How to judge slam?

[cnszsun]

Recently, i found my slam judgement was bad. Basically, i'm more inclined to be conservative (accurately i should say me and my partner).

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sxxhakq10xxdjxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1NT-?[/hv]

 

Your partner opened 1NT (15-17), i transfered to 2h and then jumped to 4h to show mild slam interest.

Do you think that's enough?

[ArtK78]

Yes. That is a good description of this hand.

 

It is possible that partner has the magic hand - controls in the pointed suits and long strong clubs. In that case, you can make slam opposite much less than a 15-17 point 1NT opening. Something like:

 

Kx

xxx

Axx

KQJTx

 

would make slam ice cold. However, he can have a maximum 1NT opening and you will have no play for slam. For example:

 

KQJ

Jxx

KQx

KQJx

 

or

 

QJT

Jxx

AKQ

KQJx

 

Note that each of the last two hands have 18 and 19 HCP and still have 2 quick losers.

 

By making the "mild slam try" sequence of transfer to 2♥ and then raise to game, partner should act if he has a control rich hand with enough tricks to produce 12 tricks opposite a hand like yours.

[Impact]

Your query as to whether this is only a mild slam interest hand is accurately handled by the reply "Yes" as to quantification.

 

I would suggest it is worth one slam try (see below).

 

On the other hand your self-supporting suit (solid) will not inspire confidence from opener who holds no great fit, and how does he know that CKQJxx (or even KQxxx) is gold but the same D holding is not?

 

On this hand, you do have mild interest but your stated sequence while showing that level of interest will not help partner know when to move (looking at his poor trumps he will downgrade most hands).

 

In fact the old- fashioned 1NT- 3H strong

3NT- 4C cue but refraining from cueing above 4H unless opener does so, is a much better indicator. This sequence should suggest to opener not merely that he should strive to cue D, but that you are willing to go to the 5-level opposite remotely suitable values so even lacking the DA he is encouraged to cue 4S..but by contrast as responder even if he cues 4D you should merely bid 4H: unwilling to proceed to the 5-level unless he views his hand positively.

 

The subtleties of cue-bidding as both conveying location of controls but also different messages of strength have been lost with the emphasis upon RKCB- which assumes that the values for slam are already present and merely avoids the embarrassing disaster of opponents holding 2KC.

 

Similarly a relay auction will give you some chance to find the right cards (and to go down at the 5 level!).

 

Contrast this hand with a hand which has a similar solid suit and outside A but also a shortage: now it is easy to transfer and self-splinter so opener can judge the degree of wastage.

 

Hands of this sort: no shortage and 28-30/1 HCP with a solid 6 card suit will frequently make slam if 10 controls are present (counting A=2, K=1) but with only 9 or fewer controls you require methods to check not being off 2 fast losers and/or an alternative source of tricks.

 

About 28-30 years ago Rosenkranz published a series of articles on CONFI in Bridge World which assumed 2 hands were balanced (no suit longer than 5cards, no singleton) and the prospects of making slam. He contended that odds were favourable if 29-31 HCP were held, 10+ controls and a fit of 8 cards with fair trump solidity located.

 

When holding a 6 card solid suit my experience is that it provides a compensating value the equivalent of about 1.5-2HCP in terms of a starting point if you wish to use CONFI methods ie otherwise balanced and a minimum of about 27/27.5HCP.

 

OTOH, as I indicated the sample hand is well catered for by the very old-fashioned method (if available to your partnership).

 

I would use relays establishing the shape of the NT hand and then controls before describing location of the controls (assuming other preconditions were met). I would expect to know opener's exact shape and control count below the 4H level.

 

regards

[jdonn]

I think this is the wrong type of hand to be investigating. Your odds of making slam improve greatly if you tell them nothing, and partner will be hard pressed to cooperate with nothing in trumps. I transfer then bid 6♥.

[Codo]

I think I had used a Transfer followed by 3 Club to learn more about pds. hand.

If this is muddy waters, I had blast 6 Heart or at least 4 NT KC and bid Slam opposite one KC.

[whereagles]

1-suiters after 1NT can be evaluated via count of cover cards.

 

A 1NT opener has around 4 cover cards. Opposite your 6 losers, there's 2 tricks out, so 11 tricks rates to be the limit.

[hrothgar]

I think this is the wrong type of hand to be investigating. Your odds of making slam improve greatly if you tell them nothing, and partner will be hard pressed to cooperate with nothing in trumps. I transfer then bid 6♥.

I agree with Josh on this one. Transfer and then bid 6♥

 

1. This hand is worth seven tricks playing tricks in NT or Hearts (assuming that the Hearts behave). This is an awful lot of playing strength opposite a strong NT

 

2. You have solid hearts. Partner is going to have trouble picturing you with the AKQT of Hearts. Its unclear whether he's going to be inclined to cooperate with your slam try.

 

3. Get to slam quickly. Give the opponents as little time as possible to organize a defense.

 

If you're feeling conservative and prefer an invitational sequence, then I'd recommend bidding 4NT as a quantitative raise.

[bid_em_up]

Ok, dumb question.

 

Wouldn't Texas followed by 5♣ show this hand? Now partner should know not to worry about his trump holding and will be concentrating more on controls for his slam evaluations.

 

No matter what, the 5 level is reasonably safe, and the hand warrants at least one more try for slam.

[ArtK78]

I don't know that the 5 level is safe. And I would think that Texas followed by 5♣ would show a solid 7-card suit and the club ace.

 

Obviously, I disagree with the idea of transferring to hearts and leaping to 6♥. Texas followed by 5♣ is certainly a better plan, even if I don't think it is best.

[cherdano]

Isn't Texas followed by 5C exclusion?

 

I would bid 2D 2H 4H. I am not clever enough to understand how 1N 2D 2H 4H 6H will be helping the opponents. OTOH, I can see many hands that would pass 1N 2D 2H 4H where slam is down regardless of how blind the opponents lead and defend.

[matmat]

Isn't Texas followed by 5C exclusion?

thought exclusion needed to be a jump?

[kenrexford]

Texas...5♣ is Exclusion, at least for me.

Jacoby...5♣ would, for me, be RKCB, but asking about the club King and Queen instead of hearts. In other words, solid hearts but insterested specifically in club secondary honors (for a grand).

 

For this actual hand. I'm curious as to what 2♦...3♠ shows. If a general slam try, then 2♦...4♥ should be a different type of slam try.

 

If alternatives exist (self-splinters, general 3♠ try), then 2♦...4♥ seems to be right. Leaping to 6♥ seems to make sense from the standpioint of non-disclosure, but I think that the logic is incomplete. If partner moves over 4♥, you can then leap to 6♥ if you want. Same non-disclosure.

 

The sole upside, IMO, to an immediate leap is that it screams to most of a void. This may induce hesitancy in cashing and Ace-King, as the person with an Ace may panic and lead something else.

 

However, Opener should move over 4♥ when it makes. I cannot imagine that Opener will pass the combination that makes, as your 4♥ call in this sequence suggests safety at the five-level if Opener has any of the right hands.

[ArtK78]

To me, Texas followed by 4NT is RKCB.

 

Jacoby followed by 5♣ should be exclusion. It could have no other meaning - classic unnecessary jump to the 5 level in a new suit after (implied) trump agreement.

 

That is why I thought that Texas followed by 5♣ would be a control and, presumably, a solid seven-card heart suit.

 

If you were interested in cards in clubs, you could transfer to hearts, then bid clubs, then bid 4NT - 6 ace RKCB - asking for aces and kings in hearts and clubs, and, later, queens in hearts and clubs.