[SimonFa]

Partner had this problem last night:

R v W, MPs

AKQJ
K982
K8
JT9


5
A6
AQ5
Q876532

Its not something we have discussed and when partner bid 5C opposite my 1NT opening I considered he had a similar hand and would have bid 6C with more controls. As it happens 5C making wasn't a great score, 30%, as 3NT plays well.

In the circumstances I think partner made a good bid, but is there a better way to bid it? We play 2S as minor transfer with 3C response as pass or correct. Partner was worried that a transfer to 3C and then bidding 3NT would miss a slam. Was he right to consider slam an option? Was he unfortunate to find so many of my points wasted in spades?

As always, thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Simon


PS As a supplementary question, I considered upgrading this hand and opening 1S and then 2NT. Would that have been a reasonable decision? I was put off by the adverse vulnerability, first seat and as a new partnership we tend to be honest with our NT bidding.

[Hanoi5]

I play 1NT-3M to show a sing or void in the bid Major and at least 9 cards in the minors, 10-14 HCP's. Here it would have worked wonderfully. Being MP's if you don't play that you might as well just bid 3NT, partner rates to have some spades.

[Cthulhu D]

SimonFa, on 2012-February-22, 06:23, said:

In the circumstances I think partner made a good bid, but is there a better way to bid it? We play 2S as minor transfer with 3C response as pass or correct. Partner was worried that a transfer to 3C and then bidding 3NT would miss a slam. Was he right to consider slam an option? Was he unfortunate to find so many of my points wasted in spades?

It's very tough at match points. Any slam try without special agreements is going to push you past the magic 3NT, and you're going to make 11 in NT or clubs so as it turns out so being in clubs is a bottom. That's just bad luck really.

[ahydra]

It's not a good idea to jump to 5C here. If responder wants to make a slam try in clubs, he needs to set clubs as trumps using whatever method you have (eg 3C response to 1NT, or transfer to clubs followed by a cuebid).

The hand is definitely worth a slam try in clubs (it makes opposite a 13 count Axxx Kxxx Kxx Kx, and partner promised 15). The problem is, you also need some good agreements to avoid going past 5C with two keycards missing - in absence of those, perhaps it's best to just play 3NT.

ahydra

[hrothgar]

At the end of the day, the key issue in deciding whether or not to bid slam is the quality of partner's club support.

If partner has the AK of clubs, slam should be near cold.
If partner has one club honor, slam is going to have a lot of play.
If partner has none, then you'll probably want to play in 3N.

Many partnerships use specialized bids to investigate the 1NT opener's holdings in the minors.
For example, they might use 2♠ to transfer to clubs and 2NT to transfer to Diamonds.
The typical agree is that the NT bidder will bid 3m with no honors and bid the intermediate step with one or more.

These bids are typically used to investigate whether you can make 3NT using a long running suit for tricks.
Here, it would help provide useful information to investigate slam.

[Zelandakh]

What do you play a 3♣ response as? If this is natural with a slam-oriented hand then it seems like a reasonable starting point. If you play 2♠ as a weak take-out with either minor and Responder then takes out your 3♣ response into 3NT then how do you have any idea which minor suit they hold? This sequence is usually undefined when playing this method. If 2♠ showed specifically clubs then 2♠ followed by 3NT should be a slam try. In this case many also play that 2♠ followed by 3♠ would show clubs and a spade shortage. Your system should contain at least 1 bid to show a 1-suited slammy hand with a minor.

[mgoetze]

I would also recommend a method where a transfer to a minor shows only one minor, not either one. If you don't want to give up 2NT natural, you can just play 3♣ -> Diamonds.

Typically, with a 4 card major and a longer minor, one would start with Stayman. Thus, logically, bidding 3M after transferring to a minor shows shortness. The idea is that opener, with a holding like KJTx in the major, would bid 3NT, whereas with something like Axx in the major he would bid 4m. In this case the bidding could go

1NT - 2♠
3♣ - 3♠
3NT

Responder now sees that opener has substantial spade values and thus slam is unlikely.

