[kgr]

Suppose you play:
1NT-2H
2S-3S
as 6+-card S and slem interest.
You also play not-serious 3NT.
Q: do you bid 4S with a very bad hand or do you always bid 3NT to preserve space?

[OleBerg]

4♠ should be very well defined, as it takes up a lot of bidding space.

My preference would be something like:

Lower range of the NT-bid and (scatterred) values unsuitable for play in spades, often with a doubleton spade.

[Fluffy]

4♠ is always an option, use your judgement, sometimes your hand just stinks so badly that you wanna state it.

But as Ole said it must be something very special, at least 80% (probably more) of the minimum hands should bid 3NT.

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers!
...suppose that the bidding reached 3♠ showing a ♠ fit and slem interest, but responder can still have a not shown shortness (singleton or void). Do you think that 4♠ should still be a possible bid?

[Fluffy]

I don't uderstand why you don't have splinter avaible after transfer, splinter is the key for slam finding.

But it doesn't change the fact that when you wanna show complete trash, you are gonna do it.

[kgr]

Fluffy, on Dec 28 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

I don't uderstand why you don't have splinter avaible after transfer, splinter is the key for slam finding.

Thanks again for your answers.
We actually have:
1NT-2H
2S-4H available to show 6c♠, slem interest and ♥ shortness.
But I misbid with:
 
KQJT72
v
K95
A765
 
and did bid:
1NT-2H
2S-3S showing slem interst with no shortness
and partner did now bid 4S showing a bad hand.
I was now stuck with the above hand (and gambled 6♠) and that made me wonder if it was good to ever bid 4♠.

Quote

But it doesn't change the fact that when you wanna show complete trash, you are gonna do it.

Partners hand was:
 
A83
AQJ6
Q862
Q2
 
Is this a 3NT or a 4S bid?

[OleBerg]

kgr, on Dec 28 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Thanks for the answers!
...suppose that the bidding reached 3♠ showing a ♠ fit and slem interest, but responder can still have a not shown shortness (singleton or void). Do you think that 4♠ should still be a possible bid?

Indeed, at least if the hand is equally bad facing any shortage.

An example 15-17NT:

♠ AQ
♥ QJxx
♦ QJxx
♣ QJx

[Fluffy]

kgr, on Dec 28 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

A83
AQJ6
Q862
Q2
 
Is this a 3NT or a 4S bid?

Close decision, Axx in trumps is good, concentrated values in hearts are good (not today), but lack of intermediates and Qx in clubs are very bad. Worst of all is the lack of Kings, partner is having at least 2 doubletons, and Queens aren't good covers for that.

All in all I think I'd bid 3NT rather than 4 spades because I might have a ruffing value in clubs. But wouldn't blame partner for doing the other.

[gnasher]

kgr, on Dec 28 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

A83
AQJ6
Q862
Q2

Is this a 3NT or a 4S bid?

It's a 3NT bid. This is a normal 1NT opener, with two aces, one trump more than you might have had, and a ruffing value.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Partners hand was:

A83
AQJ6
Q862
Q2

Is this a 3NT or a 4S bid?

Impossible to answer without knowing if responder will always correct to 4S or will might sit for 3N.

It would not be pretty to pass 3N holding: QJxxxx, Kx, AJx, xx

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Impossible to answer without knowing if responder will always correct to 4S or will might sit for 3N.

It would not be pretty to pass 3N holding: QJxxxx, Kx, AJx, xx

Why would responder have made a slam try with that?

[Winstonm]

gnasher, on Dec 28 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Impossible to answer without knowing if responder will always correct to 4S or will might sit for 3N.

It would not be pretty to pass 3N holding: QJxxxx, Kx, AJx, xx

Why would responder have made a slam try with that?

You are right.

It would be the highest holy stupidity.

So let's change it to: KQ10xxx, Kx, AKx, xx - and find opener had been forced to bid 3N with Axx, AQJx, QJxx, Qx

And we ask the same question - can the follow up 3N be passed?
My answer is that it should be passable. That would mean you shouldn't bid 3N with the hand shown.

When defining these questions, the way to go about it is to structure so as to bid the best game as first priority, slam bidding then is secondary to that goal.

Therefore, if you want to have available 3N and 4S, IMO the intelligent application of meaning would be:
1) 3N: I hold stoppers in all suits outside spades and have no good spade fit. Regardless of your 6-card suit, I think NT is the better contract.
2) 4S: I have no interest in slam and prefer the spade game.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, 3NT has been defined by kgr as non serious, I never played non serious myself, but I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with side stoppers.

I would assume 3♠ forces us to play in spades, and that if partner decides to gamble a pass to 3NT, it is at his own risk.

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Dec 28 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Winstonm, 3NT has been defined by kgr as non serious, I never played non serious myself, but I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with side stoppers.

I would assume 3♠ forces us to play in spades, and that if partner decides to gamble a pass to 3NT, it is at his own risk.

Thanks, Fluffy.

Maybe I am having trouble reconciling to the system - I don't mind the use of the transfer and raise as a slam try - but the continuations I don't like.

IMO, if partner makes a bid that is defined as a slam try, then the responding hand should either support the try or refute the try. I don't view 3N non-serious as being the same thing a refuting the try, although that is debatable.

I am of the opinion that game bidding should hold precedence over slam bidding tools, so in this auction 3N should be a suggestion to play rather than an artificality.

If I understand the system, it is impossible to play 3N in this sequence. That may be fine, but it also may not be ideal.

Or I could simply be biased to my own views - but at least I am convincable if a decent argument is made.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2008, 03:56 AM, said:

I am of the opinion that game bidding should hold precedence over slam bidding tools, so in this auction 3N should be a suggestion to play rather than an artificality.

