Rambling thoughts on this possible slam hand

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sk10976432hkd95ck7]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

pass 1♦ pass 1♠

pass 1NT pass ?

 

The 1NT rebid shows 15-17. You are not playing any check-back system to enable a force below game and a bid of 4♠ at this point looks tame. So how do you make a slam try? I believe 4NT should be taken as quantitative, so thats out. Is this a time for the much derided Gerber convention? How else could you take 4♣ now? One possible problem is the partner's could bid this way with a 1444 distribution. Any opinions on how to bid without any fancy agreements?

[helene_t]

I think slam is good if p has three aces. Gerber for me.

[EricK]

Perhaps 3♠ should be forcing here.

[Gerben42]

How else could you take 4♣ now?

 

Fearing to win the Basil Fawlty price for stating the bleeding obvious, as a splinter perhaps?

 

Maybe 3♠ SHOULD be forcing because you need that now, unfortunately that doesn't make it forcing. Only if you are playing WJS (4-8 style) but this was not mentioned by the opening poster.

 

I think slam is good if p has three aces

 

Well it will be 75% at least. Given that he has 3 Aces, the chance is 75% one of them is ♦A.

 

The practical bid is 4♠.

[P_Marlowe]

4S.

 

You are paying of because you lack agreements,

accept this.

But if you dont want to sign of in 4S, bid 5S, with 3

Aces, partner will bid 6S, with 2 Aces he will pass,

with 1 Ace, ... ***** happens.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Just read Erics comment, I think I agree, but

I wont risk 3S+1.

[Codo]

Find ways to show your hands. Don`t stop the bidding system after the first answer.

 

If you just play NMF, a lot of problems are solved.

 

Now, bid 4 Spade or 6 Spade. I think 4 is enough, but if you are looking for adventures.... Qx,QJxx,KQJx,AQx is a possible non minimum hand for partner so I won`t bet at 3 aces at all and go for 4 Spade.

 

I doubt that 5 Spade ask for KCs in spade and that pd will bid 7 with 4 6 with 3 and pass with two (or less).

[the hog]

4S. Yes slam may make and if my grandfather were a woman he would be my grandmother! Partner can also be 1444, so make the sensible bid.

 

4C is a splinter of course - we don't use baby food here! An alternative would be 2D GF, followed by 3S setting the suit etc. However i guess you don't play that....

[rbforster]

Would 4♥ be a self-splinter for spades? It's not a slam try much under 4♠, but maybe it's better than nothing.

[pclayton]

I would just bid 4♠ if 3♠ isn't forcing. It's not hard to construct hands that are going down in 4, much less five, and these are much more common than the hands we want to try slam on.

[jdonn]

There is no way I'd look for slam here. Say the unlikely is true and partner has three aces. Maybe we are off two top diamonds. Maybe spades don't break. Maybe we are off the ace of hearts and slam just has no play. Maybe we are off the ace of clubs and it's on a 2-1 and a finesse. It's just too much to hope for slam here.

 

I do not want to meet the Hog's grandfather.

[EricK]

Maybe 3♠ SHOULD be forcing because you need that now, unfortunately that doesn't make it forcing. Only if you are playing WJS (4-8 style) but this was not mentioned by the opening poster.

It's not just becuase of this hand that I think 3♠ should be forcing. If the NT rebid shows a strong NT, playing 3♠ as NF is a very small target when you already have 2♠ available to show your minimum hands.

[Walddk]

Bid whatever you feel is right (I would just leap to game), but do NOT bid 4♣ if it's intended as the dreaded G. Completely useless here too unless you get four aces (very unlikely). Even then you can't bid the grand slam with certainty because you may be facing the singleton ♠A opposite.

 

Three and you could be in unfamiliar territory, because you don't know if you are off ♦AK. Another frightening scenario is when opener has the three aces outside trumps and two small spades.

 

During the almost fifty years I have been playing bridge, there has been absolutely no need to use 4♣ as G. When did you last get

 

KQJ10xxxxxx

x

x

x

 

when your partner opened 1NT? So use 4♣ for something meaningful.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

I agree with just bidding game. I don't agree that gerber is a waste of a bid. Yes, we all like to sound sophisticated when we trash some conventions... I do it myself so I should know. And, yes, we all know that a very large segment of the bridge playing population use gerber far too often, in situations where the inventor of the convention never intended it to be used. But so what? It is a very useful convention when one needs it.. and it can be put to a use in situations where it is far more beneficial than any other use. We don't need Roland's hand type to use it.

