[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

(P) - 1NT(1) - (P) - 2♦(2)
(X) - 2♥(3) - (P) - 2♠(4)
(P) - 3♥ - (P) - 3♠(5)
(P) - 4♦(5) - (P) - ?

---

(1) 14-16 bal
(2) Transfer to hearts
(3) 3 card heart suit exactly
(4) Natural Forcing
(5) 1st/2nd round control


What now?

[mike777]

Echognome, on Sep 16 2005, 06:32 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(P) - 1NT(1) - (P) - 2♦(2)
(X) - 2♥(3) - (P) - 2♠(4)
(P) - 3♥ - (P) - 3♠(5)
(P) - 4♦(5) - (P) - ?

---

(1) 14-16 bal
(2) Transfer to hearts
(3) 3 card heart suit exactly
(4) Natural Forcing
(5) 1st/2nd round control


What now?

old blacky now.

Both LTC and FTL say go for it.

I know many on forum ridicule/dislike LTC but I like my hand. 24-7-5=12 tricks.
FTL=13-4+3=12 tricks.
13=total tricks, minus 4=two combined shortest suits, Plus 3=28-30 working hcp. my guess not precise.

btw are we not close to 33 total goren points?

[mikeh]

I assume that a 3♦ bid over 2♠ would have agreed ♠, so was not available to him at that point.

So he could have a very good hand: Axx Axx Axx Kxxx. Or Axx Qxx Axx KJxx.

Since slam may be very good or virtually laydown opposite the right minimum, and he did show more than a dog (he should NOT cue with xxx in trump), you cannot give up now. In fact this is one of those hands on which even I keycard

3 keycards or 2 with the Q and I am in slam. Rates to be at worst on a finesse.

BTW, it is very difficult to construct a hand on which he holds the ♦K and not the ♣K... Axx AQx Kxx Jxxx is as close as I can come, and that makes if the ♦A is where it is supposed to be and the ♣ hook works.

[Echognome]

Partner held:

♠ 10xx
♥ AQxx
♦ AKx
♣ J10x

The auction continued ... 4NT - 5♠ - 6♥ - All Pass.

He said he lied about his heart length because of the vulnerability (even though it was anti-system). When the club hook lost, we were one down in 6♥. He didn't think I should have tried for slam when he bypassed ♣s in cue-bidding. I disagreed and hence the question here.

Thanks all.

[mikeh]

He should probably downgrade his hand due to the likely wasted nature of the ♦K... while it is a trick, one of the 'values' of a high card is its chance of promoting length tricks for lesser cards, and that factor is non-existent here. Also, his black losers are hideous. So he should consider 4♥ rather than 4♦. However, as Justin points out, the slam makes if the finesse works. it is a straight break-even proposition, so to beef about it is silly. It is one of those hands where you shrug and go onto the next board.

[Fluffy]

You will guess around 50% of the 50% slams that have to be played, there is nothig to care on that boards, just try to be lucky next time

[mike777]

Echognome, on Sep 17 2005, 08:56 AM, said:

Partner held:

♠ 10xx
♥ AQxx
♦ AKx
♣ J10x

The auction continued ... 4NT - 5♠ - 6♥ - All Pass.

He said he lied about his heart length because of the vulnerability (even though it was anti-system). When the club hook lost, we were one down in 6♥. He didn't think I should have tried for slam when he bypassed ♣s in cue-bidding. I disagreed and hence the question here.

Thanks all.

Interesting Hand Pard has. Two issues to debate:
1) Should partner downgrade hand and open 1club and not 14-16 nt? (8 loser hand, 4333)?
2) Should pard redouble first with AK of D rather than show exactly 3h hearts(when holding 4)?

[jdeegan]

Nice informative auction up to now. Too bad pard will be declarer exposing our club holding on opening lead. Six looks possible, and seven virtually impossible with partner having only three hearts. Surely pard's 4♦ cue shows the ♦ ace.

Either RKC or a 5♣ cue bid seem OK to me. At the table, I would bid 5♣ which leaves the slam decision up to partner who has enough information about my hand to properly value his cards (i.e. heart honors good, spade ace good, even the club king useful).

