[Phil]

Matchpoints

♠KJ9xxx ♥Kxx ♦Ax ♣Ax

Partner opens a 15-17 1N. Your structure here is fairly standard, so there isn't a way to make a low level slam try in spades, much less balanced.

Your plan?

[mike777]

2h then 4nt quant, if pard does not super accept.

[ahydra]

"fairly standard" and we don't have 3S (or transfer-then-something) as a slam try? -.- Or Texas?

I'm not sure I'd like to stop short of 6S with this. I'll try transfer then 4C (slight misdescription but that's why we normally have other slam try bids!).

ahydra

[billw55]

2♥ transfer, followed by 4♠. For me this shows slam interest, since Texas transfer was not used.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-September-24, 09:52, said:

2♥ transfer, followed by 4♠. For me this shows slam interest, since Texas transfer was not used.

What he said...

Seems the best way to

1. Show slam interest
2. Show the sixth Spade
3. Allow us to stay low if partner has a dead minimum

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2012-September-24, 09:18, said:

Matchpoints
Your structure here is fairly standard, so there isn't a way to make a low level slam try in spades, much less balanced.

Your plan?

True... That's why one can devise a structure where after the transfer, rebid 3C! = maybe artificial:

1NT - 2transf
2M - 3C! ( may not be real Cl suit in which case is a long Major, GF, slammish, needing cuebids )
??
3D! = 1st step, agree Cl
3H! = 2nd step, agree Major ( no matter which Major )
3S! = 3rd step, agree both
3NT = agree neither

Then Responder can show either the long Major, no real club suit, slammish or "clubs were real" .

HOWEVER, I'd like my Major suit be better than KJ9-6th.

Sooo, Mike's answer seems best ( 4NT Quant after the transfer ) .

[hrothgar]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-September-24, 09:59, said:

Sooo, Mike's answer seems best ( 4NT Quant after the transfer ) .

1. How many spades does this show?
2. If you decide that you want to signoff in Spades, what contract are you playing in?
3. In what way is this "best"?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-24, 10:27, said:

1. How many spades does this show?
2. If you decide that you want to signoff in Spades, what contract are you playing in?
3. In what way is this "best"?

Well, there is another way... hrothgar's "mild slam try"... which is probably better.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-24, 09:56, said:

What he said...

Seems the best way to

1. Show slam interest
2. Show the sixth Spade
3. Allow us to stay low if partner has a dead minimum

I understand that one concocted example does not prove anything, but give opener Qx AQx Kxxx Kxxx and I'd like my chances in 6N.

My inclination would be to drive to slam and don't think a direct 6N is too far off base, especially if I don't have a way to show spades and then offer a choice of slams.

[rmnka447]

I'm a big fan of using Texas followed by 4 NT as always being RKCB for the transferred suit. It ought to work well here.

[mike777]

so we have:

rkc
force to slam\
invite in s(6); pard denies super accept
invite in s(5) or nt. pard denies super accept

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-September-24, 09:18, said:

Matchpoints

♠KJ9xxx ♥Kxx ♦Ax ♣Ax

Partner opens a 15-17 1N. Your structure here is fairly standard, so there isn't a way to make a low level slam try in spades, much less balanced.

Your plan?

I am not making a slam try, i have 15 hcp prime honors + 6 card suit which means we have at least an 8 card fit. I am bidding it BUBBA

4♥ texas followed by 4 NT. Transfer your worries to the guy on lead. I wouldnt waste pds energy to evaluate his hand and all.


Think about this way, if my 6 card suit was a minor and if i opened thsi hand 1NT pd inviting with 4 NT, wouldn't i accept it ?

[mike777]

MrAce, on 2012-September-24, 23:41, said:

I am not making a slam try, i have 15 hcp prime honors + 6 card suit which means we have at least an 8 card fit. I am bidding it BUBBA

4♥ texas followed by 4 NT. Transfer your worries to the guy on lead. I wouldnt waste pds energy to evaluate his hand and all.


