[karlson]

♠Axx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AKQTxx

Partner opens a 14-16 NT in first seat. Matchpoints, mediocre field (sectional pairs).

Standard methods (2♠ shows clubs, then shortness or 4n natural. You won't have keycard available in clubs if that's a concern).

[maggieb]

3N. Unless partner has a primed out 15-16, slam is usually going to be on a finesse or so and could possibly be a lot worse.

[Jlall]

maggieb, on Nov 22 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

3N. Unless partner has a primed out 15-16, slam is usually going to be on a finesse or so and could possibly be a lot worse.

If you transfer to clubs and partner says he likes clubs when you have the AKQ, what kind of hand do you think he has?

Alternatively, if you transfer to clubs and partner says he doesn't like clubs then you bid 3N and partner makes a move over that, what kind of hand do you think he has?

[maggieb]

Jlall, on Nov 22 2009, 01:29 AM, said:

maggieb, on Nov 22 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

3N. Unless partner has a primed out 15-16, slam is usually going to be on a finesse or so and could possibly be a lot worse.

If you transfer to clubs and partner says he likes clubs when you have the AKQ, what kind of hand do you think he has?

Alternatively, if you transfer to clubs and partner says he doesn't like clubs then you bid 3N and partner makes a move over that, what kind of hand do you think he has?

Does anyone want to run a sim on 6♣ when partner has

15-16, 3+ clubs, and 5+ controls (a small tweak: if 16 with 5 controls and a 5 card suit, discard)
or
16, 3+ clubs, and 4 controls

For what it's worth I didn't consider this initially and I think it's a winner, but I'm not sure by how much (if at all).

[Codo]

I will beat the field in the play, so I need not to strech for thin slams.

Else, I would try 2♠ and make a move after partner positive response or after his positive sign after my 3 NT.

[whereagles]

That's 6 losers opposite an expectancy of 4 cover cards. Easy raise to 3NT. You'd need a very special hand like

Qxx
AKx
AKxx
xxx

for slam to be playable. Notice it's playable, not makeable

[jdonn]

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't

And fortunately we do!

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't

And fortunately we do!

presumably your acution continues ....2♠ (P) 2NT... Now perhaps you can share your methods?

[mikeh]

I'm not as confident about our methods as Josh seems to be, but I'd make a try via the transfer to clubs.

if partner likes clubs, I have to bid 4N next....which seems ok, since I would be denying any shortness and partner should look at his hand appropriately. My clubs are good enough, and I have enough controls, that we almost certainly won't reach a hopeless slam... altho we may reach some that have only remote chances.

if partner dislikes clubs, my 3N should still send the right message.....if all I wanted to do was to play in 3N, why show the clubs?

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't

And fortunately we do!

presumably your acution continues ....2♠ (P) 2NT... Now perhaps you can share your methods?

Opener bids either 2NT or 3♣, one saying he likes clubs and one saying he doesn't.

If he doesn't like them, 3NT. If he has amazing controls he may bid on anyway, knowing I must have been interested.

If he does like them, 4NT as a quantitative invite. Again he will look at his general strength and controls but will be more likely to accept in this case. Alternatively I could bid 4♣ and start cuebidding, but I think that's a worse option.

I'm not saying every auction and contract will be perfect. But we have adequate tools that we are free to use.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

I show the clubs. All these AK AK hands for slam ignore that, for example, partner could have AKQ A or AKQxx A which is actually fewer high card points. On that basis there are plenty of hands for partner that make slam.

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't

And fortunately we do!

presumably your acution continues ....2♠ (P) 2NT... Now perhaps you can share your methods?

Opener bids either 2NT or 3♣, one saying he likes clubs and one saying he doesn't.

If he doesn't like them, 3NT. If he has amazing controls he may bid on anyway, knowing I must have been interested.

If he does like them, 4NT as a quantitative invite. Again he will look at his general strength and controls but will be more likely to accept in this case. Alternatively I could bid 4♣ and start cuebidding, but I think that's a worse option.

I'm not saying every auction and contract will be perfect. But we have adequate tools that we are free to use.

