[pgeerkens]

To me, the North hand here is exactly what I envision as the ideal hand for this sequence; "I just can't bring myself to Blackwood knowing that 2 trump controls are missing."

South, staring at both the missing trump honours and a control rich hand, must do something.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit.

If so, the methods need changing. It's ridiculous to have to start investigating at the five level on this sort of hand.

[jdeegan]

gnasher, on Jan 6 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 23 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit.

If so, the methods need changing. It's ridiculous to have to start investigating at the five level on this sort of hand.

Good hand with a lotta good observations and issues brought to fore.

1) Missing six with 15 HCP opposite 15 HCP with no singletons or 5 card side suits as sources of tricks can't be that bad, esp. if the auction pinpoints a club lead.

2) Is it OK for responder to bid 3♥ w/o hearts or any interest in playing in hearts? Seems to me like opener and responder will soon be working at cross purposes on way too may hands.

3) I HATE (and so should you, imho.) the notion of superaccepting with only three card support. It violates the LOTT, which is the only reason superacceptance made any sense in the first place.

4) The idea of using a two level X-fer followed by a jump to game as a general purpose, somewhat balanced, but otherwise ill-defined "mild" slam try has always bothered me as showing too many different kinds of hands.

Oswald Jacoby used to play 3♥ or 3♠ in response to a 1NT opener as a semi-balanced, "mild" slam try with a poor 6-bagger. A X-fer followed by a jump to game showed the "mild" slam try with better trumps. Both were, essentially, "picture" bids. Imho, there are better uses for direct 3♥ or 3♠ calls over a 1NT opener, but relaying into some "impossible" contract after a 2♠ response to 1NT might just be the answer for showing what Jake used the direct 3♥ or 3♠ bids to indicate.

5) Shouldn't we be looking for a system that will get us to 6♠ opposite:

AKx
xxx
KQJx
Axx

or

AKx
xxx
KJ10x
AQx

[gnasher]

jdeegan, on Jan 7 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

5) Shouldn't we be looking for a system that will get us to 6♠ opposite:

AKx
xxx
KQJx
Axx

or

AKx
xxx
KJ10x
AQx

With QJ109xx AK Ax xxx, opposite the first one I'd like to be in seven. Call me a dinosaur if you like, but what's wrong with:

1NT-3S
4C-4D
5D-5H
6D-6H
7NT

and

1NT-3S
4C-4D
4S-5H
6D-6NT

respectively?

[keylime]

I think North needs to upgrade their hand a little - they have good prime holdings and a nice suit. They should make one try here, but unless you have a way to ask, it's risking the five level.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

one possible different start would be to
bid 3S instead of 2H, as long as the bid
is forcing.
The bid should set the suit, asking opener
for cooperation, opener can either suggests
3NT as a better game, bid 4S with an
usuitable hand, or make a cue bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe