Should we be in slam?

[Antrax]

Partner opens 2♣ (strong artificial) in third seat, and over your 2♦ shows the 22-24 HCP balanced hand. 3♣ shows he has four spades.

♠QT87

♥Q9642

♦K6

♣95

 

2♣-2♦; 2NT-3♣; 3♠

What is your next move?

[the hog]

4S. Sterile distribution and not a wonderful hand.

[mike777]

pard shows 4 losers.....I dont see 3 winners in my hand.....

[dwar0123]

I think I would prefer

2c-2d-2n-3d-3h-3s

 

It allows partner to super accept hearts, which means slam is reasonable if he does and probably off if he doesn't. Also I play Texas here so this is a mild slam invite in and of itself, fully describes my shape and leaves it to partner to judge.

[Antrax]

Interesting. We have smolen to show GF 5/4, so I didn't consider to test partner's love of hearts :)

[dwar0123]

Interesting. We have smolen to show GF 5/4, so I didn't consider to test partner's love of hearts :)

 

Smolen is great for some situations, I don't think this is one of them, you know you are going to be in game and you want to tell your partner your shape regardless of how he responds to your first bid over 2nt.

[mike777]

smolen?

 

 

 

wtf none of this is smolen/

 

this is beginner bridge u=guys

[dwar0123]

smolen?

 

 

 

wtf none of this is smolen/

 

this is beginner bridge u=guys

Grats on 12000 posts! Celebration time, looks like you already ahead of us :)

 

Beginner and intermediate, I think we would get verbally molested if we had such conversations in the a/e forum.

[BunnyGo]

To answer the original question, I would invite somehow, probably 4♦ (cuebid in support of spades). The reason is that there is a "perfect minimum" (22 pt hand with no extra shape) that makes 6♠ a very good slam:

 

AK9x, AKx, Axx, Axx

 

I will say, my first inclination was to just sign off in 4, but I've been trying to think more about what partner could have. There are other really good hands, like:

 

AKJx, AKJ, Qxx, Axx

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps not really B/I but since this post is clearly aimed at the I-half I thought I would mention a gadget that could be useful on this hand. After 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♦; 3♥ you can play 3♠ as the equivalent of a 3NT bid (plus some extra hands) and 3NT can show a hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades willing to play 3NT. Opener corrects to the major with a fit but can also show a control-rich hand by bidding 4♣ (for hearts or 4♦ (for spades).

 

On this hand, if partner were to bid 4♠ here you could happily pass while if partner calls 4♦ then slam prospects look somewhat better.

[jillybean]

Partner opens 2♣ (strong artificial) in third seat, and over your 2♦ shows the 22-24 HCP balanced hand. 3♣ shows he has four spades.

♠QT87

♥Q9642

♦K6

♣95

 

2♣-2♦; 2NT-3♣; 3♠

What is your next move?

3♣ was stayman, 3♠ shows he has fours spades? (fyp?)

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, Smolen (which is not an unknown convention in B/I) should be used with hands with game values but no slam aspirations, and transfer to hearts followed by a spade bid should be used with hands with slam aspirations. This is by no means a universally held belief.

 

On this hand, I would Smolen. Partner, with a good fit and a hand containing all controls, such as the AKxx AKx Axx Axx hand shown above, can still bid a slam, as he can count 12 likely tricks in spades - 4 spades, 5 hearts, 2 minor suit aces and a minor suit ruff in dummy on reasonable breaks. That doesn't mean that there are not two losers on some layouts, but 12 tricks seems likely.

 

However, unless he has the nuts for his bid, partner is likely to sign off in game.

 

If I held the monster hand with all of the controls and partner transferred to hearts and then bid spades, I would be looking for a grand. A grand in spades is almost a certainly - how could partner have less than QJxx QJxxx Kx xx? 7NT is possible - add the ♣K or ♦Q to the last hand.

[kenrexford]

What's this bizarre Smolen discussion? Smolen comes up if partner bids 3♦. He bid 3♠, which means that Smolen is out.

 

More logical is to simply transfer to hearts (hoping for a super-accept) and then to bid 3♠ (4♠/5♥), after which Opener can presumably super-accept either major with the perfecto.

 

The question will be how. That's the part where B/I gets hairy.

[ArtK78]

Sorry about the Smolen discussion. The bidding would have been the same anyway.

 

Over 3♠ I bid 4♠ I don't think the hand is worth a 4♥ slam try.

[wyman]

To answer the original question, I would invite somehow, probably 4♦ (cuebid in support of spades). The reason is that there is a "perfect minimum" (22 pt hand with no extra shape) that makes 6♠ a very good slam:

 

AK9x, AKx, Axx, Axx

 

I will say, my first inclination was to just sign off in 4, but I've been trying to think more about what partner could have. There are other really good hands, like:

 

AKJx, AKJ, Qxx, Axx

 

Interesting, so how do you show a hand with 4 hearts and 6 diamonds? (edit: btw I hardly think that you can call a hand with 5KC a minimum, regardless of its HCP)

 

edit2: You can show that you are slammish by bidding 4H now. I would not, though.