 

Check the convention cards of most NA experts and I suspect that you will find that most of them use gerber.

 

But this hand isn't the right one for that.... make it KJxxxxx Kx x Kx, and now I think we risk it. I don't see why expecting 3 aces is unrealistic... given that I hold 3 kings, I would expect partner to hold 3 Aces a significant amount of the time, and slam to be anywhere from decent to laydown when he does. Note that I bolstered the spade suit, so that we have decent play opposite xx in spades. Also note that I eliminated the chances of the opps cashing an AK combo. Note also that we are not risking the 5-level when he has 2 aces... we pass 4♠.. so it is a low-cost probe.

[Walddk]

It is a very useful convention when one needs it..

Mike writes this just to annoy me. He knows well that the Canadian seagulls on Hans Ø play that nonsense convention and that's why he wants to steal our island! Then he can have a game with them and bid 4♣ as he sees fit.

 

However, those trespassing gulls should be chased away and replaced by Danish hummingbirds. They play a decent bridge ;)

 

Roland

[han]

I am surprised to see that Mike defends gerber here. Not that I don't play Gerger, I do, but not in this particular auction. I think the splinter will be useful far more often.

 

On this hand we'd like partner to hold the aces in the three highest ranking suits, I don't know how to find out if he does. I could bid 3S (forcing) and sign off after 4C but cue 4H ovre 4D, that would give us the best chance I think.

[mikeh]

It is a very useful convention when one needs it..

Mike writes this just to annoy me. He knows well that the Canadian seagulls on Hans Ø play that nonsense convention and that's why he wants to steal our island! Then he can have a game with them and bid 4♣ as he sees fit.

 

However, those trespassing gulls should be chased away and replaced by Danish hummingbirds. They play a decent bridge ;)

 

Roland

I thought that we had resolved the bogus claims of the melancholy Danes to Canadian territory... especially given that even Roland admits that the majority of the inhabitants of Hans O are Canadian.

 

As for replacing canuck gulls with danish hummingbirds, only Roland would think that such lightweights play a decent game. They can't even hold their cards properly.. their beaks are too narrow and pointy. Besides which, their constant humming is annoying.

 

And, since they refuse to use gerber, on principle, their slam bidding sucks.

 

Roland is merely trying, once again, to distract the intelligent reader of this forum, from the hash that he made of his bridge posting....

[skjaeran]

It is a very useful convention when one needs it..

Mike writes this just to annoy me. He knows well that the Canadian seagulls on Hans Ø play that nonsense convention and that's why he wants to steal our island! Then he can have a game with them and bid 4♣ as he sees fit.

 

However, those trespassing gulls should be chased away and replaced by Danish hummingbirds. They play a decent bridge :rolleyes:

 

Roland

I thought that we had resolved the bogus claims of the melancholy Danes to Canadian territory... especially given that even Roland admits that the majority of the inhabitants of Hans O are Canadian.

 

As for replacing canuck gulls with danish hummingbirds, only Roland would think that such lightweights play a decent game. They can't even hold their cards properly.. their beaks are too narrow and pointy. Besides which, their constant humming is annoying.

 

And, since they refuse to use gerber, on principle, their slam bidding sucks.

 

Roland is merely trying, once again, to distract the intelligent reader of this forum, from the hash that he made of his bridge posting....

LOL. How often have you had a hand for Gerber, Mike?

 

I'll admit that I've got Gerber on over 1NT probably since I started playing. I still haven't used the convention once in my life. I haven't removed it from my SC, knowing that the moment I did, Gerber hands would just happen every session from then on. ;)

[benlessard]

I would be very disappointed if my partner bid 4S here. Not that slam is likely just that 4S is lazy. Surely a new suit, a jump or a splinter followed by 4S is a better description than a plain jump to game. In short any forcing bid under 4S is a better bid than 4S.

 

I remember a similar hand where the other hand was

 

Axx

Axxx

axx

axx

 

and 7 was cold.

[jdonn]

You know I have to admit, when I answered this problem I missed that partner had shown 15-17. That changes things a fair amount...

[Wackojack]

I have to say that I have been surprised by the caution of so many of the replies (with some encouraging exceptions) and my Gerber suggestion either ignored or dismissed. Maybe not only jdonn did not take in the 15-17 HCP.

