[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

uncontested auction
1N:2♥
2♠:4♠
?

---

More hands to come

[quiddity]

If this is a mild slam try, I would try 5♣ and bid slam if partner can show a diamond control.

[Phil]

4♠ is a balanced mild slam try?

5♣ for me.

[helene_t]

If you play Texas then this is a mild slam try so you might consider making a move.

I think I pass though.

[mikeh]

When deciding whether to cooperate with the presumed slam try of 4♠, we need to assess whether our hand is more slam oriented than the run-of-the mill opener. If it is: then move.

Here, our spade holding is, in my view, average +. When partner has 6+ spades, we will often hold a doubleton and here we hold Hxx. This is a mild encouragement

Our heart holding is good, especially when we are on play: this is another good sign

Our diamond holding is weak, but holding Jx with Qxx in trump is a heck of a lot better than holding Jxx with Qx in trump. So this is a negative feature, but all 15-17 1N hands will have some negative features, so this isn't a huge deal

Our club holding is spectacular, including the 10. We will often be able to establish the club suit opposite any doubleton, and we have side entries in the form of trumps and good hearts. This is a big plus.

Overall, our hand is at the high end of our range, when you factor in the 5 card suit, and we hold 5 controls, which is average plus for a 15-17 1N.

So we have a plethora of positives and only one negative.

Frankly, I don't think in quite these terms at the table: I'd simply move because I 'like my hand', but asking myself 'why' led to these suggestions.

If you are going to move, 5♣ is clear.

[jillybean]

Yes, 4♠ is a mild slam try.

Scoring: MP

---

I forgot 4♠ shows 6+, passed and made 7

[bab9]

From my understanding. Given that your partner is the 'captain' of the hand, I would have taken the 4♠ bid as sign-off. If they were remotely interested in slam then they could have bid differently; depending on what you play: Gerber, blackwood, cue bid.

[Phil]

bab9, on Jun 9 2010, 09:42 PM, said:

From my understanding.  Given that your partner is the 'captain' of the hand, I would have taken the 4♠  bid as sign-off.  If they were remotely interested in slam then they could have bid differently; depending on what you play: Gerber, blackwood, cue bid.

'Captaincy' is a funny term in bridge. In can frequently transfer from partner to partner several times during the course of an auction.

Here, partner has made a slam try. Do you understand why? More importantly, do you see why the ball is now in our court, and partner has transferred captaincy to us?

[cloa513]

I'd say 4 spades is weak slam try and south is not a strong slam try hand in spades- its moderate.
4♦ cue bide after 2♠ would be much better. A moderate slam try bid.

Yes, captaincy is not a fixed specification if both partners have some good bridge judgement. If North was a little more advanced than South he should have been aware of South's difficulties in deciding what to bid.

[the hog]

4S is a mild slam try. I bid 5C. I have 3 golden cards, the A of H, the A of C and the Q of S.

[kgr]

I would take 4S as a mild slam try...Only interested opposite a super-accept.
 
I don't like this and now play that 3♦ is invite/game hand with a 6c-Major. That makes transfer followed by 3M free as a slam try, with more space to investigate.

[Fluffy]

I would take 4♣ as splinter, not sure if I'd like it much. North's hand doesn't like very mild to me, althou its the first time I use the word "mild" so who knows . Oh ***** that makes it two

[hotShot]

This mild slam try just took away the 3-level and the 4-level, disabled our ability to investigate the odds for slam.

What would 3♦ have shown, or 4♣?

Jilly you from your point of view, you lose 2 top tricks in ♦.
Your hand is not good enough to go for slam with the information you got.

Change partners ♦A with a small ♦ and give him ♥KJ] to compensate for the points. Would he bid differently?

Your partners hand is a little stronger than a mild slam try and the hands fit well.
The problem is withing the system or it's your partner, who was not helpful enough.

[jillybean]

3♦'s would show 2 suiter ♠'s and ♦'s, 4♣/4♦ would be a splinter,
I'm not sure that we can cue bid after a transfer. How could my partner have been more helpful?

[ArtK78]

First, although it is fairly clear that this sequence is a mild slam invitation (in standard bidding using Texas Transfers), I thought I would reiterate this as one poster did not believe that this was true.

Second, at the risk of repeating the thrust of what Mikeh said, I look at the 1NT opening hand and think "In the context of a 1NT opening, how useful is this hand in a spade contract?" I have good spade support, five controls, a doubleton and a source of tricks. While it is certainly possible to have a better 1NT opening for a spade contract, this one is near the top of the list.

I bid 5♣. Frankly, if someone put a gun to my head and asked me what should be the final contract, I would guess 6♠.

[mikeh]

Kathryn

My advice is to ignore those who suggest that partner misbid or that your hand wasn't strong enough. Discussion on this forum has shown that Texas isn't played much outside of NA, so most non NA posters probably lack experience with the gadget. And my view of any who suggest that partner was too strong for 4♠ or that you were too weak to 5♣ is that they don't know much about the method, or if they do, they don't understand hand evaluation. Partner's hand is textbook, as is 3♣ by you. As for partner holding xxx in diamnds, so what? It is virtually impossible to construct a hand on which partner has his bid and the 5-level is too dangerous to warrant a slam move.

[hotShot]

jillybean, on Jun 10 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

3♦'s would show 2 suiter ♠'s and ♦'s, 4♣/4♦ would be a splinter,
I'm not sure that we can cue bid after a transfer. How could my partner have been more helpful?

