missed slam

[gwnn]

[hv=d=s&n=sqjt9xxhakdaxcxxx&s=sakxhxxxdkjtxcaxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1NT-2♥-2♠-4♠-all pass[/hv]

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid the same.

[Blofeld]

The bidding looks normal. Mild slam invititation rejected. The slam isn't even that great.

[pclayton]

The bidding looks normal. Mild slam invititation rejected. The slam isn't even that great.

Its a good slam. Its cold on a non-club lead, and a little better than 50-50 otherwise.

 

I think South could make another move with 5♣. When you hold the ♠AK and partner makes a slam try, you should consider cooperating.

 

Pass is far from unreasonable however.

[Guest Jlall]

The slam isn't even that great.

Don't agree with this.

[Blofeld]

Obviously you want to be in slam, but I'd guess the expected IMP loss from not being there is only 2 or 3.

 

Maybe I'm overestimating the chances that the opponents find the club lead.

[Blofeld]

Actually, back-of-the-envelope calculation shows I'm talking rubbish.

 

So scratch that. I just have a very bad intuitive idea of which slams we want to be in. :(

[han]

Obviously you want to be in slam, but I'd guess the expected IMP loss from not being there is only 2 or 3.

That would make the amount of IMPs you win for bidding slam very large right?

 

I was responder so won't comment.

[Apollo81]

Neither is to blame.

[Edmunte1]

Neither is to blame, maybe the methods could be better. Something like:

 

1nt-2♥

2♠-3♥ (1)

3♠-3NT(2)

4♣(4)-4♦(4)....

5♦(5) -6♠

 

(1)-retransfer

(2)-forcing, SI 6+♠, no shortage

(4)-cues

(5)-reevaluating, the hand value increased, denies ♥ control, second round ♣ control, emphasis is on concentrated hcp in ♦ and trump

Still a tough slam to bid

[Fluffy]

North's hand is limit, if going to make a forward movement it would be with 3♣ wich pictures kinda awfully our hand.

 

If north was in need of recovery he can try some other funny stuff, but given who he is, it is highly unlikelly :unsure:

[pclayton]

Neither is to blame, maybe the methods could be better. Something like:

 

1nt-2♥

2♠-3♥ (1)

3♠-3NT(2)

4♣(4)-4♦(4)....

5♦(5) -6♠

 

(1)-retransfer

(2)-forcing, SI 6+♠, no shortage

(4)-cues

(5)-reevaluating, the hand value increased, denies ♥ control, second round ♣ control, emphasis is on concentrated hcp in ♦ and trump

Still a tough slam to bid

Aren't 3♥ and 3N redundant here?

 

I would think Opener could cue 4♣ directly over 3♥.

[Guest Jlall]

I think with any methods this is just really hard to bid.

[Cascade]

I think south should take another bid.

 

While south has a minimum fifteen it is almost all controls and the J10 provide potential for further tricks.

 

I am not sure after one further move whether we will get to slam.

[Cascade]

I had another look - I couldn't remember the exact hands when I was making the last comment.

 

1NT 2♥

2♠ 4♠

5♣ 5♦

5♠ 6♠

 

looks very reasonable to me.

 

North also has controls and I think would easily accept when south takes a move. Slam makes opposite this fitting 15 count and opener could have a better hand without a heart control and bid the same way.

[jdonn]

I'll take this chance to vent about a pet peeve. Why do people so often call this auction a 'mild' slam try? It's a balanced slam try, and in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit. Calling it a 'mild' slam try implies that there is some stronger slam try available (blackwood, I suppose). Nothing mild about it.

[Guest Jlall]

I'll take this chance to vent about a pet peeve. Why do people so often call this auction a 'mild' slam try? It's a balanced slam try, and in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit. Calling it a 'mild' slam try implies that there is some stronger slam try available (blackwood, I suppose). Nothing mild about it.

5S

[kenrexford]

I now like 1NT-transfer-2NT to be a three-card super-acceptance (HHx in trumps). But, this Opener's hand is not strong enough.

