sanity check 6232 (I know I shouldn't need to do this)
#1
Posted 2012-January-03, 17:47
#2
Posted 2012-January-03, 18:39
#4
Posted 2012-January-03, 19:40
#5
Posted 2012-January-03, 20:16
Texas seems easy. All we need for slam is 7 outside tricks and holding spades to one loser, or all our spades and only one quick outside loser. Suspect a sim would show a lot of accepted slam invites which won't cut it.
This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-January-03, 21:01
#7
Posted 2012-January-03, 20:36
petterb, on 2012-January-03, 20:29, said:
well spotted, fixed.
#8
Posted 2012-January-03, 23:34
QJx, Axx, AKx, AKxx
is 21 HCP. Not sure if you can do it with 20, so it's pretty borderline. I'd probably invite.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#9
Posted 2012-January-03, 23:44
Anyway I would not make a slam try, but we're pretty close.
#10
Posted 2012-January-04, 02:39
rogerclee, on 2012-January-03, 23:44, said:
Anyway I would not make a slam try, but we're pretty close.
It is if partner could have super accepted in S. Of course, if this is not permitted in your partnerships, then you are correct.
#11
Posted 2012-January-04, 03:11
You are a victim of to detailed agreements.
You would love to make the low level transfer and invite slam,
if partner is strong enough to break the transfer.
An alternative agreement is, to play 4C/4D as texas transfers,
you can sell this agreement to partners with the argument,
that you want to improve your slam auctions.
Wisely you refrain from mentioning the other benefit - that you
get rid of Gerber.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#12
Posted 2012-January-04, 08:55
rogerclee, on 2012-January-03, 23:44, said:
Anyway I would not make a slam try, but we're pretty close.
I play that this as a mild slam try and that 2NT - 3H; 3S - 4H is a strong slam try (an idea I got from French). Hands with both majors can be bid in other ways so this is essentially free. Anyway I agree with you - partner seems to need close to perfect cards for slam to be good so it seems better just to use Texas.
#13
Posted 2012-January-04, 09:05
BunnyGo, on 2012-January-03, 23:34, said:
QJx, Axx, AKx, AKxx
is 21 HCP. Not sure if you can do it with 20, so it's pretty borderline. I'd probably invite.
What about the fact that the right 21 count produces a grand on normal breaks?
AQx Ax AKxxx Axx
I suppose some might upgrade this hand to 2♣ followed by 2NT. Still, there are 13 tricks in notrump on 3-2 diamonds and 3-1 spades.
Also, the right 19 count makes 6 on no worse than a finesse (and cold on a pointed suit lead or a club lead from the K):
AQx Ax AJTxx Axx
Yes, these are perfect hands opposite my hand. But isn't that what transfer and raise asks for?
#14
Posted 2012-January-04, 09:52
In my partnership we have 3 ways to superaccept so this "mild" slam try is most often VERY mild, just trolling for a superaccept. I can't remember ever getting too high when pard doesn't have one.
It doesn't cost us to try for the great fit.
What is baby oil made of?
#15
Posted 2012-January-04, 10:00
Dont want pard bidding slam on the wrong max hand and I dont play superaccept over 2nt.
#16
Posted 2012-January-04, 12:52
Of course the methods suck. In mine, a Jacoby transfer is GF and when pard accepts he has support. I can then make a non serious try and let things run their course.
Even SA texas works here since pard can last train with a good hand and support.
Sorry its the BI and I shouldn't be mentioning these things.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.