[kiwinacol]

South Dealer
S J2
H AQJ4
D KJ98
C AJ3

North
S AQT9876
H 3
D AQ54
C 2


some possibilities:

1N 2H, 2S … now 3D GF natural or 4C/4H splinters? I've assumed a raise to 3S is invitational but it maybe GF? If 3S is GF the auction would be easier.

1N 2H, 2S 3D, 4D 4N, 5H 6S … 4N is KCB, 1430.

I’ve just realised a complication with above auction, are trumps D or S’s? If D’s North may have bid 5D showing the KD.

So perhaps splinter better as you only want to play in spades? Another question: I’d like to bid 4C as splinter (better splinter giving partner some bidding room) or could it be Gerber (4NT being quantitative)?

1N 2H, 2S 4C … if 4C is standard as Gerber, then 4H splinter but its not going to be that helpful.

Finally a texas transfer but that doesn’t seem to get any extra information from opener either.

thank you , Ash

[SteveMoe]

I like
1N - (P) - 2♥ - (P)
2♠ - (P) - 4♣* - (P)
4♦ - (P) - 4♥ - (P)
4♠ - (P) - 5♦ - (P)
6♠

*=splinter.

Wouldn't try to find ♦ as trumps. Swans always play best in the long suit.

If splinters are not available to you, then rebuilding a forcing 3♦ after the Jacoby transfer to 2♠ can finish in several ways. What I'd expect is:

3♥ - (P) - 3♠ - (P)
4♣ - (P) - 4♦ - (P)
4♠ - (P) - 5♣ - (P)
5♦ - (P) - 5N* - (P)
6♦ - (P) - 6♠ - AP

[mgoetze]

kiwinacol, on 2016-March-24, 17:55, said:

I’d like to bid 4C as splinter (better splinter giving partner some bidding room) or could it be Gerber (4NT being quantitative)?

LOL, no.

It's a really tough hand for North because the ♦K could be the difference between slam making and the 5-level being unsafe. I don't see any good solution to this problem with standardish methods. I guess splinter and give up if partner signs off is OK.

[rmnka447]

I think 3 ♦ which is forcing is fine. You have a hand where slam can be on the horizon when partner has fitting cards. So here describing what you hold is better than showing something you don't hold. By bidding 3 ♦ your showing a hand with at least 5 ♠ and 4 ♦
but often 5-5 or more distributional. By showing 9+ cards in the suits bid, you're also implying some shortness in the unbid suits.

Ask yourself how you'd react to a 4 ♣ or 4 ♥ splinter with opener's hand? You hold the A and values in either suit, positive for the A, but not for the other values. And you don't have a clue about partner's holding in the other suits. OTOH, when 3 ♦ is bid, you have to be thrilled with a big fit in ♦, the side suit controls and ♠ honor doubleton in opener's hand.

Since you've "agreed" on ♦ after partner's 4 ♦ raise, ♦ should be the keycard suit. As it turns out, anytime partner can show 3 keys, you'll be willing to bid 6 ♠. The complication comes when partner answers 2 keys as you don't know if partner holds the ♠ K or not. Then, you're either missing an A and need ♠ to come in without a loser or missing the ♦ K and need ♠ and ♦ to come in with no more than 1 loser total between them. You might consider just bidding 5 ♠.

3 ♠ would be invitational with 6+ ♠.

Typically, Texas transfers are used for hands in which you are only interested in game. But many good players add a small wrinkle to using Texas that solves the 4 ♣ Gerber or not issue you bring up. If you use a Texas transfer and then bid 4 NT, it's RKCB for the transfer suit.

Then a transfer followed by 4 ♣ is never Gerber. Likewise, a transfer followed by 4 NT is always quantitative. Both those sequences are ones that people often get confused about otherwise.

Also, if Texas is for game only hands, a simple transfer followed by a game bid in the major is at least a mild slam try.

Some of the other regular posters will have some additions or other possibilities. My comments are pretty basic.

[kiwinacol]

Thank you for the many comments so far. As usual there are contrasting ideas and they have helped me settle on a sensible approach. Ash.