 

I also like 1NT-transfer-simple-3OM to be a slam move. So, if I did that, Opener would cue 3♠ (two of the top three clubs), and Responder would bid 3NT (serious, after learning this), and Opener would bid 4♣ (club control). Responder would bid 4♦ (diamond control -- not shortness because no initial 4♦).

 

Now, if Opener happened to bid 4♥ as LTTC, Responder would accept, primed out an all.

 

This sequence, however, requires that Responder upgrade his enthusiasm by the information provided about the solid trumps and that Opener upgrade his enthusiasm by the presence of the diamond Ace, either of which is plausible but somewhat unlikely.

 

I think I would either miss this one or, if arriving at the slam, feel that a bad move by one of us turned up lucky gold.

[benlessard]

The way I like is that mild slam are very specific hand that need 4 keycards (or 3 when playing weak Nt) to be accepted. So with north im going to make a real slam try. I think south with 3 keycards and the K of D has an easy accept.

[kenrexford]

North needs five covers.

 

South would super-accept with five assured covers.

 

The late 4♠ call does not change that need.

 

So, South only goes if KJ10x in a side suit provides two covers in his estimation. I'm not sure that this is a good decision.

 

Adding 3OM (3♥) to allow further consideration does help slightly. When Opener bids 3♠, rather than 4♠, he is showing something worthwhile.

[pgeerkens]

To me, the North hand here is exactly what I envision as the ideal hand for this sequence; "I just can't bring myself to Blackwood knowing that 2 trump controls are missing."

 

South, staring at both the missing trump honours and a control rich hand, must do something.

[gnasher]

in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit.

If so, the methods need changing. It's ridiculous to have to start investigating at the five level on this sort of hand.

[jdeegan]

in most common systems, at least in the US, it's the only balanced slam try available with a six card suit.

If so, the methods need changing. It's ridiculous to have to start investigating at the five level on this sort of hand.

:lol: Good hand with a lotta good observations and issues brought to fore.

 

1) Missing six with 15 HCP opposite 15 HCP with no singletons or 5 card side suits as sources of tricks can't be that bad, esp. if the auction pinpoints a club lead.

 

2) Is it OK for responder to bid 3♥ w/o hearts or any interest in playing in hearts? Seems to me like opener and responder will soon be working at cross purposes on way too may hands.

 

3) I HATE (and so should you, imho.) the notion of superaccepting with only three card support. It violates the LOTT, which is the only reason superacceptance made any sense in the first place.

 

4) The idea of using a two level X-fer followed by a jump to game as a general purpose, somewhat balanced, but otherwise ill-defined "mild" slam try has always bothered me as showing too many different kinds of hands.

 

Oswald Jacoby used to play 3♥ or 3♠ in response to a 1NT opener as a semi-balanced, "mild" slam try with a poor 6-bagger. A X-fer followed by a jump to game showed the "mild" slam try with better trumps. Both were, essentially, "picture" bids. Imho, there are better uses for direct 3♥ or 3♠ calls over a 1NT opener, but relaying into some "impossible" contract after a 2♠ response to 1NT might just be the answer for showing what Jake used the direct 3♥ or 3♠ bids to indicate.

 

5) Shouldn't we be looking for a system that will get us to 6♠ opposite:

 

AKx

xxx

KQJx

Axx

 

or

 

AKx

xxx

KJ10x

AQx

[gnasher]

5) Shouldn't we be looking for a system that will get us to 6♠ opposite:

 

AKx

xxx

KQJx

Axx

 

or

 

AKx

xxx

KJ10x

AQx

With QJ109xx AK Ax xxx, opposite the first one I'd like to be in seven. Call me a dinosaur if you like, but what's wrong with:

 

1NT-3S

4C-4D

5D-5H

6D-6H

7NT

 

and

 

1NT-3S

4C-4D

4S-5H

6D-6NT

 

respectively?

[keylime]

I think North needs to upgrade their hand a little - they have good prime holdings and a nice suit. They should make one try here, but unless you have a way to ask, it's risking the five level.