[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     1NT   Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♦    Pass
 3♥    Pass  3NT   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

[han]

Depends on your agreement. I play it as shortness.

[mike777]

With no agreement I would just assume, 3H=cuebid, slam try in D.

Now my hand looks great over a slam try of 3H. I got everything but D but you promise a ton of those so.

I would have just rkc over a slam try of 3H.
Of course I prefer to just make a fragment bid of 3H over1nt to show this hand.


1nt=3h
3nt=p

Fragment bid often shows...Kxx in the bid major and a stiff in the other major.

[Mr. Dodgy]

not sure if it's standard (or even a good method), but I agree with ya Wayne, I'd (like to) play responder's rebids here as showing shortness/weakness - so I'd try 3♠ instead of 3♥.

Some may disagree with transferring on this hand, but I don't see many other good options.

[helene_t]

You can play it as natural and then use Stayman followed by 3♦ as an invitational 6-4, but most play it as either a singleton or a concentration of values. The modern trend among Dutch experts is to play it as a singleton, not sure how international that trend is.

[kenberg]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 11 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

not sure if it's standard (or even a good method), but I agree with ya Wayne, I'd (like to) play responder's rebids here as showing shortness/weakness - so I'd try 3♠ instead of 3♥.

Some may disagree with transferring on this hand, but I don't see many other good options.

I would say transferring to Ds and then bidding the spade shortness is exactly right. From responder's viewpoint the right contract could be 3NT, 5D, or 6D and bidding that way should clarify which.

I don't understand the actual auction. I have played it as showing short hearts (my preference), I have played it as showing diamonds and four hearts, I have never played it as showing diamonds and three hearts, or diamonds and a heart stop, or whatever he had in mind. I guess you could, but I have never seen it. 'Till now. Live and learn.

[Mr. Dodgy]

Oh I like this auction (transfer+shortness) very much, I'll be pointing my RL partner at this thread to be sure

My comment is based up on remarks from other players along the lines of "transfers to minors are only really useful with weak hands". Is it that this sort of slam-invitational hand is the exception, or are there others, or are the aforementioned players completely mistaken?

[the hog]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 12 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Oh I like this auction (transfer+shortness) very much, I'll be pointing my RL partner at this thread to be sure

My comment is based up on remarks from other players along the lines of "transfers to minors are only really useful with weak hands". Is it that this sort of slam-invitational hand is the exception, or are there others, or are the aforementioned players completely mistaken?

The easy answer to this question is to give you a hand:
x
Kxx
KQJxxx
Kxx

Qxx
AQx
Axx
QJxx

Which game would you rather be in, 3NT or 5D?

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Nov 11 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 11 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

The modern trend among Dutch experts is to play it as a singleton, not sure how international that trend is.

Global

Yes and I am surprised there was no 3♠ bid instead, but either way I just bid 3NT.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Nov 12 2007, 03:21 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 11 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

The modern trend among Dutch experts is to play it as a singleton, not sure how international that trend is.

Global

Nope, not global.

I've seen it played both ways in England, either as a shortage or (how I play it) as natural. If I have, say, x KQxx AJxxxx Ax I transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

[Fluffy]

England should be put into a separate thing out of the globe

[BillHiggin]

I certainly have thought that transfer to minor then bid major was near universal for slam try with shortness in the major.

I like (but am not about to assume this)
Transfer to ♣ then bid 3♦ as long either minor and shortness in the other (since transfer to diamonds precludes showing club shortness)
Then 3♥ asks and 3♠ shows long ♣ while 3N (or higher) shows long ♦

How common is that treatment?

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

I've seen it played both ways in England, either as a shortage or (how I play it) as natural. If I have, say, x KQxx AJxxxx Ax I transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

That's how I play it, with a 12-15 NT.

Dunno if it's worth changing. How often does the shortness bid come up for those who play it that way?

[MickyB]

The "right" way to play it depends on the rest of your structure, but IMO it should be (very) rare to bid a hand 1N:3N (or 1N:2♣, blah:3N) when you have a small singleton.

x Kxx KQJTxx Kxx

Axxx AQx xx AQxx

6♦ is a much better contract than 3NT. If you don't have a way to show the stiff spade, it's very hard to reach.

Even if you remove one of responder's kings, it can still be very right to play in 5 or 6m.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Nov 12 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

I've seen it played both ways in England, either as a shortage or (how I play it) as natural. If I have, say, x KQxx AJxxxx Ax I transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

That's how I play it, with a 12-15 NT.

Dunno if it's worth changing. How often does the shortness bid come up for those who play it that way?

It's not infrequent, and I like it a lot. It is useful both for slam tries and for COG decisions.

Anyway, in North American standard bidding you show a GF hand with a 4-card major and a longer minor by starting with stayman (and rebidding 3m if you don't find a major fit); unless you use this sequence for something else, shortness showing seems clearly better.

[FrancesHinden]

cherdano, on Nov 12 2007, 04:54 PM, said:

It's not infrequent, and I like it a lot. It is useful both for slam tries and for COG decisions.

Anyway, in North American standard bidding you show a GF hand with a 4-card major and a longer minor by starting with stayman (and rebidding 3m if you don't find a major fit); unless you use this sequence for something else, shortness showing seems clearly better.

I don't think it is 'clearly better'.

There's nothing wrong with shortness showing as a concept, and I'd be happy to play it with someone who asked me to, and it does indeed depend on the rest of the system.

But I hate the standard approach of playing Stayman-then-3-minor as a slam try with a 4-card major and a longer minor, it makes decent slam bidding much much harder. You have some 1462 slam interest hand and start with Stayman. Now if partner responder 2S, you bid 3D and partner knows you have hearts and diamonds - fine. But if partner responds 2D you bid 3D and he doesn't have any idea of your shape; if partner responds 2H you usually have to bid 3S to show a slam try in hearts, and again partner has no idea that Axx KQxx AQx Jxx is a huge hand but Axx KQxx Jxx AQx is much less suitable. The huge advantage of transfer-to-diamonds-then-bid-your-second-suit is that partner knows which two suits you have at the 3-level and can evaluate appropriately.

The disadvantage is when you are 6331, you don't have a second suit, and you aren't strong enough to transfer and splinter. I solve those hands with a direct 3-minor response to 1NT showing a single-suited slam try.

That allows me to use 1NT - 2C - 3x- 3minor as something altogether different & more useful - in one partnership these bids show 3-suiters with a singleton in the other minor, in the other they are shape enquiries.

[mike777]

It seems to me Frances is bringing up a very old debate. The issue of captaincy, do both partners try and tell each other their hand or in this case does the nt hand describe and the responder hand simply ask for the most part.

In a perfect world we all tell each other what our hand is but baring that what is the most practical approach without straining the memory when we are under pressure. Simplicity need not to be a bridge sin.

[skjaeran]

I'm now in the transfer-shortness camp.
But I've also played like Frances suggest; transfer-natural. Both versions have their upside and downside.

Btw, I think Helgemo-Helness would bid 1NT-3♠ here.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 12 2007, 03:21 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 11 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

The modern trend among Dutch experts is to play it as a singleton, not sure how international that trend is.

Global

Nope, not global.

I've seen it played both ways in England, either as a shortage or (how I play it) as natural. If I have, say, x KQxx AJxxxx Ax I transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

Interesting to see "England" and "modern trend" in the same post. (just kidding, I don't know what I'm talking about)