[Quartic]

In my methods I would transfer to ♣ with 2♠. When my partner denies Qxx or better by bidding 3♣ I would just sign-off in 3NT.

Unlike mgoetze, I prefer a transfer to a minor followed by a bid of a major to show 5-4 shape or better. Bidding stayman first, then the minor hides useful information from partner (which major I have) which he might need to know to place the contract.

For example, with:

---

we want to play 5♣ or the moysian 4♠, but if we swap North's majors, 3NT is the better contract. Starting with stayman, I don't see how we could avoid 3NT when it's wrong.

[Zelandakh]

Quartic, on 2012-February-22, 09:10, said:

Unlike mgoetze, I prefer a transfer to a minor followed by a bid of a major to show 5-4 shape or better. Bidding stayman first, then the minor hides useful information from partner (which major I have) which he might need to know to place the contract.

I think second round transfers are significantly better here. For example, after 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣:-

3♦ = 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3♥ = 4 spades, 5+ clubs
3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
3NT = mild slam try (or choice of game if you prefer)

There is nothing wrong with this method (I play it too) but if you do then you need an alternative route to show the 1-suiters (I use a 3♣ response). The method mgoetze was suggesting handles the 1-suiters through the 2♠ bid and therefore has to handle the 2-suiters via a different route, in this case Stayman. I would consider that method the standard one and our method less common. There are actually certain advantages to be had by playing a split method, where club hands are handled directly but some diamond hands go through Stayman - but that discussion is not really suitable for this thread.

[Phil]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-22, 07:18, said:

In this case the bidding could go

1NT - 2♠
3♣ - 3♠
3NT

Responder now sees that opener has substantial spade values and thus slam is unlikely.

I think responder is worth one more shot. Opener doesn't always have AKQJ in our short suit.

[SimonFa]

hrothgar, on 2012-February-22, 07:09, said:

Many partnerships use specialized bids to investigate the 1NT opener's holdings in the minors.
For example, they might use 2♠ to transfer to clubs and 2NT to transfer to Diamonds.
The typical agree is that the NT bidder will bid 3m with no honors and bid the intermediate step with one or more.

These bids are typically used to investigate whether you can make 3NT using a long running suit for tricks.
Here, it would help provide useful information to investigate slam.

I prefer 2s => Clubs, 2NT => Diamonds but partner didn't play this when we met and I didn't push it as I play 2S => minor pass or correct clubs with another, Acol, partner.

I haven't heard of using the intermediate step, its an interesting idea and I'll give it more thought and discuss with partner.

Simon

[SimonFa]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 07:11, said:

What do you play a 3♣ response as? If this is natural with a slam-oriented hand then it seems like a reasonable starting point. If you play 2♠ as a weak take-out with either minor and Responder then takes out your 3♣ response into 3NT then how do you have any idea which minor suit they hold? This sequence is usually undefined when playing this method. If 2♠ showed specifically clubs then 2♠ followed by 3NT should be a slam try. In this case many also play that 2♠ followed by 3♠ would show clubs and a spade shortage. Your system should contain at least 1 bid to show a 1-suited slammy hand with a minor.

That's a good point, I'm not sure what 3C would be over 1NT would be, and I hadn't thought about the 3NT over 3C not showing which minor. As I say in my reply above, I think we need to consider changing our methods.

Regards,

Simon

[SimonFa]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 09:28, said:

I think second round transfers are significantly better here. For example, after 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣:-

3♦ = 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3♥ = 4 spades, 5+ clubs
3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
3NT = mild slam try (or choice of game if you prefer)

There is nothing wrong with this method (I play it too) but if you do then you need an alternative route to show the 1-suiters (I use a 3♣ response). The method mgoetze was suggesting handles the 1-suiters through the 2♠ bid and therefore has to handle the 2-suiters via a different route, in this case Stayman. I would consider that method the standard one and our method less common. There are actually certain advantages to be had by playing a split method, where club hands are handled directly but some diamond hands go through Stayman - but that discussion is not really suitable for this thread.