If I understand the system, it is impossible to play 3N in this sequence. That may be fine, but it also may not be ideal.

Or I could simply be biased to my own views - but at least I am convincable if a decent argument is made.

Responder has said that opposite a suitable hand he expects to make 12 tricks with spades as trumps. He has denied a shortage, and denied a side-suit that would be worth bidding. Therefore he hopes to make his 12 tricks mainly from high cards and spade length.

Even if opener is very unsuitable, it is most unlikely that the number of tricks we can make in spades is only nine. It is still less likely that on such a hand we can make 3NT.

At matchpoints there might be a case for playing 3NT as passable, because both games might make 10 or 11 tricks.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2008, 02:56 AM, said:

I am of the opinion that game bidding should hold precedence over slam bidding tools, so in this auction 3N should be a suggestion to play rather than an artificality.

The main point is here, if you have a tool that specifically aims for slam bidding, it is reasonable to forget about getting to the best game and instead focus on better slam bidding after you have started it.

It may be that 3NT is better than 4 spades from time to time, but with the overstrenght you are having it won't be a big difference in the long run, even if you could decide perfectly all the time (wich you obviously don't).


I remember asking for keycards once, and finding out that 2 were missing, the only biddable game I had left was 5♥ on the 4-3 fit (5NT would had been better, but unplayable at that point), the mistake was not to find a bad game, it was to start the slam tool without thinking it enough.

[kenrexford]

If Responder bids in this way, he almost always has 6322 shape. No splinter, no second suit introduced.

Opposite that pattern, then, Opener will have a specific possible minimum and maximum number of cover cards. Assessing the value of Queens is difficult. A Queen might have value either as internal in the three-card fragment or as a third card in a suit when another suit is covered at the top but has a missing intermediate.

As a possible "maximum," you might consider KQ in the trump suit, KQ in the fragment, plus an Ace and a King, for six covers. A minimum might have four jacks, two Aces, and two Queens in poor locations. Even that probably produces three covers somehow.

So, the "range" might be 3-6 covers.

I would also have a rule that a signoff (4♠) denies two+Queen as a RKCB response (worse than that).

[Winstonm]

Quote

Responder has said that opposite a suitable hand he expects to make 12 tricks with spades as trumps.

What is a "suitable hand"? Your definition sounds like a pretty strong hand. I interpret slam "try" as an attempt to get to slam if the hands fit well and controls are in place. That would mean making slam tries on some weaker, shapely hands.

Regardless, it would seem to me that the definition would lead to the logical conclusion that the 3N non-serious would imply a non-suitable hand. If opener considers his hand poor for slam, there is not a lot to be gained by the 3N bid - either responder will be big enough to continue bidding or else we play game.

The 3N as is presented suggests to me that responder holds enough hand to make 2 slam tries (3 of the suit, and cue bid over 3N) but still lacks the hand to simply force to slam. Sounds pretty rare to me, especially as opener's range is a known.

Not that the idea is bad or using 3N to play is better - it simply needs better definition and a 4S could fill a need.

[jdonn]

I think it's ok to bid 4♠ on a bad hand as long as you have defined exactly what that means, and as long as it's infrequent. I wouldn't just generically bid it to show I'm very minimum though.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

Quote

Responder has said that opposite a suitable hand he expects to make 12 tricks with spades as trumps.

What is a "suitable hand"? Your definition sounds like a pretty strong hand. I interpret slam "try" as an attempt to get to slam if the hands fit well and controls are in place. That would mean making slam tries on some weaker, shapely hands.

It's not so much my definition, as a logical consequence of the auction and the original poster's agreements.

Responder could have transferred and splintered; he didn't, so he can't have a hand suitable for a splinter. Responder could have shown a second suit; he didn't, so he can't have a second suit worth showing. How, in that case, can he have a "weaker, shapely" hand?

Looking at it from another point of view, if responder has a distributional hand where he needs the hands to fit well, how is he going to find out anything useful by bidding 1NT-2♥; 2♠-3♠? All he will hear about is the location of opener's aces and kings, and non-specific information about opener's suitability. Neither partner can show a side suit or a shortage, so it won't be possible to investigate how well the hands fit.

Quote

Regardless, it would seem to me that the definition would lead to the logical conclusion that the 3N non-serious would imply a non-suitable hand.  If opener considers his hand poor for slam, there is not a lot to be gained by the 3N bid - either responder will be big enough to continue bidding or else we play game.

The 3N as is presented suggests to me that responder holds enough hand to make 2 slam tries (3 of the suit, and cue bid over 3N) but still lacks the hand to simply force to slam.  Sounds pretty rare to me, especially as opener's range is a known.

Not that the idea is bad or using 3N to play is better - it simply needs better definition and a 4S could fill a need.

I don't understand your point. After responder's 3♠, opener can:
- Cue bid with a suitable hand.
- Bid 3NT with a medium hand.
- Bid 4♠ with an unsuitable hand.

If opener shows a medium hand, responder can then:
- Sign off in 4♠ with a hand that is no longer interested in slam
- Cue bid with a hand that is still interested in slam, or with a hand that knows it's going to drive slam but wants to investigate a grand slam.

I don't see anything ill-defined about that. Nor do I think that rarity is an issue: strong slam tries occur infrequently, but getting them right is worth a lot of IMPs.

The alternative that you seem to be advocating is that opener can:
- Cue bid with a suitable hand.
- Bid 4♠ with an unsuitable hand.
- Bid 3NT with an unsuitable hand that thinks it can make 3NT and thinks 4♠ might go off.

This is plainly worse from the point of view of accurate slam bidding , and I doubt that it gains significantly on game hands. In fact, I'm not even sure that a hand suitable for your 3NT bid actually exists. Can you give us an example, together with a responding hand that would pass it?