[bd71]

---

Teams. 2nd board of 2nd half in 28-board knockout. Up 40 at the half.

So far you have shown GF (not nec. slammish) hand with exactly 4 of a major and 5+ diamonds.

Your options are:

4♦ - Slammish with long diamonds. Partner could then cue-bid or sign off in diamonds or at 4N (to play).

4♥ - Undiscussed, so risky...but there's a good chance (say 75%) partner would interpret this as 1st/2nd round control for exploring slam in diamonds, pinpointing clubs as weak spot.

4N - Quant invite. If partner accepts the invite, he will show aces (to be sure not off two) which will give you another chance to offer him 6♦ as an option rather than 6N.

5♦ - to play

5N - Choice of NT or ♦ slam.

[eagles123]

I vote for 4NT, we've already shown 5+ diamonds so I don't like 4♦ as I would expect the ♦ suit to be a bit better and maybe 7 cards? 4♥ is risky as you say! 5♦ I don't like as slam could easily be on and ♦ might not be the right place and 5NT I don't like as whilst slam might be on it might not be on so better to invite than to force!

I know we have a bad shaped hand for NT but P should know this. We are at least 5/4 in two of the suits so 1462 distribution shouldn't be a massive shock


Eagles

[Codo]

Lets look at an average hand from partner: Qxx, Kxx, Kx,AKxxx. Not much fillers in your suit, no real fit, but still some play in 6 Diamond. THe worst hands can be something like KQJ, xxx,Qx,KQJxx where you would struggle to make anything.
With 4 NT, he showed massive black suit values already, so slam is close.
I try 4 ♦ and give up on 4 NT, but continue if he tries something else.

[Winstonm]

Not knowing your style or system, I would assume that partner would sign off with a hand with diamond support that is minimal or unattractive looking for slam purposes. I could imagine Qxx, Kxx, QJx, AKxx with pard and having him sign off in 3N over 3D. I like the idea of suggesting diamonds without precluding 4NT as a possible stopping spot. I would continue with 4D and I don't think that shows a great suit but should be a shape bid with extras and a slam try.

[ggwhiz]

In our style 3♦ is already a slam try, at least treated that way unless you sign off in game after pard cooperates which they can do without committing by bidding Kxx of either major here.

That makes pards 3nt a big red stop sign usually a max of 2 diamonds, off the A♣ or both. If I bid on we are getting to too many no play slams cause I would show a bit better hand.

Just our agreement, not necessarily right.

[aguahombre]

1) I believe 14-17 is too wide a range. That adds to the uncertainty in situations like this.

2) Unlike the transfer followed by a minor, this one guarantees 4M and 5+m; opener should presume slammish intent and not bid 3NT with HXX or XXXX in the minor, regardless of overall hand strength. Responder can then back off with less than slammish intent.

3) With a 14-16 NT range, I would pass 3NT because of 2) above.

4) With a 15-17 NT range, I would still know the diamond suit is not coming in for no losers and Pard has to contribute five tricks plus the Diamond KX in order to play slam. Would probably continue 4D, but I think it is close to pass.

This overlapped ggwhiz above, with whom I agree.

[gszes]

Given the constraints of your system I am stuck with

4d

however strongly reconsider the meaning of 4h or 4s here as
showing where your major suit is. The main benefit is that your
p will now be able to reevaluate their hand knowing where at
least 9 and probably 10+ cards in your hand are located. There
are then a ton of good cue bidding sequences available that
will help yu arrive at or avoid slam and you can still use 4n to play.

[Winstonm]

As the the original OP, here is a major part of the problem IMHO (emphasis added):

Quote

So far you have shown GF (not nec. slammish) hand with exactly 4 of a major and 5+ diamonds

There isn't much reason to shape show and introduce the minor unless it is to sniff for slam. I think your definition needs to be changed to "slam try" with 4 major and 5+ diamonds.

Part of my basic philosophy is that bidding - and especially slam bidding - should be for the most part a cooperative venture. When I make an initial slam try, I do not want my partner to be compelled to show anything other than his attitude about his hand in light of the auction and my slam try. It is only when I continue over his sign off that I want him to be compelled to show a missing control. For this reason, I think 3D is better as a mild slam try, then over 3NT, 4D becomes a strong slam try, and partner should cue bid if possible.

