[aguahombre]

I know Mr. Ace is not advocating what he is explaining, so this is not directed there.

When 2NT is opened, responder can have a lot of different hands which would transfer to start with. He develops a plan for his next call, in order to work toward the correct strain and level. The last thing he should want is for opener to interfere with the plan holding two or three spades. Even holding four, he is probably interfering with some part of the plan; but maybe that has to be (if he can distinguish between a good hand with controls and a random 20).

Aside from the times they belong in 3M, responder loses some followup bids, when one of them is needed to retransfer back to the major. He also loses whatever room was gobbled up by opener's rebid.

[jdeegan]

mikeh, on 2011-September-08, 11:08, said:

Any time we can picture a non-magic hand for partner on which slam is good, we should consider making an effort.

Kxx AQx AJ10x Axx is an 18 count on which we have play.

KQxx AKxx Kx Axx is a 19 count on which it is virtually cold...altho this is tending towards the 'magic hand' end of the spectrum.

of course, we can construct many soild openings that give little or no play.

Kx KQxx AKxx KQx and game is the limit, and even that is not 100%.

This all suggests that we need to involve partner before we push beyond game, and, fortunately, we have the ability to do so, if we play Texas.....non-texas fans may have other methods, but I wouldn't want to suggest diamonds as trump here, even tho it could work.

I would bid 3♥ and raise 3♠ to game.

I really dislike any method by which opener rejects the transfer unless he has 4 spades and a good hand in context. Allowing (requiring) partner to bid 3N with 2 spades makes me ill.

Not only do I want to be able to escape into 3♠ when I have a horrible hand....a hand that takes zero tricks in notrump but 2-3 in spades, but I also want to maximize my slam exploration should partner like spades, and taking away 3N as one of those encouraging bids strikes me as a needless waste of constructive bidding space.


My approach is quantitative and as such partner won't be able to understand much of my shape other than the 6 spades, but he'll like Aces and support, and won't like Q's and J's and short spades....and that should get the job done most of the time.

Well said. I think you have to Xfer and then subside unless pard super-accepts. You still have a chance to sniff at slam since an Xfer followed by a jump to game is a mild slam try.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-08, 10:06, said:

Please tell me partner won't be doing somethng other than accepting a transfer at this level every time she has more than 2 spades. That would be seriously mucking things up for responder who might have a variety of different plans after the transfer.

Now don't be a h8r!

I play a similar structure and this is a good hand for it. When partner accepts, we play 3N as non-serious, which seems just about right with this hand.

When partner doesn't accept, partner denies a fit. Then a signoff (via retransfer) seems just about right.

[cherdano]

I agree with almost everything Mike wrote but still disagree with his conclusion. If we had a "slam try in spades with diamond suit", or "slam try in spades with club shortness" available, below 4S, then I think we would all agree that this would clearly be the right way to bid the hand. But assuming we only have a quantitative spade slam try available, I am skeptical. Partner has 20 of the missing 32 hcp. In order for slam to be good, we need four out of five missing keycards to start with - and after that we still have a possible spade loser, 2nd round heart loser and a possible late diamond loser to deal with.

I would just put partner in 4S.

[han]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-08, 22:37, said:

When 2NT is opened, responder can have a lot of different hands which would transfer to start with. He develops a plan for his next call, in order to work toward the correct strain and level. The last thing he should want is for opener to interfere with the plan holding two or three spades. Even holding four, he is probably interfering with some part of the plan; but maybe that has to be (if he can distinguish between a good hand with controls and a random 20).

Warning. Do not show your hand. Your partner has a plan. Stupid argument.

[aguahombre]

Interesting dismissal of the premise that the hand which is to be declarer often should not be giving extra, unneeded information to the defense; especially when in doing so he might pass up the level to which his side belongs and take away useful probing space.

It might not be your style, but I doubt it is as stupid as you claim.

[whereagles]

Transfer + 4D seems like an ok start. The rest depends on methods, I guess.

You can also play the odds and bid a straight 6 lol.

[FrancesHinden]

I was recently persuaded to change to a system of responding to 2NT where all responses are basically game forcing. I was initially somewhat dubious about this for the obvious reason mikeh states: that you can't transfer out to 3M and play there. However, we bid a load of randomly dealt hands and found the system gained overall. The weak take-out hand is (i) very rare, (ii) doesn't always improve the contract and (iii) rarely changes to minus into a plus, it more commonly reduces the size of the minus (so it's more useful at matchpoints) and (iv) when partner breaks the transfer you then go minus anyway. Against those small losses, the new system hugely improves slam bidding - although we do play a lot of artificial continuations to (try and) take full advantage of the extra space we have. In particular, you can make a mild slam try below 4M with a known 8-card fit to go back to.

I do think this is only worthwhile if you put a lot of time into the continuations, and it's obviously a trade-off of gains & losses but I think those who are objecting even to the idea that you might play a transfer as game forcing haven't done the analysis that we have.


p.s. we only play this in response to 'good 20' or stronger 2NT bids, not after e.g. 2S 2NT

[FrancesHinden]

sorry hit reply rather than edit


Anyway, on this hand we could transfer to spades, if partner showed 3 or 4-card support but denied a decent side 5-card suit, I would bid 4C, showing a (possibly light) slam try with 5-6 spades and exactly 4 diamonds. Partner will know that rounded controls are now good, and lower honours aren't. If partner bid 3NT to deny a fit, I would just retransfer back to spades.

I could alternatively bid 4D, slam try with 6 spades, opposite which partner will distinguish between min/medium/great hands, but here I think finding out about the fit at the 3-level is more useful; opposite a 4D slam try he's not supposed to worry too much about his spade holding but look at his hand in general.

[jdeegan]

mike777, on 2011-September-08, 10:21, said:

3h and then 4s over the forced 3s showing 6s and a mild slam try(no texas).

Same here. Oswald Jacoby played it this way.