A partner is helpful by simplifying your decisions.
Your 1NT bid gave a very complete picture about your hand. He knows that your side has a ♠ fit, because you already showed 2♠ cards with 1NT. He also knows that your side needs a ♥ control to make the slam.
I guess you don't splinter with an honor, but over partners 4♣ you could cue 4♥ without promising extras, and bidding slam or even grand should be no problem at all. If you don't have a ♥ cue, partner can stop in 4♠without a problem.

Suppose he "invented" a 4th ♦ and bid 3♦. He knows there is no risk, because it's game forcing and he can always switch to ♠. This leaves half of the 3 level and the 4 level for you to describe your hand. I suppose that 3♠ would promise a 3rd ♠ setting trumps allowing for cue bids on the 4 level.

His 4♠ bid gave you a complicated decision and remember you should bid in tempo!

Your partner has shown a hand with 6+ ♠s , that is not 2 suited and that could not splinter. Most likely his hand is of 6322 shape. From what you know your partner needs to have ♠AK ♦ A or K (to avoid a 2nd ♦ loser, partner should have only 2♣s (or Qxx) so you don't mind a ♥ loser.
When you are done with that you will probably find that you can make a move as the 5-level is probably save. But e.g. Blackwood will not help you if partner does not have ♦ A or Q, because he will have to answer 4♥ (2 of 5) and if you ask about kings you will be to high, if partner does not have ♦K.
Since Blackwood is no help, you have to cue 5♣. This will help finding the ♦A or K, but you might have problems to find that partner has ♠AK.

[bab9]

Phil, on Jun 9 2010, 10:30 PM, said:

bab9, on Jun 9 2010, 09:42 PM, said:

From my understanding.  Given that your partner is the 'captain' of the hand, I would have taken the 4♠  bid as sign-off.  If they were remotely interested in slam then they could have bid differently; depending on what you play: Gerber, blackwood, cue bid.

'Captaincy' is a funny term in bridge. In can frequently transfer from partner to partner several times during the course of an auction.

Here, partner has made a slam try. Do you understand why? More importantly, do you see why the ball is now in our court, and partner has transferred captaincy to us?

Honestly, I do not see how this is a slam try or that the captaincy has changed. By partner bidding this way, I would expect 6+♠ and 9-10 total points. As the opener has defined his hand with the 1NT opening and not super accepting the transfer, the responder is best placed to set the contract level.

If this sequence is a slam try, how do you just bid game against a no trump opening, with responder holding 6+♠? Does this change if you play that a 1NT opening can contain a 5 card major? (Currently I play the NT opening as having at most a 4 card major).

On all the stuff I've read that talks about 'captaincy' the only time they said it changes is when you cue bid. Are you able to direct me to a book/website that talks about the transfer of captaincy you are referring too?

[mike777]

bab9, on Jun 10 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 9 2010, 10:30 PM, said:

bab9, on Jun 9 2010, 09:42 PM, said:

From my understanding.  Given that your partner is the 'captain' of the hand, I would have taken the 4♠  bid as sign-off.  If they were remotely interested in slam then they could have bid differently; depending on what you play: Gerber, blackwood, cue bid.

'Captaincy' is a funny term in bridge. In can frequently transfer from partner to partner several times during the course of an auction.

Here, partner has made a slam try. Do you understand why? More importantly, do you see why the ball is now in our court, and partner has transferred captaincy to us?

Honestly, I do not see how this is a slam try or that the captaincy has changed. By partner bidding this way, I would expect 6+♠ and 9-10 total points. As the opener has defined his hand with the 1NT opening and not super accepting the transfer, the responder is best placed to set the contract level.

If this sequence is a slam try, how do you just bid game against a no trump opening, with responder holding 6+♠? Does this change if you play that a 1NT opening can contain a 5 card major? (Currently I play the NT opening as having at most a 4 card major).

On all the stuff I've read that talks about 'captaincy' the only time they said it changes is when you cue bid. Are you able to direct me to a book/website that talks about the transfer of captaincy you are referring too?

"texas'


with no slam interest you would simply bid 4h....trf to spades
texas
1nt=4h!
4s!

or bid 4h and over forced 4s you now can bid 4nt as rkc if you have a giant hand.


---




that means with in-between hand...mild slam try...you tfr and jump to 4s

1nt=2h
2s=4s(mild slam try)
by making a mild slam try you have transfered captaincy....pard you decide.....
1) pass
2) make another try back to me...cuebid
3) bid rkc or slam...

----

What does an inbetween hand look like?

this is a good example.

[Phil]

bab9 said:

Honestly, I do not see how this is a slam try or that the captaincy has changed.

Partner did not start with 4♥ (Texas Transfer); therefore 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠ by logical extension, is a slam try.

bab9 said:

By partner bidding this way, I would expect 6+♠ and 9-10 total points....and:
If this sequence is a slam try, how do you just bid game against a no trump opening, with responder holding 6+♠?

No, these hands start with 4♥ and simply signoff. I think that is the source for some of your unfamiliarity with this auction.

bab9 said:

As the opener has defined his hand with the 1NT opening and not super accepting the transfer, the responder is best placed to set the contract level.

Superaccepts are a very small spectrum of hands the 1N opener can have. There are plenty of good hands within the remaining 90-95% that still provide a good play for slam. Read MikeH's excellent post about why this is a very useful hand.

bab9 said:

Does this change if you play that a 1NT opening can contain a 5 card major?  (Currently I play the NT opening as having at most a 4 card major).

No, it makes no difference. This isn't relevant to the discussion. But the more you read here, the more you realize that nearly every good player willingly allows a five card major in the 1N opening.

bab9 said:

On all the stuff I've read that talks about 'captaincy' the only time they said it changes is when you cue bid.  Are you able to direct me to a book/website that talks about the transfer of captaincy you are referring too?

There's plenty of good stuff here