Probably a bit much for us to take in at this stage of the partnership, but I'll be puting this aside for later discussion. We are both keen to develop, but baby steps first

Regards,

Simon

[Quartic]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 09:28, said:

I think second round transfers are significantly better here. For example, after 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣:-

3♦ = 4 hearts, 5+ clubs
3♥ = 4 spades, 5+ clubs
3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
3NT = mild slam try (or choice of game if you prefer)

There is nothing wrong with this method (I play it too) but if you do then you need an alternative route to show the 1-suiters (I use a 3♣ response). The method mgoetze was suggesting handles the 1-suiters through the 2♠ bid and therefore has to handle the 2-suiters via a different route, in this case Stayman. I would consider that method the standard one and our method less common. There are actually certain advantages to be had by playing a split method, where club hands are handled directly but some diamond hands go through Stayman - but that discussion is not really suitable for this thread.

I think we still have room for single-suiters - 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4♣ would be a slam try, as would 1NT - 2♠; 3♣ - 3NT (mild). 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4NT could be Quantitative. 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4♦♥♠ could be a splinter.

Second round transfers look interesting, though I see we lose quite a lot of space on the minor two-suiters.

[han]

I don't know how to bid these hands playing that 2S is a drop in either minor. It leaves a lot of room unused, room that should be used to investigate the best game with tricky hands, this is one of those hands. People who play minor suit transfers have an easy time here: transfer to clubs and bid 3S, showing short spades. This may you find a good slam or the best game.

[Zelandakh]

SimonFa, on 2012-February-22, 09:45, said:

Probably a bit much for us to take in at this stage of the partnership, but I'll be puting this aside for later discussion. We are both keen to develop, but baby steps first

Regards,

Simon

Yes, sorry about that. The reply was meant for Quartic. It is not really suitable for B/I.

SimonFa, on 2012-February-22, 09:43, said:

That's a good point, I'm not sure what 3C would be over 1NT would be, and I hadn't thought about the 3NT over 3C not showing which minor. As I say in my reply above, I think we need to consider changing our methods.

Regards,

Simon

Usually pairs that play 2♠ as a weak take-out in a minor play 3m as natural and slammy. If you agree this then you do not need to change anything else.

Quartic, on 2012-February-22, 09:52, said:

I think we still have room for single-suiters - 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4♣ would be a slam try, as would 1NT - 2♠; 3♣ - 3NT (mild). 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4NT could be Quantitative. 1NT - 2♠; 2NT/3♣ - 4♦♥♠ could be a splinter.

Yes this is possible. You lose alot of space on the single-suited slam hands this way (no cues) but if you need the alternative routes for other things then it is workable.

Quartic, on 2012-February-22, 09:52, said:

Second round transfers look interesting, though I see we lose quite a lot of space on the minor two-suiters.

The minor 2-suiter hands are quite rare so this may not be as bad as you think. In my structure I have an alternative route for the 5-4 minor hands (via 2♣) so these are not a factor. If you need to channel these through your transfers too then things are a bit different. As always the key thing is that the system fits together as a whole and it is often difficult to talk about the individual components without some context.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

AKQJ
K982
K8
JT9

5
A6
AQ5
Q876532

1NT - 2S! ( transfer to Cl, 4-suit transfers )
2NT! ( pre-accept ) - 4C! ( RKC )
4H ( 2nd step = 1/4 ) - 4NT/5C ( to play, since 2 key cards missing )
pass..............Responder chooses 5C unless he feels lucky at 4NT.

[BillPatch]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-23, 05:06, said:

Usually pairs that play 2♠ as a weak take-out in a minor play 3m as natural and slammy. If you agree this then you do not need to change anything else.

It should be noted that in SAYC, a major focus of this forum, a direct 3m is natural, invitational and non-forcing. To force in a minor requires using stayman first befor rebidding 3m on the 2nd round.