[cencio]

---

[smerriman]

Why would you want to bid to 7?

6 looks good seeing both hands but I'm just playing in 4

[mw64ahw]

I'd upgrade the West hand and open 1NT so

1NT - 2♦ transfer
2♥ - now 3♠ and 4♣ upwards are all slam tries for me.

I end up in 6♥s rather than 7

[Gilithin]

If you find yourself wanting to bid 30ish percent grand slams often, you might want to reconsider your approach. If nothing else, I can think of plenty of pairs who would be happy to play in money games against you. In terms of bidding the small slam, West shows a balanced 14+; East shows both red suits; West shows 3 hearts; East makes a slam try, which may or may not show ♣ shortage; West shows controls in the black suits and/or lack of a diamond control; and East checks for keycards excluding ♣A. How that actually pans out on reality depends massively on the methods and agreements being used but that should be a reasonable plan for you to be able to translate it into the system you and your regular partner are choosing.

[sfi]

I wouldn't upgrade, but it still seems clear to get to slam:
1C - 1H
1NT - 3H (slam try)
3S (cue)

West can hardly have a better hand once East invites, and would guess 6H at this point. Further bidding shouldn't dissuade either hand from that target.

[johnu]

Transfer to hearts

---

[Cyberyeti]

 smerriman, on 2023-October-02, 13:05, said:

Why would you want to bid to 7?

6 looks good seeing both hands but I'm just playing in 4

7 is only a decent contract if N opens a weak NT so you know where all the cards are.

[johnu]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-October-03, 01:11, said:

7 is only a decent contract if N opens a weak NT so you know where all the cards are.

Strangely enough, if the North and South hands are swapped, South would have a weak NT and the E-W players could have really tested their bidding.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2023-October-02, 17:43, said:

I wouldn't upgrade, but it still seems clear to get to slam:
1C - 1H
1NT - 3H (slam try)
3S (cue)

West can hardly have a better hand once East invites, and would guess 6H at this point. Further bidding shouldn't dissuade either hand from that target.

I wouldn't upgrade either, although it's not outlandish (K&R 15.0, a little less in my eyes).
Our developments would be similar:
1C - 1H
1S - 3H (imposes trumps)
3S - 3N (I too control S)
4C - 4D
4N (even) - 5C
5H (denies D) - 6H (can lose DK, maybe HQ)
P

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-03, 11:39, said:

I wouldn't upgrade either, although it's not outlandish (K&R 15.0, a little less in my eyes).
Our developments would be similar:
1C - 1H
1S - 3H (imposes trumps)
3S - 3N (I too control S)
4C - 4D
4N (even) - 5C
5H (denies D) - 6H (can lose DK, maybe HQ)
P

I would upgrade out of a weak no trump, I valued this as 15.

1♣-1♥
1N (15-bad 19)-2♣ (asking)
2♥ (3 hearts not denying 4 spades, 15-16) - 3♦ (cue, sets hearts, partner can't have diamonds here or would have opened 1♦)
3♠ (cue) - 5♣ (exclusion, cannot want to play in clubs given other system bids not made)
5♠ (2 without Q) - 6♥

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-October-03, 11:51, said:

I would upgrade out of a weak no trump, I valued this as 15.

1♣-1♥
1N (15-bad 19)-2♣ (asking)
2♥ (3 hearts not denying 4 spades, 15-16) - 3♦ (cue, sets hearts, partner can't have diamonds here or would have opened 1♦)
3♠ (cue) - 5♣ (exclusion, cannot want to play in clubs given other system bids not made)
5♠ (2 without Q) - 6♥

To each his own. I would be unhappy to play 3♦ as imposition of trumps, rather than second suit or (better) secondary (re)transfer. We use the latter mechanism and would bid 3♣ here, opener bids 3♥ showing disinterest in diamonds and willingness to collaborate in hearts slam investigation.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-03, 12:35, said:

To each his own. I would be unhappy to play 3♦ as imposition of trumps, rather than second suit or (better) secondary (re)transfer. We use the latter mechanism and would bid 3♣ here, opener bids 3♥ showing disinterest in diamonds and willingness to collaborate in hearts slam investigation.

Opener is KNOWN to hold 2 or 3 diamonds, there is little point in introducing the diamonds here as a suit in which you might play, this use is I think much more frequent than a slammy 5-5 in the reds where you want to know about his diamond holding and won't find out later.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-October-03, 15:49, said:

Opener is KNOWN to hold 2 or 3 diamonds, there is little point in introducing the diamonds here as a suit in which you might play, this use is I think much more frequent than a slammy 5-5 in the reds where you want to know about his diamond holding and won't find out later.

I was referring to the strong NT equivalent where opener upgraded to 1NT and responder showed 5+4+ GF+ in the reds, opener may well hold 4+ diamonds - sorry for any confusion with the weak NT scenario.

[Gilithin]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-04, 16:14, said:

I was referring to the strong NT equivalent where opener upgraded to 1NT and responder showed 5+4+ GF+ in the reds, opener may well hold 4+ diamonds - sorry for any confusion with the weak NT scenario.

Use second round transfers and the issue just goes away.

[pescetom]

 Gilithin, on 2023-October-04, 16:39, said:

Use second round transfers and the issue just goes away.

Indeed we do, in this case bidding 3♣ for diamonds: see earlier post.

[fuzzyquack]

1C/1N-7H