[billw55]

Texas and keycard. Not interested in disclosing my side suit to the defense.

[kenberg]

First, I think just anout everyone plays 1N-2H-2S-3S as invit. I have a partner who still likes the old fashioned 1N-3S as forcing, and I suppose one could reverse this and play 1N-3S as invit, the other as forcing, but it would be against common usage I think.

Ok, trf and raise, forcing, is out.

When I have seven spades and partner opens 1NT, I regard spades as trump. Spades are the main feature of the hand, if there is a spade loser it will be lost whatever the contract is, so spades are trump.

Here is a question: Suppose it goes 1N-2H-2S-4C. Here, with a max, I assume partner would bid 4D on his K, even with only Jx in spades. Would he? How about if he has a 15 count and the diamond K? Here is the point. Suppose it goes 1N-2H-2S-4C-4H. If this denies the diamond K, maybe I do not want to be in 6S unless I have all the keys? Give partner the hear A, the spade K but not the club A, partner will be declaring in spades, and the opening lead will be a diamond.
Which perhaps speaks in favor of Bill's quick auction 1N-4H-4S-4N, except that even if we don't get a diamond lead we may have to deal with diamonds sooner or later. But later may be better.

Now bout 1N-2H-2S-3D. I like to play follow ups this way: A rebid of 3S sets spades as trump. A rebid of 3NT is a warning that slam may be undesirable because openers prime values are in NT. Anything else accepts diamonds as trump. The problem with that in this case is that I don't want to accept diamonds as trump, I want spades to be trump. Playing in this manner, 1N-2H-2S-3D-3H sets diamonds as trump and shows the A or K of hearts. Partner has a great diamond holding, but I still want to be in spades. So I am not starting this 1N-2H-2S-3D.

At the table, with the level of agreement I have with most partners, I am sure it would go 1N-4H-4S-4NT-5H(two keys, no Q)-6S, just as Bill recommends. I can imagine splintering for the reasons I mention above, but I would probably just keep it simple.

[kenberg]

First, I think just anout everyone plays 1N-2H-2S-3S as invit. I have a partner who still likes the old fashioned 1N-3S as forcing, and I suppose one could reverse this and play 1N-3S as invit, the other as forcing, but it would be completely against common usage I think.

Ok, trf and raise, forcing, is out.

When I have seven spades and partner opens 1NT, I regard spades as trump. Spades are the main feature of the hand, if there is a spade loser it will be lost whatever the contract is, so spades are trump.

Here is a question: Suppose it goes 1N-2H-2S-4C. Here, with a max, I assume partner would bid 4D on his K, even with only Jx in spades. Would he? How about if he has a 15 count and the diamond K? Here is the point. Suppose it goes 1N-2H-2S-4C-4H. If this denies the diamond K, maybe I do not want to be in 6S unless I have all the keys? Give partner the heart A, the spade K but not the club A, partner will be declaring in spades, and the opening lead could be a diamond. Of course if partner has AK of hearts I don't mind this lead at all, since my club loser is about to disappear.
Which perhaps speaks in favor of Bill's quick auction 1N-4H-4S-4N, except that even if we don't get a diamond lead we may have to deal with diamonds sooner or later. But later may be better.

Now about 1N-2H-2S-3D. I like to play follow ups this way: A rebid of 3S sets spades as trump. A rebid of 3NT is a warning that slam may be undesirable because openers prime values are in clubs and hearts. The hands don't fit well. 3NT may be the right contract. Anything other than 3S or 3NT accepts diamonds as trump. The problem with that in this case is that I don't want to accept diamonds as trump, I want spades to be trump. Playing in this manner, 1N-2H-2S-3D-3H sets diamonds as trump and shows the A or K of hearts. Partner has a great diamond holding, but I still want to be in spades. So I am not starting this 1N-2H-2S-3D.

At the table, with the level of agreement I have with most partners, I am sure it would go 1N-4H-4S-4NT-5H(two keys, no Q)-6S, just as Bill recommends. I can imagine splintering for the reasons I mention above, but I would probably just keep it simple. Yes diamonds could be a problem, but I just go for it.

