Common situation - hand from BB

[bluecalm]

Bermuda Bowl, w/w your partner deals.

♠9 ♥KJT62 ♦9543 ♣Q86

 

2NT - 3♦

3♥ - ????

 

You choices are 3NT (which will be converted to 4♥ if partner has 3♥) or 4♥ accepting 5-2 heart fit.

2NT is basically 19-20 but partner often upgrades 18's.

Meck bid something different than I would (what a surprise !).

 

Thoughts ?

[Jlall]

For almost everyone at least in USA 4H now is a slam try. If you wanted to play 4H you should have bid texas on the round before.

 

Anyways to answer your question I would offer 3N.

[mikeh]

For almost everyone at least in USA 4H now is a slam try. If you wanted to play 4H you should have bid texas on the round before.

 

Anyways to answer your question I would offer 3N.

agreed

[bluecalm]

For almost everyone at least in USA 4H now is a slam try. If you wanted to play 4H you should have bid texas on the round before.

 

Anyways to answer your question I would offer 3N.

 

I doubt it's standard in most places in the world. For example Italians use 4♣/4♦ transfers to indicate slam try (leaving one more step for exploration). You also could have a hand which is not interested in slam if partner doesn't superaccepts. I don't know anything about standards in USA (or about standards anywhere excepts pairs who played their share on vugraph) so I don't doubt you are right.

Meckwell change their system often so I don't know how they play now but there was definitely a time in near past they played 4♥ as "to play" here (or one of them thought they play it:) ). Let's assume they play 3NT and 4♥ to play here (I am sure one way or the other Meck had a choice and this is key point in this hand).

[gnasher]

I'd offer a choice of games. Without ♣Q, I'd insist on hearts.

[jjbrr]

Do Meckwell really upgrade many 18s?

[bluecalm]

Do Meckwell really upgrade many 18s?

 

Yes. I saw thousands of hands already and it's pretty common for them to open 18's at 1/2 position with decent 5/6carder in minor.

[Jlall]

Do Meckwell really upgrade many 18s?

yes

[bluecalm]

Do Meckwell really upgrade many 18s?

 

yes

 

Btw I wonder why it's the case. As well as opening 2NT with 19-20 instead of 20-21.

As their 1NT range is 14-16 it seems that their system could easily handle "intermediate" zone of 17-19.

For example:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1NT would be 17-19 and:

 

1♣ - 1♥/♠

1NT would be 17-19 or say 22+

 

Maybe there is some problems with range that wide after their quite common 1NT/2♣ responses to strong club or maybe they just think opening 2NT is profitable contrary to common belief and they want to do that as often as possible.

 

Thoughts ?

[bluecalm]

Meckstroth choice was 4♥.

My simulation shows it's very very close. 3NT is making a bit more often (5%) but I am not sure which is better IMP wise (420 to 400 is an imp etc.).

I was very surprised by this choice. It seems the poll shows that 3NT is standard.

 

Note to: Jlall: I digged up some old Meckwell convention card and indeed they play that 4♥ is to play here and 4♦/4♥ are SI+ (while 4♣ being Gerber). I don't see any reasons to play that way though.

[Jlall]

Meckstroth choice was 4♥.

My simulation shows it's very very close. 3NT is making a bit more often (5%) but I am not sure which is better IMP wise (420 to 400 is an imp etc.).

I was very surprised by this choice. It seems the poll shows that 3NT is standard.

 

Note to: Jlall: I digged up some old Meckwell convention card and indeed they play that 4♥ is to play here and 4♦/4♥ are SI+ (while 4♣ being Gerber). I don't see any reasons to play that way though.

The reason it is theoretically better to play texas as slam invitational + and transfer and raise as to play is because there are some hands where you don't have a slam try unless partner can make a super accept. So over 3D-super accept you can make a slam try while not showing a slam try if partner doesn't superaccept.

 

This is a very uncommon way of playing though in USA, 99 % of people play the opposite way.

[Jlall]

Do Meckwell really upgrade many 18s?

 

yes

 

Btw I wonder why it's the case. As well as opening 2NT with 19-20 instead of 20-21.

As their 1NT range is 14-16 it seems that their system could easily handle "intermediate" zone of 17-19.

For example:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1NT would be 17-19 and:

 

1♣ - 1♥/♠

1NT would be 17-19 or say 22+

 

Maybe there is some problems with range that wide after their quite common 1NT/2♣ responses to strong club or maybe they just think opening 2NT is profitable contrary to common belief and they want to do that as often as possible.

 

Thoughts ?

19 becomes an awkward range to handle in competitive auctions with strong club.

[gnasher]

The reason it is theoretically better to play texas as slam invitational + and transfer and raise as to play is because there are some hands where you don't have a slam try unless partner can make a super accept. So over 3D-super accept you can make a slam try while not showing a slam try if partner doesn't superaccept.

I think you're wrong about that. Consider these two methods:

  A 3D/H = transfer (including slam tries); 4D/H = transfer, signoff

  B 3D/H = transfer; 4D/H = transfer, slam try

 

Playing B:

- If you have a slam try only opposite a super-accept, you transfer at the three level and see what he does.

- If you have a slam try opposite a non super-accept, you transfer at the four level.

So the advantage you mention doesn't exist.

 

There is, in fact, a theoretical benefit to A: when responder is planning a slam try regardless, he gains the extra information from opener's super-acceptance or otherwise.

 

However, I don't think Bluecalm is suggesting B. The method used by Bluecalm, me, and (apparently) the Italians, is:

  C 3D/H = transfer; 4C/D = 2-step transfer, slam try

 

C is better* than either of the other methods, because:

- If you have a hand that is interested only opposite a super-accept, you go via the three-level transfer.

- If you have a hand that is interested opposite a generally suitable hand (which might not be a super-accept of a 3-level transfer), you go via the four-level transfer. Opener can express suitability by bidding the intermediate step.

 

*"Better", that is, for the purpose of finding major-suit slams. Obviously, this involves the loss of a 4♣ bid. So far as I can make out, most North Americans use 4♣ as Gerber. I find this as mystifying as baseball, but if it's important that Gerber remain part of your life you can always play 2NT-4♥ as Gerber.

[dburn]

3D/H = transfer; 4C/D = 2-step transfer, slam try

 

C is better than either of the other methods, because:

- If you have a hand that is interested only opposite a super-accept, you go via the three-level transfer.

- If you have a hand that is interested opposite a generally suitable hand (which might not be a super-accept of a 3-level transfer), you go via the four-level transfer. Opener can express suitability by bidding the intermediate step.

Opener can do slightly better by bidding S1 when his hand is either minimally suitable or maximally suitable (so that he will continue after responder's 4M), and bidding the major when his hand is neither of the above.

[Jlall]

The reason it is theoretically better to play texas as slam invitational + and transfer and raise as to play is because there are some hands where you don't have a slam try unless partner can make a super accept. So over 3D-super accept you can make a slam try while not showing a slam try if partner doesn't superaccept.

I think you're wrong about that. Consider these two methods:

  A 3D/H = transfer (including slam tries); 4D/H = transfer, signoff

  B 3D/H = transfer; 4D/H = transfer, slam try

 

Playing B:

- If you have a slam try only opposite a super-accept, you transfer at the three level and see what he does.

- If you have a slam try opposite a non super-accept, you transfer at the four level.

So the advantage you mention doesn't exist.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about lol. What advantage did you think I mentioned existing that didn't exist? You re-stated exactly what I said.

 

The advantage is, as you say:

 

- If you have a slam try only opposite a super-accept, you transfer at the three level and see what he does.

 

You cannot do this in method A because 3D-3H-4H is a slam try and partner might move, where you only wanted him to move if he had a super accept.

