everyone else so far. 5C looks obvious. Hope it makes.

[andy_h]

Jlall, on Sep 25 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

If kenrexford won't try for a perfecta slam then nobody can!

Hear hear

[billw55]

kgr, on Sep 24 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 24 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

5♣, you have what you've shown with nothing extra. The hand can simply be bid quantitatively, you are (totally) minimum so you sign off.

Even though you said 3♠ promises slam interest, I don't really believe it.

It is actually defined as 6c♣, single ♠ and GF

I missed this bit. It makes more sense now, north isn't thinking slam, he is bypassing 3NT due to concern over the spade suit (which will certainly be lead).

[Free]

5♣, we have nothing more to add. We've shown our ♣s, we've shown our shortness, and by bidding 5♣ we'll show our controls as well.

[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

I thought 4C was RKC (we play RKC in minor after fit is agreed. Maybe fit was not really agred here. Anyway, we now added the agreement that 1NT opener can not ask aces).
Opps did lead a ♠ and ♥ were 3-3. An undeserved good score.

[kenrexford]

Four of the minor as RKCB for the minor sometimes causes problems like this. Personally, I like to make four of the lowest out-of-focus major, or kickback, as RKCB for the minor, to avoid this problem. But, if an auction comes up like this, and you do play 4♣ here as RKCB (which would be fine if Responder really has slam interest), then Responder should bid something other than 4♣ if he does not want to ask, like maybe 5♣ or a cue (4♦ if up-the-line, or 4♥ as "I have tricks here" or as "I have two of the top three here?).

Opener has Kx in spades, opposite shortness. That gives him a truly outstanding 13-count. 4♣, by the stated definition, seems a little much.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 25 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Opener has Kx in spades, opposite shortness. That gives him a truly outstanding 13-count. 4♣, by the stated definition, seems a little much.

You exagerate. The king of spades increased his odds of making slam in clubs by about 18% and his odds of making at least game in clubs by about 50%.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 25 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 25 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Opener has Kx in spades, opposite shortness.  That gives him a truly outstanding 13-count.  4♣, by the stated definition, seems a little much.

You exagerate. The king of spades increased his odds of making slam in clubs by about 18% and his odds of making at least game in clubs by about 50%.

Well, true.