[JLOGIC]

If 3D is slammish then what do you do with the same shape and 8 or 9 points? What about 1453, 0463 etc. The first priority must be to get to the right game, and bidding 3N with a stiff or a void in a major when partner has denied 4 of them seems like a disaster waiting to happen

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 12:28, said:

If 3D is slammish then what do you do with the same shape and 8 or 9 points? What about 1453, 0463 etc. The first priority must be to get to the right game, and bidding 3N with a stiff or a void in a major when partner has denied 4 of them seems like a disaster waiting to happen

Yes. Hence, the either/or nature of 3D. Opener assumes slammish, but responder doesn't have to proceed past 3NT if the continuations are intelligent. However, I disagree that we could have an 8-count.

[Winstonm]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 12:28, said:

If 3D is slammish then what do you do with the same shape and 8 or 9 points? What about 1453, 0463 etc. The first priority must be to get to the right game, and bidding 3N with a stiff or a void in a major when partner has denied 4 of them seems like a disaster waiting to happen

If you have 8-9 points, you will need a good fit to make game in the minor, generally with little wasted opposite your shortage. Btw, I agree that getting to the right game is the proper consideration, but there is a difference between reaching the correct game and reaching thin games. I have found it difficult in bidding to find ways to combine 3 things I want to do without introducing too much guesswork for my liking.

[ggwhiz]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 12:28, said:

If 3D is slammish then what do you do with the same shape and 8 or 9 points? What about 1453, 0463 etc. The first priority must be to get to the right game, and bidding 3N with a stiff or a void in a major when partner has denied 4 of them seems like a disaster waiting to happen

So opener goes for the right game first, then 4♦ by responder shows the slam try. Or opener bids as if 3♦ was a slam try and responder puts on the brakes to show the one that just wanted to get to the right game.

I don't see a ton of win or loss here but prefer door #2 to for the room to bid light slams or the grand opposite the super fitting 1nt opener and I'm sure door #1 handles those pretty well too despite 1 less bidding level.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2013-May-06, 14:39, said:

So opener goes for the right game first, then 4♦ by responder shows the slam try. Or opener bids as if 3♦ was a slam try and responder puts on the brakes to show the one that just wanted to get to the right game.

I don't see a ton of win or loss here but prefer door #2 to for the room to bid light slams or the grand opposite the super fitting 1nt opener and I'm sure door #1 handles those pretty well too despite 1 less bidding level.

I think the gain from door #2 occurs when responder learns not to bid 4m because opener has already discouraged the minor suit slam ---only continuing with more than "mere" slam aspirations in the minor or quantitative for NT.

[JLOGIC]

I cannot wrap my head around this, are people suggesting that they routinely bid 3N over 2D with x AJxx AT9xx xxx or x KQxx KJTxxx xx or even --- Kxxx QJxxx Kxxx? That just seems incredibly poor to me, I would never bid 3N with a stiff small spade and basically any hand over 1N, but once I've staymaned and partner has shown 2 or 3 spades, to bid 3N with a stiff or void in spades has such little upside, they are extremely likely to lead their 9 or 10 card fit and that is a disaster if we have no stopper or 1 stopper and not 9 rippers. On top of that, we are very likely to make 5m when partner has weakness in our singleton because he will have lots of values outside of that suit, and we know we will have a good fit in one of the minors (since we have at most 9 spades and at most 7 hearts).

I mean really any hand with a small stiff spade can have a slam over 1N if it has game forcing values, partner might have xxx Kx Kxxxx AKQ for instance lol, that is a 15 count. So I guess I always have slam interest, np.

Being forced to play 3N on silly hands instead of our cold 5m seems like a huge cost to me for not much upside in having 3m promise slam interest.

