[mikeh]

late to the thread.

I agree with those who say that responder should use smolen, and opener should cuebid 4C over 3H to show a slam-suitable raise to 4S.

His hand is not 'perfect' in that I'd prefer to have Ax in hearts, rather than Axx, but it's as close to perfect as one is likely to encounter. 6 controls!!!

Controls are essential for slam bidding, absent extreme distribution. Back when I played a form of relay stayman, we assumed that the typical 15-17 1N hand would have 4-5 controls (we had control asking relays after opener showed shape). Here, with 6, our hand is very slam oriented and it behooves us to let partner in on the secret. Responder will cooperate and slam becomes inevitable (no need for keycard, btw...responder might use keycard to look for grand if he had a better hand, but with this hand, and knowing opener is balanced, he'd settle for cuebidding to a small slam)

Btw, there are a host of methods to handle major 2-suiters. Personally, I like smolen when responder has unequal majors. We use 3D over 1N as 5-5 or better, game force.

As for 1N 2H 2S 3H, we use that as a relay to 3S, showing strong slam interest and a very good suit, with 1N 2H 2S 3S as the same slam interest but needing a filler in the trump suit (opener doesn't need to bid 3S over 3H: typically he'd only do that if lacking a club control....3N would be something like a very soft 15-16, every side suit double-stopped: maybe xx AQx KQxx KJ10x

[pescetom]

 Douglas43, on 2021-February-12, 14:31, said:

Yes, it does depend on agreement. We play all second suits as natural 4+ cards and FG and would rebid hearts (4♥ over 3NT) when we have 5-5. But as long as you have suitable agreements, Stayman should be fine as above.

FWIW I put all 5-4 and 5-5 through a (non-standard) Stayman and use the transfer sequence for 6-4.
But my point was that it seems reasonable to distinguish 5-4 GF and 5-5 GF and if the former goes through Stayman then it's not clear why it would be useful that the transfer sequence should indicate the same rather than (say) 5-5.

[nullve]

 sfi, on 2021-February-12, 08:00, said:

Surely 4C can't be anything else but a max with spade support.

 mikeh, on 2021-February-12, 15:15, said:

opener should cuebid 4C over 3H to show a slam-suitable raise to 4S.

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

What if someone bid 4♣ (instead of accepting the Smolen transfer with 3♠) on

Qxx
AJx
xx
AKJxx

in the hope that Responder would become declarer in a spade contract? Would that be irrational?

[Zelandakh]

 nullve, on 2021-February-14, 06:35, said:

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

It is also reasonable to use it as a picture bid with something like ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AKQxx. Once you have agreed Frivolous (or Serious) 3NT over 3♠, it opens up a whole bunch of possibilities for how to treat such sequences in this kind of auction.

[Douglas43]

Thanks to all, very interesting. I'd never played (or played against) Smolen but there's an article on the BridgeBum site for anyone else out there in that situation and wants to know more: Smolen Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses (bridgebum.com)

[kgr]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-February-11, 17:01, said:

gszes's sequence looks like the right way to me: 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 3NT (frivolous) or 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 4♣ (if playing S3NT). After that it is a matter of slam-bidding style and risk assessment. For Puppeteers, the equivalent auction: 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♥; 3♠ gets you to the same spot.

+1

[Cyberyeti]

 Douglas43, on 2021-February-14, 15:29, said:

Thanks to all, very interesting. I'd never played (or played against) Smolen but there's an article on the BridgeBum site for anyone else out there in that situation and wants to know more: Smolen Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses (bridgebum.com)

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

[mikeh]

 nullve, on 2021-February-14, 06:35, said:

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

What if someone bid 4♣ (instead of accepting the Smolen transfer with 3♠) on

Qxx
AJx
xx
AKJxx

in the hope that Responder would become declarer in a spade contract? Would that be irrational?