 

Lets say that you have agreed that 4♣ is straight gerber. You hear:

 

Zero aces: Almost vanishingly unlikely, partner must have QJ, QJ, kQJ, QJ

 

1 Ace: Sign off in 4♠. Yes partner could have AQJ, QJ, QJ, QJ and 4♠ will fail.

 

2 Aces: Pass

 

3 Aces: 12 tricks must be about 75% even allowing for a possible stiff ♠A or xx.

 

4 Aces: 13 tricks off the top unless stiff ♠A.

 

This seems to me to be a practical method to find a possible slam when you do not have any sophisticated agreements as is likely when you are not playing in a serious competition and playing with a non expert. Yes, a purist would say that ace or key card conventions are "last check" conventions to be used to keep you out of bad slams, and accuse me of misusing Gerber. Yes, if you play 3♠ as forcing you may be able to cue bid and get to the best spot. Better still if you play 2♦ as a game force(as in xyz or 2 way NMF) you might be able to agree spades at the 2 level and then employ fancy asking bids that are way above my head. Not having these tools, it seems defeatist to just give up and bid 4♠.

 

As to how you would take a bid of 4♣ without any prior agreement, perhaps most experts would take it as a splinter. However, I would bet that the vast majority of BBO players would take it as the dreaded G word.

 

btw Hog would you like Mr Gerber to ask your grandfather if she is a woman?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Better still if you play 2♦ as a game force(as in xyz or 2 way NMF) you might be able to agree spades at the 2 level and then employ fancy asking bids that are way above my head.  Not having these tools, it seems defeatist to just give up and bid 4♠. 

 

As to how you would take a bid of 4♣ without any prior agreement, perhaps most experts would take it as a splinter.  However, I would bet that the vast majority of BBO players would take it as the dreaded G word. 

 

btw Hog  would you like Mr Gerber to ask your grandfather if she is a woman?

#1 I did take into account, that 1NT showed 15-17.

#2 If I am allowed to guess about the meaning of

certain bids, I would assume, that partner takes

2C as forcing, and I would make this bid.

Actually I rather assume NMF than 4C being

Gerber, but than you know more about the

envirorement your partner comes from.

But playing with a pickup partner, no idea which

nationality, no way I am assuming Gerber.

#3 4C may well be interpreted as Gerber, but 4S over

the 4H answer is to play (even oppossite a singleton)?,

your assumption, asking about the numbers of kings,

a relais to 4NT?

 

No agreement, keep it simple, avoid stupid contracts,

accept, that you will miss a few good ones.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

To me, 4 ♣ had not been Gerber without discussion. And I really doubt that it had been for the majority of pick up partners I play with. Not to mention that it had not been Gerber for any more frequent partner.

 

I totally agree, that on this particular hand Gerber had solved a guess. But so had any other tool like a forcing 3 Spade, nmf, checkback, etc.

[pclayton]

You know I have to admit, when I answered this problem I missed that partner had shown 15-17. That changes things a fair amount...

I missed it too. Suddenly this hand looks better.

 

I'll GF and start rebidding spades. If pard shows any encouragement, I'll make a move.

[Wackojack]

I totally agree, that on this particular hand Gerber had solved a guess. But so had any other tool like a forcing 3 Spade, nmf, checkback, etc.

Yes indeed. The difference is that use of Gerber is an add-on. It does not change the rest of the system. Contrast this with 2♣ and 2♦ check-back. Here a plethora of new ways of showing your hand are opened up, requiring detailed agreement. Great for "system nuts" but not practical unless you and your partner are likeminded and are prepared to spend a lot of time on it. Even using 3♠ forcing, you could argue needs system tinkering. say play 1m-2s as 0-5 1m-1s-1nt-2s as 6-8 invite, releasing 1m-1s-1nt-3s as agame force.

[P_Marlowe]

You know I have to admit, when I answered this problem I missed that partner had shown 15-17. That changes things a fair amount...

I missed it too. Suddenly this hand looks better.

 

I'll GF and start rebidding spades. If pard shows any encouragement, I'll make a move.

But how do you make a GF without any special agreement?

 

Thats the problem.

 

Of course I like my hand, of course the hand is worth a move

toward slam, but how to make this move, if you dont have

any tools?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe