[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-March-12, 07:19, said:

I knew you were going to say that
Also ♠AKxx ♥Qx and crappy diamonds, if you want a real minimum.
But there is no shortage of hands near minimum where 3NT is the only place to be.

♠AKQx and 9 other cards

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-March-14, 15:27, said:

♠AKQx and 9 other cards

Which is pretty much the actual hand.

I still doubt that blasting the slam is percentage at MP: if BBO will restore the tricks function to Dealer I will be happy to simulate it.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-March-14, 16:17, said:

Which is pretty much the actual hand.

I still doubt that blasting the slam is percentage at MP: if BBO will restore the tricks function to Dealer I will be happy to simulate it.

Sim may not work that well anyway, give partner AK/A either way round in the pointies, there is a decent chance of a heart lead if leader doesn't have the A, or that they cash the A if they do have it on an auction where you've shown a LOT of clubs (or that they rise with the A when you lead a heart off the deck).

[kgr]

jillybean, on 2024-March-13, 00:48, said:

---

3/15 pairs bid 6C, others stopped in 5C or 3nt

I would bid 2C...4C: slem interest with good clubs.
1D-2C
2S-4C
4S

4♠ is 1st/2nd control in ♠, no control ♦/♥
6♣ should be good without ♦A or K.

[pescetom]

kgr, on 2024-April-08, 07:50, said:

I would bid 2C...4C: slem interest with good clubs.
1D-2C
2S-4C
4S

4♠ is 1st/2nd control in ♠, no control ♦/♥
6♣ should be good without ♦A or K.

It makes sense, but you need bulletproof and perhaps non-optimal meta agreements to be able to control-bid over responder's jump rebid of a minor. It's particularly awkward if a major was bid on first round and rebidding it might be natural. But even in this example, you need to give up 4D as a Kickback. And presumably use 4NT as RKCB, which is a SNAFU when trumps are a minor suit, particularly clubs with replies 0314.

I don't have a magic answer, just pointing out the problem. I am a fan of control-bidding, but over a minor I think on the whole a Kickback is simpler in terms of agreements and that has some importance, particularly between intermediates.

[kgr]

pescetom, on 2024-April-08, 09:33, said:

It makes sense, but you need bulletproof and perhaps non-optimal meta agreements to be able to control-bid over responder's jump rebid of a minor. It's particularly awkward if a major was bid on first round and rebidding it might be natural. But even in this example, you need to give up 4D as a Kickback. And presumably use 4NT as RKCB, which is a SNAFU when trumps are a minor suit, particularly clubs with replies 0314.

I don't have a magic answer, just pointing out the problem. I am a fan of control-bidding, but over a minor I think on the whole a Kickback is simpler in terms of agreements and that has some importance, particularly between intermediates.

I don't have experience with Kickback, so also not with the related issue.
I agree that if partner did rebid his Major, then the jump in the minor could possibly be less clear as it could be seen as a control bid (which we would often do).
When we bid a minor over 3NT then it is most of the time a slem interest.
So also another recent post where Mike suggested to bid 4m as slem interest with a very food suit. It makes the bidding easier. And partner can reject with 4NT.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-April-08, 09:33, said:

It makes sense, but you need bulletproof and perhaps non-optimal meta agreements to be able to control-bid over responder's jump rebid of a minor. It's particularly awkward if a major was bid on first round and rebidding it might be natural. But even in this example, you need to give up 4D as a Kickback. And presumably use 4NT as RKCB, which is a SNAFU when trumps are a minor suit, particularly clubs with replies 0314.

I don't have a magic answer, just pointing out the problem. I am a fan of control-bidding, but over a minor I think on the whole a Kickback is simpler in terms of agreements and that has some importance, particularly between intermediates.

No, what you do is have 4♦ as KB, 4M don't deny a diamond control, 4N is a diamond control with no major control (or a diamond control if bid over 4M).

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-09, 02:51, said:

No, what you do is have 4♦ as KB, 4M don't deny a diamond control, 4N is a diamond control with no major control (or a diamond control if bid over 4M).

That's one way of having your cake and eating some of it, although it means giving up Turbo and you still need meta agreements about if/when 4M is natural if that major was already bid.
Another is that 4D is Kickback, 4M (if not natural by agreement) promises both diamonds and the major control and 4NT is Turbo.

But I think the average pair of intermediates can get along quite well with just 4D as Kickback, 4M natural, 4N natural to play.

[pescetom]

kgr, on 2024-April-09, 02:43, said:

I agree that if partner did rebid his Major, then the jump in the minor could possibly be less clear as it could be seen as a control bid (which we would often do).
When we bid a minor over 3NT then it is most of the time a slem interest.
So also another recent post where Mike suggested to bid 4m as slem interest with a very food suit. It makes the bidding easier. And partner can reject with 4NT.

Sure, we're aligned on this. One never pulls 3NT to a minor without at least mild slam interest.