[JLOGIC]

Also, partner with a very good hand for diamonds is not going to bid 3N over 3D anyways. He will expect to make 5D even when you just have a choice of games, and it's not like him bidding 3H or 3S precludes getting to 3N, if he bids for instance 3S with KQx Ax AQxx Qxxx and you don't bid 3N you probably have weak hearts and thus 4S and 5+ diamonds which makes his hand massive (possibly even a slam if you weren't trying for slam).

[ggwhiz]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 16:55, said:

Being forced to play 3N on silly hands instead of our cold 5m seems like a huge cost to me for not much upside in having 3m promise slam interest.

All of your examples are 3♦ bids followed by a sign off in game for us. Might still plutz into the wrong one or get to a dangerous moyse but 3♦ does not PROMISE slam interest. Opener caters to that possibility and then respects our "just kidding" sign offs.

Some of these auctions arrive in 3nt "expressing doubt" and pard can't always tell where the doubt comes from but have diamonds as a place to go or sometimes we give them the major suit moyse as an option.

[akwoo]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 16:55, said:

I cannot wrap my head around this, are people suggesting that they routinely bid 3N over 2D with x AJxx AT9xx xxx or x KQxx KJTxxx xx or even --- Kxxx QJxxx Kxxx?

[snip]

Being forced to play 3N on silly hands instead of our cold 5m seems like a huge cost to me for not much upside in having 3m promise slam interest.

For those of us who play MPs most of the time and don't want to change system depending on form of scoring...

Are you seriously suggesting that 5m is better than 3N at MPs?

(With --- Kxxx QJxxx Kxxx I might go with 2N over 3D, depending on my intermediates.)

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 16:55, said:

I cannot wrap my head around this, are people suggesting that they routinely bid 3N over 2D with x AJxx AT9xx xxx or x KQxx KJTxxx xx or even --- Kxxx QJxxx Kxxx?

That was not what I was suggesting. But, after Stayman and then 3D:

1NT-2C
2S-3D

or

1NT-2C
2D-3D...Opener Cues for Diamonds or bids 3NT. If responder did not have a slam try, he doesn't try for slam thereafter. If responder had mild slam interest, he might not continue toward one after the 3NT bid. If responder still is interested in slam knowing Opener was not enthused with diamonds, he moves on.

The concern about a stiff somewhere dissipates with Opener's 3NT bid after 3D.

[Winstonm]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-06, 16:55, said:

I cannot wrap my head around this, are people suggesting that they routinely bid 3N over 2D with x AJxx AT9xx xxx or x KQxx KJTxxx xx or even --- Kxxx QJxxx Kxxx? That just seems incredibly poor to me, I would never bid 3N with a stiff small spade and basically any hand over 1N, but once I've staymaned and partner has shown 2 or 3 spades, to bid 3N with a stiff or void in spades has such little upside, they are extremely likely to lead their 9 or 10 card fit and that is a disaster if we have no stopper or 1 stopper and not 9 rippers. On top of that, we are very likely to make 5m when partner has weakness in our singleton because he will have lots of values outside of that suit, and we know we will have a good fit in one of the minors (since we have at most 9 spades and at most 7 hearts).

I mean really any hand with a small stiff spade can have a slam over 1N if it has game forcing values, partner might have xxx Kx Kxxxx AKQ for instance lol, that is a 15 count. So I guess I always have slam interest, np.

Being forced to play 3N on silly hands instead of our cold 5m seems like a huge cost to me for not much upside in having 3m promise slam interest.

I certainly appreciate your concern, but what you cannot know (as opener) is where any stiff is located. In NT, KQ10 works pretty well opposite x, but if pard holds A, AQxx, A10xxx, xx and opener has KQ10,KJ, Kx, Kxxxx then 3N looks preferable to 5D.

Now, if there were a way to mix in 4 suit transfers to add more combinations then more of these hand types could be bid.

[JLOGIC]

akwoo, on 2013-May-06, 18:47, said:

For those of us who play MPs most of the time and don't want to change system depending on form of scoring...

Are you seriously suggesting that 5m is better than 3N at MPs?

Yes if we don't have a stopper in my stiff then I am suggesting that 5m is better than 3N, they will usually lead a suit they have 9 of and most of the honors combined. Matchpoints is still bridge.