[jillybean]

---

Wrong sided, c'est la vie!

We need to discuss 1N 2D 2H 3D 3H setting trump, 3S start of cue bid sequence.

[Cyberyeti]

3♥ is poor, give partner a different hand, Ax, AQxxxx, KQxx, A and you want to play 7♦, Ax, AQ10xx, KQxx, Ax you want to play 6♦. We would break the transfer.

The opener has all the ingredients of a hand that may play a trick better in diamonds, decent diamonds and a useful discard of a doubleton on the long heart.

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2023-February-17, 11:53, said:

---

Wrong sided, c'est la vie!

We need to discuss 1N 2D 2H 3D 3H setting trump, 3S start of cue bid sequence.

Sad indeed

But it's duplicate so not too bad

IMPs or MPs?

Who went with 4NT

[mw64ahw]

It may be 12hcp, but it's a weak 12

[jillybean]

thepossum, on 2023-February-17, 15:51, said:

Sad indeed

But it's duplicate so not too bad

10/14 tables it was played in the South 6NT and 6♥ making once.
One other North played in 6nt-1, everyone else was in some number of hearts or NT
Not good.

thepossum, on 2023-February-17, 15:51, said:

IMPs or MPs?

MP

thepossum, on 2023-February-17, 15:51, said:

Who went with 4NT

Guilty

[akwoo]

As it turns out 4N works out better. If you bid 3S and partner doesn't cue clubs, they'll surely lead a club. If you blast 4N, West is in the dark about which black suit to lead (and might even punt and lead trump).

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2023-February-17, 18:11, said:

10/14 tables it was played in the South 6NT and 6♥ making once.
One other North played in 6nt-1, everyone else was in some number of hearts or NT
Not good.



MP



Guilty

I was assuming (from the thread) that everyone was in Slam-1
If I had been lucky I may have been in 5NT-1

[jillybean]

the hog, on 2023-February-17, 00:52, said:

4NT quantitative? NoGerber? No
Transfer to H, followed by a 3D bid? Yes. We have agreements to show a double fit here which could get you to 7D opposite Axx Kxx AJxx xxx or similar.
Then after 3H KC and then 6.

BTW, welcome back

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-February-17, 12:40, said:

3♥ is poor, give partner a different hand, Ax, AQxxxx, KQxx, A and you want to play 7♦, Ax, AQ10xx, KQxx, Ax you want to play 6♦. We would break the transfer.

The opener has all the ingredients of a hand that may play a trick better in diamonds, decent diamonds and a useful discard of a doubleton on the long heart.

Unless you play 3D as slamming, which I think is unplayable in a serious method, 3H is clearly correct

It is normal, when playing standard transfers, for 3D to be:

1. A red two suiter interested in slam (from mere possibility to considering grand), or

2. A red two suiter worried about 3N, or

3. A red two suiter interested in a choice between 4H and 5D

The principle of ‘game before slam’ is venerable for good reason. Games hands, including game force hands with mild slam interest, are far more common than strongly slam-oriented hands

Here, if responder has either types 2 or 3, opener wants to play in hearts.

And if, as is often the case, responder has a slamming hand, he may be 5=5 in which case hearts is superior, even at imps (6D loses imps to 6H) and this is critical at mps.

Thus imo one is resulting if one criticizes 3H.

As to how to avoid hearts, I’m not confident that I’d avoid it assuming a weak 1N opening and standard transfers. Fortunately, in the one in which we play 11-13, responder bids 2D, artificial gf. Opener bids 2S, showing 4+ hearts and denying spades.

Responder relays with 2N and opener bids 3C, showing 4=4 reds.

Now I think 6D is fairly clear at imps, but 6H is reasonable gamble at mps.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2023-February-18, 02:44, said:

Unless you play 3D as slamming, which I think is unplayable in a serious method, 3H is clearly correct

It is normal, when playing standard transfers, for 3D to be:

1. A red two suiter interested in slam (from mere possibility to considering grand), or

2. A red two suiter worried about 3N, or

3. A red two suiter interested in a choice between 4H and 5D

The principle of ‘game before slam’ is venerable for good reason. Games hands, including game force hands with mild slam interest, are far more common than strongly slam-oriented hands

Here, if responder has either types 2 or 3, opener wants to play in hearts.

And if, as is often the case, responder has a slamming hand, he may be 5=5 in which case hearts is superior, even at imps (6D loses imps to 6H) and this is critical at mps.

Thus imo one is resulting if one criticizes 3H.

As to how to avoid hearts, I’m not confident that I’d avoid it assuming a weak 1N opening and standard transfers. Fortunately, in the one in which we play 11-13, responder bids 2D, artificial gf. Opener bids 2S, showing 4+ hearts and denying spades.

Responder relays with 2N and opener bids 3C, showing 4=4 reds.

Now I think 6D is fairly clear at imps, but 6H is reasonable gamble at mps.

I've seen the agreement that 4♦ shows 4♦/3♥, and that you will just settle for 3N/4♥ with only 2 but don't play it (you can't have 4/4 and not break the transfer in my world unless minimum 3433). I've also seen an artificial 3♠ played over 3♦ here (yes it's just about possible you're 5233/3541 but pretty unlikely).

Is 6♥ reasonable though, 6N scores better and is cold if you don't get a club lead not from the K, it merely goes down more if you do.