Sorry but this just looks like a lot of handwaving. So how are you supposed to know to give up with

---

or

---

and go with

---

[jdonn]

Lol yes if you always give partner a doubleton in our doubleton, the hands will fit badly! Do you have a system on the first hand that avoids slam on your example but gets there if one of his spades is a diamond (which it's more likely to be)? Do that to either of your 'bad slam' examples and slam is fine.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Lol yes if you always give partner a doubleton in our doubleton, the hands will fit badly! Do you have a system on the first hand that avoids slam on your example but gets there if one of his spades is a diamond (which it's more likely to be)? Do that to either of your 'bad slam' examples and slam is fine.

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain.

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Lol yes if you always give partner a doubleton in our doubleton, the hands will fit badly! Do you have a system on the first hand that avoids slam on your example but gets there if one of his spades is a diamond (which it's more likely to be)? Do that to either of your 'bad slam' examples and slam is fine.

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain.

Are you just trolling now?

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Lol yes if you always give partner a doubleton in our doubleton, the hands will fit badly! Do you have a system on the first hand that avoids slam on your example but gets there if one of his spades is a diamond (which it's more likely to be)? Do that to either of your 'bad slam' examples and slam is fine.

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain.

Are you just trolling now?

Depends on your definition, Frankly, I didn't believe you when you said you had the tools to make looking for slam a percentage choice. But if you did I was interested in seeing what you had. What I got was a ♣ transfer and then play it by ear. Maybe we need to see a simul by Han that shows how many club tricks you take for a 16 point balanced opening hand opposite this

[kenrexford]

Reasonable chance of making. 2♠ start risks a double as a lead-director, but that seems of little consequence.

If Partner bids 3♣ (apparently non-interest), nid 3NT. He might move again.

If partner bids 2NT accepting, with no club honors, he has a rock. Bidding 4NT makes some sense. But, I think 4♣ makes more sense. That should be ongoing without shortness, I would think.

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Nov 23 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Lol yes if you always give partner a doubleton in our doubleton, the hands will fit badly! Do you have a system on the first hand that avoids slam on your example but gets there if one of his spades is a diamond (which it's more likely to be)? Do that to either of your 'bad slam' examples and slam is fine.

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain.

Are you just trolling now?

Depends on your definition, Frankly, I didn't believe you when you said you had the tools to make looking for slam a percentage choice. But if you did I was interested in seeing what you had. What I got was a ♣ transfer and then play it by ear. Maybe we need to see a simul by Han that shows how many club tricks you take for a 16 point balanced opening hand opposite this

What you call "play it be ear" is actually called "quantitative bidding". This is like me suggesting 1NT p 4NT on a balanced 16 count and you pointing out a bunch of hands for opener that would bid 6NT but don't make slam. So what? Mention that you think inviting slam is against the odds and leave it at that. What makes you think I have to have proof for something because you think it's "far from certain"?

But no, you just love persisting. Would you rather I took each of your examples and pointed out that opener knows AK doubleton is overvalued, that you gave very unlikely and specific shapes, that if partner has Jxxxx of clubs he knows the jack is wasted? Should I mention that it's right to try for slam even if far fewer than half of opener's hands make slam, since you should only be worried about what percentage make slam out of the ones where he accepts an invitation?

Or would you think it's more fun for me to point out that you have some strange obsession with me, proven by you quoting my posts more often than all other forums posters combined? Check if you don't believe it, I'd put money that it's true. I'm flattered but a little creeped out and annoyed by it.

[ArtK78]

Quite frankly, I am more worried about getting to 3NT off 5 running tricks than getting to slam.

Suppose partner has a mundane hand like:

KQJx
xx
AKJx
Jxx

Or you can interchange the red suits.

At many tables the auction will go 1NT-3NT and the opponents will run 5 of their long red suit.

You can always just bid 3NT and hope that the opps don't run a suit on you. Or you can show your club suit and maybe you can diagnose the weakness before settling on 3NT. For example, on the hand shown, over 2♠ (showing clubs) opener might bid 3♣. If responder then bids 3♠, opener will be able to see that hearts are unprotected for 3NT and make sure that the hand plays in clubs (or he could suggest 4♠). Slam is not out of the question, but at least you can avoid 3NT.