Think about this way, if my 6 card suit was a minor and if i opened thsi hand 1NT pd inviting with 4 NT, wouldn't i accept it ?

ace you understand that is rkc not quant.

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2012-September-24, 23:48, said:

ace you understand that is rkc not quant.

MrAce, on 2012-September-24, 23:41, said:

I am not making a slam try,

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-September-24, 09:59, said:

True... That's why one can devise a structure where after the transfer, rebid 3C! = maybe artificial:

You probably know by now that I play something related to this. Mine runs

1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♣ = spades and diamonds* or strong slam try in spades. Then

3♦ = diamond support (3♠ now shows the 1-suiter)
3♥ = neither (3♠ now shows the 1-suiter)
3♠ = agrees spades
others show a potential double-fit

(* Note: it makes no difference whether you invert the minors here; there is no overall gain when the major is spades)

I think this is better as your 3NT response effectively robs the strong one-suiter of the cue-bidding space it requires.

rmnka447, on 2012-September-24, 17:22, said:

I'm a big fan of using Texas followed by 4 NT as always being RKCB for the transferred suit. It ought to work well here.

An alternative is to use the first step after the transfer as RKCB, ie 1NT - 4♦; 4♥ - 4♠ = RKCB for hearts. This gives you an extra step. It also meshes well with Kickback for those that play it.


Back to the OP, I am interested what "fairly standard" might mean in this context. In the UK, fairly standard would be that a 3M response is natural and slammy. I have said before that any 1NT structure that does not include a bid for this hand type is seriously flawed in my book. Using these 3M bids for something like splinters just seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Similarly, I always thought the transfer and bid 4 = mild slam try method was only on when we are both playing Texas and have an alternative route to show a strong slam try. That said, if I really agreed to play a system with nothing in-between a mild slam try and a slam drive then I think I am going to prefer the latter on this hand. I cannot say I am happy about it though.

[Fluffy]

TimG, on 2012-September-24, 10:42, said:

I understand that one concocted example does not prove anything, but give opener Qx AQx Kxxx Kxxx and I'd like my chances in 6N.

My inclination would be to drive to slam and don't think a direct 6N is too far off base, especially if I don't have a way to show spades and then offer a choice of slams.

blasting 6NT looks so terrible when partner can have KQx/xxx in the minors. IF blasting something it would be 6♠ I wanna declare this one.

I would bid 3♠ on my methods wich is suposed to be something like this, but assuming it is not there start with a transfer then 3♣ and lets see what partner has to say.

[Phil]

Not a good day for slams. This hand transferred and bid 4N. Opener accepted to 6N with Ax Qxx KJxxx KQJ, but maybe thats too aggressive. Both pointed Q's were onside, but spades were 4-1 and diamonds were 5-1. Is it that wacky to actually try to discover key cards along the way?

One player bid 3N over 1N. Some think he had a wire.

[quiddity]

MrAce, on 2012-September-24, 23:41, said:

Think about this way, if my 6 card suit was a minor and if i opened thsi hand 1NT pd inviting with 4 NT, wouldn't i accept it ?

Does your partner generally invite with good 14-counts?

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-September-25, 09:14, said:

Is it that wacky to actually try to discover key cards along the way?

Thats what i did, texas followed by rkcb. Whether i would bid the slam or not missing a keycard + trump Q is another story. I would love to say i would stay out of it, but that would probably depend on how we are doing so far in the match (or session if its pairs)

[Phil]

MrAce, on 2012-September-25, 17:58, said:

Thats what i did, texas followed by rkcb. Whether i would bid the slam or not missing a keycard + trump Q is another story. I would love to say i would stay out of it, but that would probably depend on how we are doing so far in the match (or session if its pairs)

You had about an 80% game coming into this round (maybe 30% of the boards were played). Things got flat, and a few bad results saw you finish at 62%.