[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 5 ♥ 754 ♦ 62 ♣ AQJT652

West North East South

 -     2NT   Pass  ?
 

What is your bid and why please.

[helene_t]

6♣. Try to get it in partner's hand if possible. 6N could fail if p has xx of clubs and Kxx is offside. Or if he only has a single ♠ guard.

If we don't have transfer to the minors, I'm not sure if 6N or 6♣ is better.

[pclayton]

Is 4♣ ace-asking? If yes, thats my bid.

I saw the title of the thread, but I'd like to check on aces first, since we could possibly be off 3.

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Jul 16 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

If I have no methods I will bid 3C then 4C (which will show clubs). I don't think this hand is worth a slam force.

Agree. The hand isn't good enough to just blast or force to slam. If I can make a slam try which partner can reject, I'll do that. If not, I'll just bid 5♣. With my regular partner I'd bid 4♣ directly, natural onesuited slam try. Partner might accept with a cuebid or reject with 4NT or 5♣.

[neilkaz]

Opposite your normal 20-21 2NT I think there can often be two losers for slam. I'll make a one suited slam try in ♣ by what ever means PD and I are playing to do so.

♣ slams look better to me than NT here since PD may have only 1 guard somewhere ..ie ♠ and my trump may be needed to save us. Off course, PD can pull a ♣ slam to NT anyhow.

Once, again, I don't see this as strong enough to insist on slam, but perhaps am to cautious ?

.. neilkaz ..

[pclayton]

skaeran, on Jul 16 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 16 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

If I have no methods I will bid 3C then 4C (which will show clubs). I don't think this hand is worth a slam force.

Agree. The hand isn't good enough to just blast or force to slam. If I can make a slam try which partner can reject, I'll do that. If not, I'll just bid 5♣. With my regular partner I'd bid 4♣ directly, natural onesuited slam try. Partner might accept with a cuebid or reject with 4NT or 5♣.

I agree too, but it will be very hard for pard to cooperate. I think a 7 loser hand will frequently make slam anyway, so its reasonable to take charge.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Jul 16 2007, 09:54 AM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 5 ♥ 754 ♦ 62 ♣ AQJT652

West North East South

 -     2NT   Pass  ?
 

What is your bid and why please.

JB,

There appears to be (at least to me) some presumption on your part that this hand *must* play in "a slam'" from the thread title.

If you believe this, then it is off-base, imo. Just because you "can" make slam in one strain or another, does not mean you necessarily belong in one. This hand does not qualify as good enough to force to slam, at least not for me.

If I am reading this wrong, then I apologize.

This particular hand is only worth inviting to 6C, imo, via whatever methods you have available to you. I would not want to play 6N on this holding, if that is the choice you are trying to make. It's 5C or 6C, other options are out of the question. 3N might be a possibility at matchpoints, but since the problem is listed as IMP's, I would not play 3N.

If you have no methods available to force to game and invite a club slam, or if you decided that no matter what you are bidding a slam on these cards and it is just a question of what slam to bid, then I would transfer to clubs (if possible), bid 6C and pray. If its not possible to transfer, just bid 6C and pray harder.

jmoo.

[mikeh]

This is a tough hand in the B/I context, since accurate bidding over our own 2N 'preempt' is a very complex area: I have seen NO good but simple methods...my own methods are so complex that I have to specifically study them every time I am going to play seriously... and that has been the case for the last 4 partnerships, each using different methods

If you trust partner (and you should, even if the trust is initially misplaced... keep trusting partner until either partner becomes trustworthy or you change partners) then I like Justin's idea of 3♣ followed by 4♣.

There is a real issue here: that sequence sounds as if you hold 4 cards in a major and 5+ clubs. Thus, 2N 3♣ 3♠ 4♣ 4♥ is not actually a cuebid (assuming you respond to stayman via 3♠ with both majors) but, rather, a suggestion that we play our 4-4 ♥ fit.

However, 4♦ would be a cue.

Alternatively, if you are a gambler, you can haul out the G****r bid and hope that partner has enough Aces and enough tricks that you can make whatever you end up in: remembering that partner will take 5♣ as confirming all the Aces and asking about Kings, so you are committing to slam even off 2 or 3 Aces!

KQJx KQJx KQJ Kx is not a probable holding, but it is a possible holding

So assuming that we should aim for slam is not, frankly, something I'd do.

Heck, even opposite 3 Aces and the club K, slam is not cold, especially from our side.

Now, most expert pairs have ways of suggesting a slam-invitational minor one-suiter, and I think this hand, barely, qualifies.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Jul 16 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

Heck, even opposite 3 Aces and the club K, slam is not cold, especially from our side.

Isn't right siding the contract a good reason to play in NT?

[neilkaz]

This would make a great hand for a sim if someone has software. Opposite the typical 20-21 5332 or 4333 2NT how often does this make 6♣ from each side and how often does this make 6NT ?

Just curious..neilkaz ..

[Echognome]

mikeh, on Jul 16 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

This is a tough hand in the B/I context, since accurate bidding over our own 2N 'preempt' is a very complex area: I have seen NO good but simple methods...my own methods are so complex that I have to specifically study them every time I am going to play seriously... and that has been the case for the last 4 partnerships, each using different methods

I agree with this statement.

I have done a lot more work on strong club bidding which circumvents the 2NT problem, but creates its own problems.

One sequence that is not often discussed in new partnerships is what is the 2NT - 3♠ bid? A lot of people play that as a hand that either wants to play in 3NT or is minor-suit oriented. I don't think it's a good idea to get into all of the complexities that can evolve from that sequence, but I do think it's a reasonable area to put these hand-types if you are going to discuss it with partner.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Playing basic methods, I would bid 2NT-3C-any-4C and hope that partner took control. If he just raises to 5C, I would pass.

Playing my normal methods, which are fairly complex, 2NT-4S*(a club slam try that might pass(I would pass with this hand) a 5C signoff bid.

I would like to get partner to play any club contract and the 4S* invite will normally place the contract in the 2NT bidder hand.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

Its nice to have a 3S gadget here. I think it should taught in a basic context for responding to 2N along with Stayman and transfers.

Im still asking for aces. If we have a deficient number I'l play 4N.

I'm still at a complete loss how we expect to 'invite' slam with this. Do we really care if pard has a club fit? There are minimums that make a great slam, but some maxes that give us a bad slam.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jul 16 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

I'm still at a complete loss how we expect to 'invite' slam with this. Do we really care if pard has a club fit? There are minimums that make a great slam, but some maxes that give us a bad slam.

This statement is partially true: but a 'maximum' in a suit-invitational context is not necessarily the same hand as a maximum in a quantitative notrump slam invitational context.

In the latter, we tend to focus more on sheer hcp, along with possession of a chunky 5 card suit (as an example), expecting the quantitaitve inviter to have at least a partial fit for all suits.

In the former, we focus more on the nature of the strength, not the quantity. So a control-rich 20 count will be a maximum will a quack-ful 21 will be a minimum. A high honour in partner's suit will help us assess... and we won't worry too much if it is Kx or Kxx....

And when we invite with 6 side losers, we need partner to be control-rich to accept.

Thus I would not expect partner to drive us to a slam off 2 keycards. And I avoid (probably) the dangerous 4N off the ♣K...now, I am not overly worried about 4N but it is foolish to assume that partner always has the ♣K or xxx(x) or that it is short and onside.