Irrational? I guess one could construct hands where right-siding matters but I far...far...prefer to allow opener to distinguish between blah 15 counts and prime 17 counts. One of the issues with smolen (I think it’s a great gadget, but all gadgets have soft spots) is that we’ve reached to 3 level and responder is unlimited while opener has yet to refine his hand, beyond denying a major.

Yes, one can bid, say, 3S with a max and 4S with a min, but jumping to 4S should be a really bad hand, since responder is unlimited

Plus, if responder has bid 3S, showing longer hearts, opener has to have a cuebid to show a good hand, since he can’t bid 3H. One may as well be consistent.

Frankly, in my experience, right-siding games and slams is generally over-rated. It can be important, but most of the time it’s not or it doesn’t matter.

[sfi]

 nullve, on 2021-February-14, 06:35, said:

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

What if someone bid 4♣ (instead of accepting the Smolen transfer with 3♠) on

Qxx
AJx
xx
AKJxx

in the hope that Responder would become declarer in a spade contract? Would that be irrational?

The positional question is a valid one, but I have rarely seen a situation where you get to have a discussion about it mid-auction (unless the opponents interfere, such as with a lead-directing double). I did suggest one recently in another context, but it was as an untried thought rather than something that was commonly accepted. Mostly, you just go with the decision made when discussing the system.

That being said, it's not an irrational idea. However, it does give up on some options to investigate slam. It's a really common principle that the NT bidder doesn't get to start suggesting suits most of the time, and particularly after transfers, and certainly not after responder has shown two of them. So you are left with the question of how to use the four-level bids here. I would suggest 4H is out altogether, because responder needs to be able to bid 4H to tell opener to play 4S. You could use 4m to try to steer who declares the hand, but the "normal" agreement would be to simply have it show a particularly good hand with a fit and a cue.

The advantage of this sort of rule, apart from being applicable in a lot of auctions, is that it goes a long way to allowing sensible slam discussions without having to go past game. As I suggested above, opener gets to show a max with support, responder gets to say "I'm interested in slam", and that's all opener really needs on this particular hand.

All that being said, the hand you give above may be a minimum in HCP, but it has excellent playing strength. I would have no problem bidding 4C on that as well. It's a shame your hand has some of the same cards as the original responding hand, but modify it slightly to:

Kxx
AJx
AKxxx
xx

Slam is certainly playable on these two hands. However, I would expect the auction to proceed:

4D (cue & spade fit) - 4H (club cue and slam interest)
4S (not enough to take control)

Now responder would likely give up, but if they continue, this is the sort of hand they should expect.

We had a similar auction last week:
1C (Polish) - 1H
2NT (18-20, denies 3H) - 3H (must be 6 with a slam try)

And now opener should take the opportunity to cue with a reasonable hand. We need 3NT as natural here, because opener may have a singleton heart and be forced to bid 2NT, so opener needs a way to show slam interest without pushing past game.

So, it's not the only reasonable interpretation. But it's the only interpretation I would expect playing opposite a good player with whom I have not specifically discussed the sequence. And I would be confident about doing so.

[sfi]

Did I just give a longer reply to a post than Mike? That must be a first.

[nullve]

 sfi, on 2021-February-14, 19:54, said:

All that being said, the hand you give above may be a minimum in HCP, but it has excellent playing strength. I would have no problem bidding 4C on that as well. It's a shame your hand has some of the same cards as the original responding hand, but modify it slightly to:

Kxx
AJx
AKxxx
xx

Slam is certainly playable on these two hands. However, I would expect the auction to proceed:

4D (cue & spade fit) - 4H (club cue and slam interest)
4S (not enough to take control)

4♥ could not be taken as a retransfer to spades?

[Douglas43]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-14, 17:57, said:

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

Thanks cyberyeti, that's how I saw it too. It explains why not popular in the UK.

[Douglas43]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-14, 17:57, said:

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

Thanks cyberyeti, that's how I saw it too. It explains why not popular in the UK.