Slam invite?

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&s=skxxxhaxxxxxdqjxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♣-1♦!-(1♠)

2NT-??

 

1♦=transfer ♥

Partner showed 18-19 pts balanced hand, a stop in ♠, 3+c♣

He could DBL with a 3c♥, but with 3c♥ he can also choice to bid 2NT (eg with good double stop ♠ and balanced hand).

How do you evaluate your hand? Will you bid Game, invite slam, force slam?

You can now bid:

3♦=transfer ♥, partner will accept with 3c♥ (If partner does not accept then 4♥ shows slam interest, better hand then direct 4♦)

4♦=transfer ♥

4♥=slam force ♥

(No agreement what 3♥ iso 3♦ would be, without the 1♠ bid it would be transfer ♠, but here it is probably same as 3♦, but preference to play in own hand).

Remark: You can't show you shortage in ♣

[dake50]

Expect partner has significant C-values. So 3NT.

[kgr]

Expect partner has significant C-values. So 3NT.

I never thought 3NT would play better then 4♥ opposite 18-19 balanced. It is possible that partner has no, or few, ♣ honours.

[gnasher]

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

[lamford]

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

 

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

 

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

[jdonn]

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

[dburn]

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

If partner has xx or xxx in spades, his 2NT bid is at least questionable. What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

[cherdanno]

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

 

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

 

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

I hope this was typed at 6 am after a heavy party with lots of alcohol. With ♥KQx, I assume Stefanie would make a support double and later offer NT. And a simulation that ignores the fact that partner opted to bid 2NT when he had alternatives is worse than useless.

[jdonn]

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

If partner has xx or xxx in spades, his 2NT bid is at least questionable. What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

Well I have to give you that one. That makes my hand better anyway so now I have no qualms about trying for slam.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

 

Lets first find out, if p has 3 card support.

 

If he has 3 card support I will investigate slam,

otherwise sign off.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[lamford]

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

 

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

 

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

I hope this was typed at 6 am after a heavy party with lots of alcohol. With ♥KQx, I assume Stefanie would make a support double and later offer NT. And a simulation that ignores the fact that partner opted to bid 2NT when he had alternatives is worse than useless.

The simulation stipulated that partner was 18-19 with a spade stopper and 2-3 hearts. And that West had a One Spade overcall.

 

I would suggest that a simulation based on somebody else's methods is even worse than useless. We are told that 2NT did not preclude having 3 hearts, and I think the right method to show the balanced hand with KQx of hearts is to bid 2NT and then break a transfer to hearts.

 

I would also say that a posting that imposes your views on how the hand should be bid, rather than the methods we are advised, is also worse than useless.

[lamford]

What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

It might take the strain off the ox opposite a bit to transfer to hearts first and then bid 3♠. Quite a few partners might interpret that sequence as a control-bid for hearts.

[cherdanno]

I assume the methods given in the original post. If you have more information about the OP's methods, then you could have let us known.

It seems clear that the OP's methods gives you a choice whether to show 3-card support with 18-19 balanced. With an ace rather than a slow stopper and KQx support it would seem obvious to me stress the support rather than the stopper.

 

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

[lamford]

I assume the methods given in the original post. If you have more information about the OP's methods, then you could have let us known.

It seems clear that the OP's methods gives you a choice whether to show 3-card support with 18-19 balanced. With an ace rather than a slow stopper and KQx support it would seem obvious to me stress the support rather than the stopper.

 

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly. If that is useless to you, then don't bother reading it or commenting on it. I did not claim any extra knowledge of the pair's methods.

 

With a double stopper in spades and KQx support providing a source of tricks and a 4-3-3-3 shape, it seems obvious to me to stress the balanced hand and the stopper at the same time; there is still room to get to hearts. Why put all hands with 3 hearts through a support double?

 

The OP goes out of its way to indicate which hands might bid 2NT when they have three hearts: "eg with good double stop ♠ and balanced hand". Silly me! I decided to believe these were the methods, not the ones you think they should be.