Added: With a different opening hand it might go 1N-4H-4S-4N-3 keys (either 5C or 5D, whichever shows 3) and now I have to decide about 7. Presumably 5NT asks about Kings, and 6C would show the diamond K. And now? I still have to figure out what to do with the fourth diamond.

More added: There is one other possibility. If opener's two Aces were Kings, he would still have an opening NT hand. Slam is less likely to make now. One should have an agreement for sorting out the 0/3. One way: After 1N-4H-4S-4N-0/3 keys, a rebid of 5S says that 0 keys are not enough, 3 keys are enough. This of course means that you cannot start rkc unless 3 keys are enough, but that is seldom a burden.

[gszes]

1n 2h 2s 3d This sequence shows more power than a normal GF since it is plausible we could end of in 5m (which we would convert to spades in this case) and it takes more power to make at 5 level then 3n or 4M.

This is a fine start. We begin by showing opener where our 2 suits are and letting them reevaluate how their hand looks. This hand might belong anywhere from 3N <we wont play it there preferring 4s> (xx KQJT Kxx KQJT) to 7n (KJ Axxx KJxx Axxx and we need to take it slow to give ourselves the best chance of finding out where we want to play.

It is still the job of opener (with no spade fit else bid 3<slammish> or 4<not slammish> spades or a cue bid <average>) to focus on NT vs the minor unless they have a slammish hand a a dia fit. This is a semi normal hand but the club suit can be a problem. I would begin with 3h pinpointing opener's problem with clubs.

3s by responder now sets trumps and shows slam interest
4c cue (3n could be bid now with only the club K so this is the ace and not much else -maybe the J)
4n rkc
5h 2 w/o
6s no 7 missing a key card especially with only 9 trumps <even if you knew it was the spade K missing) that same missing key card opposite know club weakness rules out 6n.

1n 2h 2s 3d 3h 3s 4c 4n 5h 6s

[kiwinacol]

very interesting, thanks all

[Siegmund]

First hand I've seen since I read Allan De Serpa's new book Sixpack that benefits from his method of replying to 1NT-2H-2S-3D by showing how many of six keycards (SK and DK counting) opener has. Not a mainstream method but certainly solves this problem nicely.

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2016-March-25, 06:38, said:

Texas and keycard. Not interested in disclosing my side suit to the defense.

Yes. Although it would work better to declare the hand myself but unfortunately we don't play strong jump shifts.

Anyway, 7-4 is a one-suiter and a splinter can't show two singletons.

I'll take my chances opposite two keycards. Even if we don't have the ♦K there are enough chances that I still want to be in slam so there is not much point in asking for it. If opener has three keycards we can hopefully ask for specific kings.

[Zelandakh]

This does not seem so difficult to me. North can make their systemic call to show a slammy one-suiter and initiate cue bids. They then arrange the auction to discover that South has ♦K and launch RKCB. Fow example, 1NT - 3♠; 3NT (serious) - 4♣; 4♦. This is even better if playing the multi-way 2nd round transfer method as North discovers the double-fit along the way as a bonus. If your NT structure does not have an auction to show a one-suiter and initiate cues, it might be worth re-considering. This is a serious weakness in some popular methods and extremely easy to fix.

[lycier]

" standard strategy "? of course, there are different standard approach on different agreements.
" best strategy "? of course, my approach should be best strategy - do my best to describe 7-4 double suits destribution and have to use DRKCB , here DRKCB is very important.

---

If I made a mistake, please tell me, thanks.

[Zelandakh]

lycier, on 2016-March-30, 07:41, said:

If I made a mistake, please tell me, thanks.

We would need to know your methods to say if there was a mistake or not. Certainly it is unusual for 5♦ to carry the information about the trump queens even in 6KCB but there are several different possibilities so it would be wrong to say for sure that it is not right.

[lycier]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 07:45, said:

We would need to know your methods to say if there was a mistake or not. Certainly it is unusual for 5♦ to carry the information about the trump queens even in 6KCB but there are several different possibilities so it would be wrong to say for sure that it is not right.

Not sure what you said, you would better take some examples to show my mistakes if my approach is not best, thank you very much.