What is your call now?

[Little Kid]

[hv=s=sakqhaxxdxxxcktxx]133|100|Scoring: XIMP

1NT-2NT*

3♣**-3♥***

?

 

* ♦ transfer

** Not a super accept

*** ♥ Shortage[/hv]

[jjbrr]

3♠ cuebid for ♦

[effervesce]

Agree 3♠ cuebid - no wasted values at all, great hand with stacks of controls. We won't be playing in 3NT that's for sure =)

[Fluffy]

heading for slam

[mohitz]

Yea, have a very good hand in context. 3S to communicate that to partner

[aguahombre]

I already said I have no super-accept. 3S cue is automatic, I think --since partner could be slamming. I still don't think I have shown anything other than a strong desire not to play this hand in NT opposite his shortness. So, will fully cooperate with, or initiate further slam moves.

[peachy]

Playing in NT is out! We could have slam and in rare cases only 5D. I bid 3S, probably unanimous here.

[rogerclee]

I would have superaccepted.

[aguahombre]

I would have superaccepted.

interesting. Is there any you wouldn't? diamonds are trump, not clubs

[rogerclee]

First of all if partner has no game interest we will do better to superaccept, since we will declare it from the right side.

 

Second your honor structure outside of diamonds is just as important as your diamond holding. We have prime cards, good for either making slam or taking 9 tricks in 3N.

 

Third, having 3 diamonds is much better than having 2.

[aguahombre]

on the other side, we have no diamond filler, no four card support, no 18 in support===and on this auction diamonds can still be played from our side in the very unlikely case where a club thru would matter....not likely, since he is slamming with no spade cards and a stiff heart.

 

the point being super acceptances should mean something, but are not relevent to this auction.

[Little Kid]

not likely, since he is slamming with no spade cards and a stiff heart.

Do you play 3♥ as a slam try here? I would have thought it is just patterning out and still looking for best strain? 1NT bidder could still have something like KJTx♥ and 3NT might be best spot?

 

I posted this hand for a friend and for what its worth, I wouldn't super accept myself. Partner will probably upgrade a couple of hands to 3NT where it has little play simply because we won't be able to set up the diamonds in time. If he has a good ♦ suit chances are he would have bid game himself. It is a nice hand with lots of controls, but if we only have one stopper in ♥s or ♣s it could get tricky to get 9 before they get 5.

 

Change the ♠Q and ♦Q and I'd be all over it. Perhaps another tiny argument against trying to right-side 3♦ here could be that partner might be weak with 5-5 in the minors, in which case you want to play in ♣s.

 

Thanks for for responses! :)

[jjbrr]

not likely, since he is slamming with no spade cards and a stiff heart.

Do you play 3♥ as a slam try here? I would have thought it is just patterning out and still looking for best strain? 1NT bidder could still have something like KJTx♥ and 3NT might be best spot?

 

I posted this hand for a friend and for what its worth, I wouldn't super accept myself. Partner will probably upgrade a couple of hands to 3NT where it has little play simply because we won't be able to set up the diamonds in time. If he has a good ♦ suit chances are he would have bid game himself. It is a nice hand with lots of controls, but if we only have one stopper in ♥s or ♣s it could get tricky to get 9 before they get 5.

 

Change the ♠Q and ♦Q and I'd be all over it. Perhaps another tiny argument against trying to right-side 3♦ here could be that partner might be weak with 5-5 in the minors, in which case you want to play in ♣s.

 

Thanks for for responses! :)

Er. I'm not sure I follow your logic. 3♥ isn't a slam try, but it is GF and by definition it is a hand with the potential to take a lot of tricks, and therefore game and slam aren't too far apart. Yes, with some hands if opener bids 3NT, responder will respect that and pass, knowing that partner has cards in the suit you're short in.

 

Secondly, a super accept is traditionally based on the quality of ♦ in opener's hand rather than other things (clee made a good point though). This is because, again, with a good fit responder will have a lot of tricks, and with a bad fit he might not. That's part of the benefit of playing 4-suit transfers: you get to invite with tricks rather than points. So in the context of a hand that couldn't super accept in ♦ here, your couldn't be better given your prime controls, 3-card support, and little ♥ wastage. Partner needs very little more than a min GF to make slam really good.

 

Your last point is right. People use 2NT as ♦ or 5-5minors and less than invite because partner can mildly suggest preference for one of the minors by either super accepting or not, if you play the intermediate step to deny good support. Rightsiding, while a consideration, is not such a big deal.

[whereagles]

4♥, showing no wastage there.

[Fluffy]

not likely, since he is slamming with no spade cards and a stiff heart.

Do you play 3♥ as a slam try here? I would have thought it is just patterning out and still looking for best strain? 1NT bidder could still have something like KJTx♥ and 3NT might be best spot?

It is a hand that wants to play 3NT opposite ♥KQx or ♥QJ10x, but might wanna play slam opposite ♥Axx or ♥xxxx, it is not slammish untill it becomes slammish :)

[aguahombre]

All true, and still makes 3S the right bid at this point in the auction. And still makes the discussion about super-accepting the first time with this hand moot.

[mikeh]

3♠ is perfect.

 

It allows partner to define whether he has a choice of games hand or whether he has (either always or only after we avoid 3N) slam interest. If the former, then we needn't tell the opps any more, while if the latter, we have lots and lots of room...over 4♣ I will drive to slam, and expect to show at least AK A and K in the side suits, and thus deny diamonds as good as the Qx...surely we all superaccept with AKx Axx Qx Kxxx or the like?

 

 

And unless he jumps somewhere, I can surely do this at the 5♠ level or lower. Whether I can imply a black Queen is an interesting issue for grand purposes if he holds, for example, xxx x AKQxxx AQx, but I think it's not impossible....I will have made 3 cuebids on a non-superaccept on many sequences.