minor suit slam tries over 2n rebid

[karlson]

Suppose the auction starts something like 2n-3c-3d-4d.

 

Presumably for most people this is a natural (5+♦) slam try. Suppose you play, as people seem to, that 4n shows a bad hand for slam, and anything else is a cue for diamonds (perhaps something is keycard, or a keycard response, whatever).

 

What do you do with a good hand for slam, but only a doubleton diamond? Suppose you have

♠Axx ♥AQx ♦Kx ♣AKxxx

Do you cue and plan to correct 6♦ to 6n? How do you get to 6♦ then opposite

♠Kxxx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣xx where you need to ruff the clubs out but to 6n opposite

♠KQxx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣xxx where a 4-2 trump break might doom 6♦, but 6n has a ton of different chances.

Is responder supposed to bid 5n at some point with the latter hand as a choice? Is this still obviously a choice if you go through a keycard sequence?

 

Sorry if some of the examples are not 100% perfect, feel free to adjust them if necessary.

[quiddity]

Maybe opener can just bid 5N with that sort of hand?

[Jlall]

With Barnet Shenkin I played that there was a step to show a slam suitable hand with no fit in this auction and also in transfer then 4m auctions ie:

 

2N 3D

3H 4D

 

same problem exists when you have a great hand for slam and no fit.

 

So in your auction 4H is a good hand for slam with no fit, 4S good hand for slam with a fit (reversing these seems better, but we just played the first available step showed this).

[gnasher]

The best way to deal with this sort of problem is not to open 2NT.

 

Failing that, I like Justin's suggestion of step rebids by opener. One cue bid by opener rarely tells responder anything useful, because it's not really news that opener has a control in a particular suit. Step rebids exchange unhelpful control information for useful quantitative information.

 

This isn't the question that was being asked, but having responder bid the same way with 4x5x and x45x doesn't make it easy for opener to evaluate his hand. Look at the effect of small changes in the major-suit holdings in the Karlson's examples. It's much better to play a method where responder shows both suits and then opener decides how good he is.

[karlson]

With Barnet Shenkin I played that there was a step to show a slam suitable hand with no fit in this auction and also in transfer then 4m auctions ie:

 

2N 3D

3H 4D

 

same problem exists when you have a great hand for slam and no fit.

 

So in your auction 4H is a good hand for slam with no fit, 4S good hand for slam with a fit (reversing these seems better, but we just played the first available step showed this).

Is there a reason you don't play it with other people, or do you just not play natural 2n in any serious partnership nowadays?

[kenrexford]

I do something similar to Justin, but kind of from a different way of thinking. In this sequence, the majors have been ruled out. So, after a minor call, whichever one, both minors are still in focus.

 

After 4♣, opener has no problem with diamond-based continuing slam interest -- he bids 4♦. Anything else agrees clubs (except 4NT).

 

After 4♦, we only have two bids below 4NT to show interest. So, I use flags here, rank-oriented. So, 4♥ is a flag for clubs and shows slam interest with a club suit. 4♠ is a flag for diamonds and shows slam interest with a fit.

 

Same end result, but from a different theoretical basis. Notice that in both sequences, the lower bid happens to be the one to show the other minor, and that Opener will always have the other minor when he has no four-card major and no fit for Responder's minor.

 

Spooky.

[Cascade]

If 3♣ is Puppet Stayman then opener may have neither minor.

[gwnn]

This isn't the question that was being asked, but having responder bid the same way with 4x5x and x45x doesn't make it easy for opener to evaluate his hand. Look at the effect of small changes in the major-suit holdings in the Karlson's examples. It's much better to play a method where responder shows both suits and then opener decides how good he is.

Hm and do you really have room for this?

[gnasher]

Hm and do you really have room for this?

Not via Stayman. You can include some or all of these two-suiters in 2NT-3♠. For example:

 

2NT-3♠ forces 3NT, then:

4♣ forces 4♦, then

4♥ = 5♦ + 4♥

4♠ = 5♦ + 4♠

4NT = diamonds, 5332

4♦ = minors

4♥ = 5♣ + 4♥

4♠ = 5♣ + 4♠

4NT = clubs, 5332

 

In this scheme, Stayman followed by four of a minor can be just a four-card suit, so you don't have to start hunting for 4-4 fits at the five level after 2NT-4NT.

 

This is all rather cramped, and doesn't leave a lot of room for step replies by opener. As I said, it's better not to open 2NT in the first place.

[Finch]

I always prefer to show opener my shape and let him judge, rather than bid Stayman than 4D which could be a 4-card suit (how do you show a 4-4 major minor slam try?) or a 5-card suit or even a 6-card suit, when I could have four spades or four hearts or neither major.

 

There are plenty of schemes to show two suiters.

 

Gnasher's scheme is one.

I play another e.g.

2NT - 3S (to play in 3NT or diamonds) - 3NT (forced) - 4D = 4-5 in the reds (possibly 4-6); 4H = 4-5 in the pointeds

 

2NT - 3NT (clubs) - 4C (forced) - 4D = 4-5 in the rounded suits

 

I don't think it matters exactly which scheme you use, but I do think it's good to show your shape.