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&n=sqxxhkqdaxxcakxxx&s=skxxxhaxxxxxdqjxc]133|200|[/hv]

1♣-1♦!-(1♠)

2NT-3♦!

3♥!-3♠!

4♣!-4♥

6♥-all pass

 

1♣=We open 5542

1♦=transfer ♥

2NT=18-19, mostly no 3c♥

3♦=transfer ♥, 5+c♥

3♥=3c♥ (my partner thought that KQ was enough support after not support DBL first

3♠=1st/2nd control

4♣=1st/2nd control (better hand then non-serious 3NT)

 

6♥-1 after a ♠ lead and a ruff. Should South convert to 6NT against not experts?

[lamford]

No

[lmilne]

Unless I'm missing something, 6NT rates to go down at least as many tricks as 6H.

[lamford]

and what did partner have that justified this leap to 6H after your sign-off?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 KQ is certainly reasonable support, but it is not a 3 carder.

Sry, he sells the hand as having a good stopper in spades

with 3 hearts, just ask him - does this bears any resamblance

with the hand he holds?

Did South promise a 6 carder? If South has only A to 5th,

you still need hearts to be 3-3 to avoid a heart looser, so

the answer is - no, KQ is not sufficient to be sold a 3 card support.

#2 Why should South convert to 6NT?

Does South know, that the partnership has both minor suit Aces?

Of course South needs to control the minors, but ..., and of course

6H is ..., sry if you play sophisticated method, the players should stick

to their agreements, otherwise it is just wildly guessing, and you are

better of without those agreements.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I didn't read all the trash lamford said, but I agree with gnasher, 28 balanced with no fit, and nowhere to hide the awful spades. Tempting to bid just 3NT, but 4♥ is probably sounder.

[lamford]

I didn't read all the trash lamford said, but I agree with gnasher, 28 balanced with no fit, and nowhere to hide the awful spades. Tempting to bid just 3NT, but 4♥ is probably sounder.

People often find faults in others most prominent in themselves.

 

If you didn't read it, how did you know it was trash? And note that no less eminent a person than dburn wants to make a slam try too.

 

Help please ... some other strong players who will confirm my view that 4H is bonkers. Once partner bids 2NT, the chance of him having the ace of spades and therefore the king being full value has gone up a lot.

[655321]

Signing off in game seems reasonable to me.

 

We have 28-29 HCP with no big fit, and we have spade length opposite a partner who bid notrumps meaning that 6♥ will often be down on an immediate spade ruff.

 

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

 

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Incidentally Fluffy, I only recently discovered that you can click on the 'Replies' link next to a post, and a popup appears with the number of times each person has posted in the thread...

[jjbrr]

I think 4♥ is normal and anything beyond 4♥ is bonkers. There will frequently be transportation issues in 3NT.

 

Why would we be terribly excited about our ♠K being of full value? We still have lots of little ♠ to get rid of. It's still full value at ♥ as it is at NT. It's still a misfitting hand with insufficient values for slam and several ♠ losers.

[cherdanno]

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

 

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

In another post lamford also claimed that he required a spade stopper for the 2NT bid.

[lamford]

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly.

 

No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out.

In another post lamford also claimed that he required a spade stopper for the 2NT bid.

I thought that it would be evident that it required a spade stop. It is done by setting the number of points in the suit to at least 3, so the 2NT rebidder will have at least A or QJ in the suit. It is not my code, it is bridge dealer.

 

I was not advocating anything beyond 4H, so I agree with jbrrr that anything beyond 4H is bonkers. I would transfer to hearts and then bid 3S. A couple of interesting aspects of the simulation was that Six Hearts sometimes made by partner and not by us. In each case that was when the opening leader did not have a spade to lead.

 

I trust that nobody would dream of bidding anything other than 2NT on AJx Kx AKxx Axxx and 6H needs trumps 3-2. If you still think 4H is not bonkers, then I give up.