 

However, I don't think Bluecalm is suggesting B. The method used by Bluecalm, me, and (apparently) the Italians, is:

  C 3D/H = transfer; 4C/D = 2-step transfer, slam try

 

Uhh pretty sure I was discussing meckwells system and he was not discussing option C at all in that regard since he said:

 

Note to: Jlall: I digged up some old Meckwell convention card and indeed they play that 4♥ is to play here and 4♦/4♥ are SI+ (while 4♣ being Gerber

 

I made no comment on option C, obviously SA transfers being a slam try are the best. However he specifically said that meckwell play texas transfers as slam inv+ and gerber, and I was commenting on why that was better than playing texas transfers as the sign off.

[awm]

There are some compensating advantages for the slower sequence being a slam try. For example:

 

(1) Sometimes opponents bid over the three-level transfer on hands where they would pass over a four-level transfer. This is more likely to happen (and more likely to be a problem) when we're pushing for a thin game on a long suit. So it's nice to blast to the four-level on the weaker hand. This is even more of a concern over 1NT and a two-level transfer, and there is some natural desire to play the "same way" over 1NT and 2NT (which perhaps does not apply to Meckwell but matters to most of us).

 

(2) When you have a slam try, you can bid 3♦ and plan to keycard if partner super-accepts or bid 4♥ (just a mild try) when partner doesn't. This helps you on hands that are borderline between "mild try" and "serious try" which compensates for the losses on hands that are borderline between "mild try" and "signoff."

 

(3) Most people already play that the slow route (transfer then four) is a mild try, and that really serious slam hands would do something else (like transfer and then bid a new suit, or four level transfer and then keycard). So you already have a distinction between "serious" and "mild" slam tries. Do you really need yet another grade of distinction (slam try only opposite super-accept) when partner's notrump bid is presumably already pretty limited in strength and shape?

 

(4) Many of the hands where partner's super-accept matters the most don't actually have six trumps anyway (i.e. you are 5-5 in two suits and want to look for slam opposite a nine-card fit only). On these hands it won't much matter which way you play, because you're transferring at the three-level regardless.

[gnasher]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about lol.

I've carefully reread what I wrote earlier today, and I also have no idea what I was talking about. For some reason I thought you were advancing exactly the opposite argument to the one you were actually advancing. Sorry.

[Jlall]

(3) Most people already play that the slow route (transfer then four) is a mild try, and that really serious slam hands would do something else (like transfer and then bid a new suit, or four level transfer and then keycard). So you already have a distinction between "serious" and "mild" slam tries. Do you really need yet another grade of distinction (slam try only opposite super-accept) when partner's notrump bid is presumably already pretty limited in strength and shape?

Really? I think most people get confused because after 1N transferring and bidding 4M is a mild slam try and they don't realize that they have no other slam try below 4M after 2N. Transferring and bidding a new suit is a pretty terrible option with a legit slam try since that's natural. Keycarding is not much of a "try".

[awm]

Maybe the way to put it is that you have transfer and 4M as "I am interested in slam, but not willing to go past 4M if your hand is unsuitable" whereas there are other ways to say "I am interested in slam and willing to play at least 5M." I would define the latter as a stronger slam try than the former.

 

There are various approaches on the latter hand type including transfer and keycard, transfer and side suit and 5M, transfer and exclusion, etc.

 

My feeling is that there is a rather narrow range of hands where you have a six-card major and want to be in slam opposite a maximum 2NT bid with 4-card support but have no interest in slam opposite a maximum 2NT bid with fewer than 4-card support. Obviously the "slow is not necessarily slam try" approach will help you when these specific hands come up. But it seems to make your life more difficult when you have game-level signoffs (give the opponents a chance to come in at the three-level) or when you have stronger slam interest (want to push past game in any case, but hearing partner's super-accept helps you a lot).

[Jlall]

If you have "stronger slam interest" and wanted to move past game opposite a super accept what have you lost by bidding 4D showing a slam try in hearts? If partner had a super accept of hearts he will move himself.

 

Yes you lose if you let them come in easily over 2N p 3D. In my experience people don't bid very often on that auction, so it doesn't matter much.

 

Obviously none of this matters very much at all since everything is "a narrow range of hands."