P.S. Just noticed the posting of the actual hand. It looks like a 5♥ bid to me, so at my table we would play 5♥.

[han]

I'd like to start with Stayman. When partner shows a major I can splinter with 4D, and everything's gonna be alright. When partner bids 2D I can use Smolen.

Not sure what the idea behind the transfer is, but then, I don't know your NT structure.

[Echognome]

We "smolen" with 64 hands. With 54 we transfer and bid the second suit. Not sure of the various merits of playing it one way or another, but that is why I didn't use stayman.

[inquiry]

I agree with Han, respond with stayman, find fit, explore slam.

Ben

[Echognome]

inquiry, on Sep 19 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

I agree with Han, respond with stayman, find fit, explore slam.

Ben

If your point was you don't agree with 6-4 smolen, then fine. Please state that and why.

I don't see the value added here otherwise, since I could not use stayman on my hand. I would have bid it if I could. If I did bid stayman and partner had responded 2♦, then I would have had no satisfying bid. I guess I could lie and say I'm 4-6 in the majors. However, I don't believe that would have been the best start for exploring slam.

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Sep 19 2005, 10:06 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 19 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

I agree with Han, respond with stayman, find fit, explore slam.

Ben

If your point was you don't agree with 6-4 smolen, then fine. Please state that and why.

I don't see the value added here otherwise, since I could not use stayman on my hand. I would have bid it if I could. If I did bid stayman and partner had responded 2♦, then I would have had no satisfying bid. I guess I could lie and say I'm 4-6 in the majors. However, I don't believe that would have been the best start for exploring slam.

My point was I don't agree with using jacoby with 5-4. To be quite honest, I see NO ADVANTAGE in 6-4 smolen. with 6-4, you are going to play in your long suit rather than NT I presume. With 6-4 I also frequently start with stayman, and then, if partner does not show four card in either major, use TEXAS to transfer into my six card suit at the four level.

So since you ask, no, I don't agree with 6-4 smolen. It is unnecessary (with 6-4 as responder you KNOW you will play in your 6 card suit if no 4-4 major fit is found), while with 5-4 smolen is necessary (or at least a lot more useful) since if you don't find 4=4 fit, the question of a 5=3 fit is still open for discussion. However, I wasn't commenting on the a 6-4 hand, I was commenting on this one. Starting with 2♦ seems just wrong to me and so I said so. And the fact that you have no rebid over 2♦ HAD you started 2♣ highlights the flaw with 6-4 smolen, especially given 5-4 is more frequent.

[Echognome]

Ben - That's fine and a good workable structure. Unfortunately it doesn't work as well for us as we also allow some (31)(45) into our 1NT structure if the singleton is an honour. I am willing to change it to only allowing 4441 hands and then the structure works. However, as rare as these hand types are, they are presumably more likely when we have 6-4 in the majors and we need to choose the most sensible game.

[Jurek S]

I bid 6♥ now, might of course bid BW before but the worst he can have is
ATx,AQx,KTx,JT9x, i'd also bid 2♣ not 2♦

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Sep 19 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

Ben - That's fine and a good workable structure. Unfortunately it doesn't work as well for us as we also allow some (31)(45) into our 1NT structure if the singleton is an honour. I am willing to change it to only allowing 4441 hands and then the structure works. However, as rare as these hand types are, they are presumably more likely when we have 6-4 in the majors and we need to choose the most sensible game.

I open 3145 hands 1NT as well (see post on this very topic today, where you went 1♣ and I went 1NT. Playing in 6-1 fit is not the end of the world even then. BTW, in the USA, playing 6-4 smolen to cater to a singleton in a major is ILLEGAL the way I read the ACBL silly guidelines.

[Echognome]

1) I bid 1♣ and rebid 1NT playing a natural system. I presume that when someone asks a question, I am playing their methods. No point in answering according to my methods as it's mixing apples and oranges. I bid 1NT in my methods and partner knows I can have this type of hand.

2) Have never heard of such a regulation. You are making a descriptive bid, so not sure what law this would break. Nevertheless, I only have to worry about the EBU laws currently.