Texas xfer
#1
Posted 2014-October-26, 14:18
#2
Posted 2014-October-26, 15:06
#4
Posted 2014-October-26, 16:23
Simply for your information, none of this is new. This has been standard in 2/1 for more than 30 years.
#5
Posted 2014-October-26, 18:20
#6
Posted 2014-October-26, 18:53
Bbradley62, on 2014-October-26, 18:20, said:
GIB could have a hand that wants to set trump and ask keycard.
#7
Posted 2014-October-26, 22:51
iandayre, on 2014-October-26, 16:23, said:
Simply for your information, none of this is new. This has been standard in 2/1 for more than 30 years.
I have wanted to advocate new suits after Texas transfer as exclusion RKC, but felt it was not standard. So, I am happy to see someone assert that it is somewhat standard.
Do others concur that Exclusion RKC is standard for new suits after Texas?
#8
Posted 2014-October-27, 06:40
Bbradley62, on 2014-October-26, 14:18, said:
Texas transfer is a bad idea- it also a terrible idea for GIB which has no bidding sense.
Give 1NT ♠AKx♥AQxx♦Ax♣xxxx and its a fairly good slam. The GIB hand is low slam potential hand but not so low that Texas Transfer is good idea.
#9
Posted 2014-October-27, 07:09
#10
Posted 2014-October-27, 09:58
But it is definitely a judgement issue not a system one.
#11
Posted 2014-October-27, 11:48
cloa513, on 2014-October-27, 06:40, said:
Give 1NT ♠AKx♥AQxx♦Ax♣xxxx and its a fairly good slam. The GIB hand is low slam potential hand but not so low that Texas Transfer is good idea.
The question is not: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good?"
The question is: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good and where a different approach (e.g. a Jacoby transfer) would have given us the necessary information?"
The 1NT openers where slam is good have four characteristics:
- They are maximum.
- They are very rich in controls.
- They have a doubleton in one of the red suits.
- They don't have wasted values in clubs.
If you can get this information from the 1NT opener by bidding something else, by all means do. But I suspect that GIB can't. So GIB judged quite well not to play partner for the perfect hand and simply signed off in game.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#12
Posted 2014-October-27, 12:50
cloa513, on 2014-October-27, 06:40, said:
"GIB which has no bidding sense" is the key point. Percentage wise slam probably won't be good opposite a random 1NT, you aren't going to get any cooperation from GIB in determining if it is any good, so why risk a disaster. Suppose you moved the ♣A to one of the 3 card suits, so you could Jacoby transfer and splinter. Even then, you never see GIB evaluate their strength or lack of strength in the splinter suit. Lot's of luck with this hand. Just take your average+ and go to the next board.
#13
Posted 2014-October-27, 12:53
Trinidad, on 2014-October-27, 11:48, said:
The question is: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good and where a different approach (e.g. a Jacoby transfer) would have given us the necessary information?"
The 1NT openers where slam is good have four characteristics:
- They are maximum.
- They are very rich in controls.
- They have a doubleton in one of the red suits.
- They don't have wasted values in clubs.
If you can get this information from the 1NT opener by bidding something else, by all means do. But I suspect that GIB can't. So GIB judged quite well not to play partner for the perfect hand and simply signed off in game.
Rik
As it happened, South's response to Jacoby 2♥ would have been to show a max with 4 spades and doubleton diamond.
#14
Posted 2014-October-27, 13:22
Bbradley62, on 2014-October-27, 12:53, said:
Nice, you would have gotten half way (2 out of 4). Would GIB also have been able to find out all about your controls and the xxx(x) in clubs (or alternatively show a slam try with club shortness)? If he can't, Texas is still the right bid.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#15
Posted 2014-October-27, 16:36
Trinidad, on 2014-October-27, 13:22, said:
Rik
After the superaccept and re-transfer, RKC would have told North about South's 4 Keycards. After that, it's a gamble as to whether there is a 12th trick. Alternatively, North could cuebid ♣ after the superaccept, which also might get you there.
Cloa got my hand right, except that I had 2 small spades and 1 small heart, not vice versa.
#16
Posted 2014-October-30, 06:55
Bbradley62, on 2014-October-27, 16:36, said:
If it's going to be a gamble whether there would be a 12th trick, what do you think is better bridge:
- Immediately gambling game or slam
- First telling the opponents what all you have and then gamble game or slam
The key to the slam still lies in the four small clubs. Would GIB have been able to find that out? If not, he will need to gamble about it, and he would be better off doing that rightaway.
You suggest the auction should start:
1NT-2♥
3♦-3♥ (max, 4♠, doubleton ♦*, retransfer)
3♠-4NT (forced, RKCB)
5m (4 keys)
And you won't be able to tell the difference between:
♠AKxx
♥AQx
♦Ax
♣xxxx
(the hand that you seemed to have and that makes slam good)
and
♠AKxx
♥Axx
♦Ax
♣Qxxx
where slam has virtually no play.
----
* It is common to play that 3♦ shows a small doubleton diamond. If GIB plays like that (I don't know), GIB would certainly sign off in 4♠ as soon as he can.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#17
Posted 2014-October-30, 07:53
Trinidad, on 2014-October-30, 06:55, said:
- Immediately gambling game or slam
- First telling the opponents what all you have and then gamble game or slam
The key to the slam still lies in the four small clubs. Would GIB have been able to find that out? If not, he will need to gamble about it, and he would be better off doing that rightaway.
You suggest the auction should start:
1NT-2♥
3♦-3♥ (max, 4♠, doubleton ♦*, retransfer)
3♠-4NT (forced, RKCB)
5m (4 keys)
And you won't be able to tell the difference between:
♠AKxx
♥AQx
♦Ax
♣xxxx
(the hand that you seemed to have and that makes slam good)
and
♠AKxx
♥Axx
♦Ax
♣Qxxx
where slam has virtually no play.
----
* It is common to play that 3♦ shows a small doubleton diamond. If GIB plays like that (I don't know), GIB would certainly sign off in 4♠ as soon as he can.
Rik
Rather it should go 1NT, 2♦, 2♥, 4♣(splinter)- showing a weak slam chance, 4NT....6H.
Bidding an intermediate suit shows a stronger slam chance when you force to game.
#18
Posted 2014-October-31, 18:51
cloa513, on 2014-October-30, 07:53, said:
Bidding an intermediate suit shows a stronger slam chance when you force to game.
There are two slight problems:
- In this case, opener will not rebid 2♠ (I suppose you meant to transfer to spades), but superaccept with 3♦ (at least that is what Bbradley claims he would bid). Now, 4♣ is not a splinter anymore.
- It is ugly to splinter with a singleton A (or K), so I can understand that GIB didn't want to do that.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#19
Posted 2014-October-31, 20:30
Trinidad, on 2014-October-31, 18:51, said:
- In this case, opener will not rebid 2♠ (I suppose you meant to transfer to spades), but superaccept with 3♦ (at least that is what Bbradley claims he would bid). Now, 4♣ is not a splinter anymore.
- It is ugly to splinter with a singleton A (or K), so I can understand that GIB didn't want to do that.
Rik
My given hand is still not good enough to superaccept using GIB's standards- not 4cards support with 4432 shape with max