[rogerclee]

Apollo81, on Mar 11 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

Agree that having a "conservative invite" and an "aggressive invite" would help on this hand and that this would be a obvious "aggressive invite"

What do you play 4♠ as?

[Cascade]

rogerclee, on Mar 12 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 11 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

Agree that having a "conservative invite" and an "aggressive invite" would help on this hand and that this would be a obvious "aggressive invite"

What do you play 4♠ as?

That is an interesting thought.

We actually already use 4♠ as very distributional both minors and no slam interest.

But there are other similar options:

1NT 2♣
2♦ 4♦

1NT 2♣
2♥ 4♠

1NT 2♣
2♠ 4♥

are all semi-free in my system.

I am sure others have some free sequences. Perhaps a direct 4NT compared with some other option through a range probe etc etc

[Cascade]

I played around with this hand this morning for a bit.

Double dummy slam made most of the time that partner had 16 or 17 points.

Since we don't have that many controls (only four) for a sixteen count we don't want partner going on some marginal hands. I also forced partner to have six controls and slam was much better.

The average number of controls for sixteen count is a bit over five.

We play a method where with marginal hands opener will show controls over 4NT which allows us to get out in 5NT if three or more controls are missing for slam. Actually we also play another method that allows us to ask for controls at the three-level and get to only 3NT if we have too many controls missing and even invite slam if we have enough.

For us:

1NT 2♣
any 3♣ is a control ask in a 'balanced' slam try
...

then

any 4NT would be yes we have enough controls but I also need you to have a maximum (or possibly a good minimum with a five-card suit).

[the hog]

2S. Range probe. Pd bids her 4 card suits up the line with a max.

[jdonn]

So unlikely I would downgrade 16 but I will here, I just don't think this is worth it. AKQ tight, the shape, no spot cards, my judgment tells me 3NT is enough.

[MFA]

The_Hog, on Mar 11 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

2S. Range probe. Pd bids her 4 card suits up the line with a max.

Isn't it bad to start showing suits when you should have a normal 1n-2n-3n sequence?

4NT for me.

[andy_h]

4NT, but just. Partner's allowed to have a 5cd suit. Really don't like 4333s though.

[the hog]

MFA, on Mar 12 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 11 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

2S. Range probe. Pd bids her 4 card suits up the line with a max.

Isn't it bad to start showing suits when you should have a normal 1n-2n-3n sequence?

4NT for me.

Why? This doesn't make sense; if partner has a max I am going to look for 6C. If she has a minimum she will simply bid 3NT, Wtp?

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Mar 12 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

MFA, on Mar 12 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 11 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

2S. Range probe. Pd bids her 4 card suits up the line with a max.

Isn't it bad to start showing suits when you should have a normal 1n-2n-3n sequence?

4NT for me.

Why? This doesn't make sense; if partner has a max I am going to look for 6C. If she has a minimum she will simply bid 3NT, Wtp?

But, when you have a normal 3NT invite (rather than the slam invite) and opener accepts the invitation, you unnecessarily give away distributional information.

[the hog]

I got the impression he was talking about this hand, Tim. Otherwise I would suggest that a Baron 2S gains more than it loses.

[hrothgar]

---

On this hand, my table produced the auction 1N - 4N. At the other table, the auction went 1N - 3N. Both declarers made 6 when the Diamonds broke.

Neither table sniffed arround for a minor suit slam. Both pairs missed a good 6♣.

(My partner likes 4 way transfers, so we didn't have minor suit stayman or Baron on any thing like that)

[TimG]

1N-4N; 5C-6C seems pretty routine once you decide to invite. I predict a series of posts saying that opener has a super obvious accept over 4N.

[gnasher]

TimG, on Mar 12 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

1N-4N; 5C-6C seems pretty routine once you decide to invite.

If so, then with 732 AJ82 AK83 A7 opposite AKQ 932 Q54 KQ96, I assume it would be equally routine to bid 1NT-4NT; 5♦-6NT.

The existence of a 4-4 fit is likely to be worth at least one trick. Is the five level really the right place to be doing this sort of investigation?

[Codo]

I know that 5 Club shows a FIVE card suit but it is new to me to make this with a 4 card suit.
With the given methods I had bid 1 NT 4 NT 5 NT and played there.
(And if pd takes 5 NT as pick a slam, I had been in 6 Club, nice misunderstanding)

[whereagles]

Codo, on Mar 12 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

I know that 5 Club shows a FIVE card suit but it is new to me to make this with a 4 card suit.

Maybe

5♣ = 4 card suit
6♣ = 5 card suit

Incidently, slam is good in clubs. It's bad in NT. Anyway, without a gadget to dig up the 44 fit, 3NT is the contract.

[TimG]

gnasher, on Mar 12 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 12 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

1N-4N; 5C-6C seems pretty routine once you decide to invite.

If so, then with 732 AJ82 AK83 A7 opposite AKQ 932 Q54 KQ96, I assume it would be equally routine to bid 1NT-4NT; 5♦-6NT.

The existence of a 4-4 fit is likely to be worth at least one trick. Is the five level really the right place to be doing this sort of investigation?

As I said earlier in the thread, I have no problem with either 3NT or 4NT by responder -- I think it is close. I don't think opener has a close decision whether to pass or accept over 4NT.

Yes, I would prefer methods that allowed for discovery over a 44 minor suit fit before the partnership gets past 4N.

To Codo's suggestion that 5C shows a five-card suit: I disagree. I think standard is that a new suit at the five-level is a four-card suit and a new suit at the six-level is a five-card suit. (I also believe that any move over 4NT accepts the invitation, so stopping at the five-level is not an option.) As I just said, I'd like to be playing methods that allowed for some investigation below 4NT, but absent that, I think these are "standard".

[pclayton]

If North invites, I think I prefer 5N by south. This seems to get the minors in but doesn't over-commit.

[han]

South has a clear 5C bid over 4NT.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on Mar 12 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 12 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

1N-4N; 5C-6C seems pretty routine once you decide to invite.

If so, then with 732 AJ82 AK83 A7 opposite AKQ 932 Q54 KQ96, I assume it would be equally routine to bid 1NT-4NT; 5♦-6NT.

The existence of a 4-4 fit is likely to be worth at least one trick. Is the five level really the right place to be doing this sort of investigation?

Of course it is. Given your example hand, over 5♦ responder should bid 5N, which would be an excellent description of his hand. Opener should pass 5N then, which will usually make.

[inquiry]

han, on Mar 12 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

South has a clear 5C bid over 4NT.

ditto