[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2019-June-01, 09:27, said:

Our experiences are obviously very different. As are, it seems, our notions of how best to design bidding methods. Which, of course, is why bridge is so interesting,

This is an area where I'm not convinced my system is particularly great, but bread and butter hands where you have ♣KQxxxx, a King and no singleton work way better when the 2N opener asks

[fromageGB]

briannz556, on 2019-May-31, 17:20, said:

I like the 2N-3S-3N-4C-4D Ace ask and subsequent developments.

The problem with this 3♠ is that if 4♣ is always a slammish hand, then you are stuck when you have a weak hand that wants opener to play in 3♣. Your current transfer approach does both.

I have no problem in ace asking when I have no spade control, as in this sequence. The chances of opener having nothing there is miniscule. Conversely the problem with opener asking is that he is guessing how many clubs responder has. Is it 5? 6? 7? 8? He might need to know to bid the correct slam. If your sequence shows 6 clubs, what do you do when you have a different number?

[Lovera]

Because you have 12 tricks can try for one more squeezing W/E in ♥-♠.

[johnu]

fromageGB, on 2019-June-01, 10:24, said:

The problem with this 3♠ is that if 4♣ is always a slammish hand, then you are stuck when you have a weak hand that wants opener to play in 3♣.

It's tough to play 3♣ after an opening 2NT unless 3♣ is signoff.

[miamijd]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-01, 07:55, said:

On most hands you want the much stronger hand to ask because the weak hand may be able to show every high card as they have less of them. The problem is when the weak hand has a surprise (like the 7th club) which it can't show, and a flaw (2 losing spades) which prevents it from asking. Cue bidding starts unpleasantly high after a 2N opener, which means it is difficult, and sometimes you just have to punt. It happens frequently enough that when you correctly bail in 4N/5♣ that you lose big to everybody else who blasted slam and didn't get the right lead.

You generally want the shapelier hand (unless it has a void) to be the one asking about key cards, as it is easier for that hand to see how the play will develop.

Cheers,
mike

[Cyberyeti]

miamijd, on 2019-June-02, 00:11, said:

You generally want the shapelier hand (unless it has a void) to be the one asking about key cards, as it is easier for that hand to see how the play will develop.

Cheers,
mike

On some hands yes,but say you have xx, xx, Kxx, KQJxxx, knowing partner has 3 aces and a king in a balanced 20 count doesn't help, he might have AKxx, QJxx, AQ, Axx or AQx, Kxx, AQJxx, Ax, whereas partner will get to find out you have ♣KQxxxx and ♦K and can judge accordingly.

[fromageGB]

johnu, on 2019-June-01, 14:19, said:

It's tough to play 3♣ after an opening 2NT unless 3♣ is signoff.

Of course when I have such a hand I do want opener to play in 3♣, and 2♣ would be better, but I do concede it has to be 4♣

[Lovera]

nige1, on 2019-May-31, 10:22, said:

briannz556 writes 'North opens 2N. My question is what is the best way to get to slam 6N / 6♣. We play transfers & control bidding. I've toyed with:
2N - 3♠ - 4♣ - 4♦ - 4♥
but then feel I should just bid 5♣ and let North make the decision. But it doesn't grab me as being ideal.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Non-expert comments...
-- In my favorite version of Muppet, 3♠ is a ♣ transfer and then 4♦ is RKC for ♣s but, lacking that understanding, I like JohnU's Gerber 4♣.
-- There seem to be 12 top tricks, so you would like to reach at least 6N and 7N by North is reasonable.

---

But also Minorwood and then asking in ♠ knowing of Queen with the answer of 5♦ and then again with 5♥ knowing Queen having 5♠ by N and all is clear about to bid ..

[pescetom]

fromageGB, on 2019-June-02, 03:17, said:

Of course when I have such a hand I do want opener to play in 3♣, and 2♣ would be better, but I do concede it has to be 4♣

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

[maartenxq]

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

Maarten Baltussen

[Lovera]

maartenxq, on 2019-June-02, 08:04, said:

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

Maarten Baltussen

Exactly ( a my suggest is to avoid the finesse but to consider the squeeze play to bypass it as for the elimination play ).

[Cyberyeti]

maartenxq, on 2019-June-02, 08:04, said:

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

Maarten Baltussen

KQJ♦ together for example can also help in some situations

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2019-June-02, 04:29, said:

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

A possible simple consistent response schema after 2N - ??

• 3♣ = ASK (Puppet/Muppet/Crowhurst/Ordinary Stayman).
• 3♦ = TRF 5+ ♥s.
• 3♥ = TRF 5+ ♠s.
• 3♠ = TRF 6+ ♣s,
• 3N = S/O.
• 4♣ = TRF 6+ ♦s.
• 4♦ = TRF 6+ ♥s.
• 4♥ = TRF 6+ ♠s.

After e.g. 2N - 4♣ - 4♦ - ??

• 4♥ = RKC for ♦s.
• 4♠/4N/5♣ = EXC (Void ♠, ♥, ♣) for ♦.

[nige1]

maartenxq, on 2019-June-02, 08:04, said:

What faint chance of a miracle squeeze)? If spade king with 4 card hearts it is automatic. In fact I would play for that chance.

Lovera, on 2019-June-02, 09:35, said:

Exactly (my suggestion is to avoid the finesse but to consider the squeeze play.)

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-02, 10:25, said:

KQJ♦ together for example can also help in some situations

As Lovera and Cyberyeti point out, the ♦s give you slight extra double-squeeze chances

For example, Maartenxq's line results in 13 tricks when LHO has ♦KQJ and 4+ ♥s, as on the left.

---

On a non-♦ lead, if RHO shows out on the 1st or 2nd round of ♥s,
then declarer's best chance is to play for a layout like that on the left:
Cash the major winners and run ♣s for a standard double-squeeze.

---

[Cyberyeti]

Also if hearts are 5-1 you can cash ♠ A and use the J to squeeze E with ♦KQJ and ♠K, but reading that is pretty tough, and you probably just finesse.

[Lovera]

The analisys of the hand with other endings can take far away. I say that a double squeeze has its weakness in the double menace, if the opening lead is in that suit and is not protected.

[fromageGB]

pescetom, on 2019-June-02, 04:29, said:

Even then, using 3♠ as a transfer to clubs looks a dubious idea to me as you now also need a transfer to diamonds. If you use 3NT for that then you have to put a simple signoff in 3NT through 3♣, revealing gratuitous information about the opener's hand and limiting the possible Stayman developments. If you use 4♣ then you give up Gerber and (more important) leave opener no possibility to express like/dislike of the transfer or to retreat to 3NT. Or am I missing something here?

No, you are not missing anything, as it depends whether you think the sacrifice of right-siding is worth the slight benefit when there is a game hand. Perhaps this is a matchpoint / IMP thing, but it's a choice. With a minor hand good enough for game you can always use 3♠ "minor suit stayman" to get that information if you are prepared to play in 4NT when opener likes the wrong minor.

But I disagree with you that 4♣ to transfer to diamonds loses a useful Gerber. If I am for example interested in a NT slam I can transfer to clubs, or any suit in which I would like to know of the K, then ace ask etc with the next step. When I convert the answer to NT at any level opener does not argue. If I wish to progress to specific kings then likewise I can choose 6NT or 7NT. Even if your Gerber gives you specific kings, I cannot see how it improves the situation.

[pescetom]

fromageGB, on 2019-June-05, 12:50, said:

No, you are not missing anything, as it depends whether you think the sacrifice of right-siding is worth the slight benefit when there is a game hand. Perhaps this is a matchpoint / IMP thing, but it's a choice. With a minor hand good enough for game you can always use 3♠ "minor suit stayman" to get that information if you are prepared to play in 4NT when opener likes the wrong minor.

But I disagree with you that 4♣ to transfer to diamonds loses a useful Gerber. If I am for example interested in a NT slam I can transfer to clubs, or any suit in which I would like to know of the K, then ace ask etc with the next step. When I convert the answer to NT at any level opener does not argue. If I wish to progress to specific kings then likewise I can choose 6NT or 7NT. Even if your Gerber gives you specific kings, I cannot see how it improves the situation.

Thanks. As it happens, my Gerber does give specific kings (when investigating for 7NT) but that's far from essential and I agree that Gerber itself is not either, in this context. I would be more concerned about losing the possibility to retreat to 3NT, but I agree it is related to other partnership agreements and to MP/IMP focus.

[Winstonm]

For all the ace-askers on this thread who asked for aces without control in spades, I curse your partners to forever hold:
Qxx, AQxx, AKQx, Ax

[fromageGB]

Winstonm, on 2019-June-05, 22:25, said:

For all the ace-askers on this thread who asked for aces without control in spades, I curse your partners to forever hold:
Qxx, AQxx, AKQx, Ax

Well, I said in post #22 the odds are against this, but I'm sure it's not worth anyone working out how unlikely this is. Almost all you want is an ace or king in spades. Bidding goes on probability, and when this happens you shrug and accept your bad luck. The fact that opener might get only 5 tricks with this hand does not prevent him from opening 2NT. Equally the fact that I might not make 6♣/NT will not prevent me from bidding it.