[mikeh]

To answer the original question, I would invite somehow, probably 4♦ (cuebid in support of spades). The reason is that there is a "perfect minimum" (22 pt hand with no extra shape) that makes 6♠ a very good slam:

 

AK9x, AKx, Axx, Axx

 

I will say, my first inclination was to just sign off in 4, but I've been trying to think more about what partner could have. There are other really good hands, like:

 

AKJx, AKJ, Qxx, Axx

Most players, absent specific agreements, would take 4♦ over 3♠ as showing long diamonds and denying spades.....if you have no way of showing diamonds directly over 2N, then maybe just diamonds, and otherwise inferentially 4 hearts (because of the stayman call) and 5+ diamonds.

 

The standard way to show a slam try in partner's major is to bid the other major...here....4♥. It is artificial, and says nothing about controls in the heart suit. It merely invites opener to look at his hand to determine whether it is slam suitable or not.

 

While constructing hands for partner can be useful, it is important to maintain a balanced view. Thus if one were going negative, one could picture AKJx Kxx QJx AKQ. This 23 count will often fail in 5♠.

 

Now, of course, if you chose 4♥, that 23 count should imo bid 4♠. So the key is to construct hands on which he would show enthusiasm over 4♥, and now your examples are useful, although a bit generously drawn.

 

I used to always just signoff here, but I have slowly come to the view that this hand would be worth the general 4♥ try. But I think it very close and not at all clear.

[BunnyGo]

Yes, wyman and mikeh are right...the 4♦ bid is just wrong. It should be a 4♥ bid to make a slam try. I do agree with mikeh that it's close (note my previous comment that before I thought about it, I'd have reflexively bid 4♠)

[quiddity]

What's this bizarre Smolen discussion? Smolen comes up if partner bids 3♦. He bid 3♠, which means that Smolen is out.

 

The question was "why not transfer to hearts and bid spades?"; the answer was "I chose to use Smolen." Hence the discussion.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would bid 4S.

 

Slam is on, if your 5 card heart suit finds partner, but I have

no way to find out.

 

If you want to make a move, you can bid 4H, which is a forcing

raise for spades, opener can have a look at his hand, and tell

you, if he has a hand with lots of controls, or not.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArtK78]

Interesting, so how do you show a hand with 4 hearts and 6 diamonds?

 

With my usual partner, we play 4-suit transfers over 2NT. So, with 4 hearts and 6 diamonds we would transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

[wyman]

With my usual partner, we play 4-suit transfers over 2NT. So, with 4 hearts and 6 diamonds we would transfer to diamonds and then bid hearts.

 

Maybe we should take this offline since it's going beyond the scope of this discussion, but can you still bid hearts naturally if pard superaccepts in diamonds?

[phil_20686]

I think its fairly standard if you play normal stayman that bidding the other major should show a slam try in partners major. So 2N-3c-3h-3s or 2n-3c-3s-4h, if you play non promissary stayman you cannot do that as you need 2n-3c-3h-3s to show 4s, since 2n-3c-3h-3N could have no four card major, but its quite non standard to play non promissory stayman over a 2N opener.

 

I think this hand has a routine slam try by bidding 4H. You have few controls, but if partner is a maximum you have a combined 33 with a 4-4 fit and a side five card suit, which gives you the potential for plenty of tricks. A hand like AKxx AKx Axx KQx makes slam really pretty good, and it could be better.

 

If you have 2n-3d-3h-3s available to show a hand that is 45 and slammish that would be great, but I don't know anyone who uses that sequence for 45 hands, most play some version of smolen, and use that sequence for something different. Most advanced players will have a series of agreements on transfer breaks. For me partner will break on Hxx or better, so if I choose this route I run the risk of missing a 4-4 spade fit to play in a 53 heart fit. This type of issue is common in cramped auctions after a 2N opener. For me, then, this auction would show 46, and I put the 55 hands through smolen continuations, with 2n-3c-3d-4h = 55 no slam interest, and 2n-3c-3d-3h-X-4h = 55 slam interest.

[Antrax]

Okay, first of all some explanation of "the system":

a) 3♣ was indeed Stayman, I thought that's obvious from my comments. At the table I thought it was puppet and partner didn't, but that's irrelevant to the question.

b) As others mentioned, bidding the other major after opener replies with a major to Stayman shows acceptance for that major and slam interest.

c) I didn't say this is a Smolen sequence, I said my plan was to reach at least 4M by starting with stayman (assuming I knew it's not puppet) and then over 3♦, bidding 3♠. Not sure why it's considered an advanced convention, it's a rather simple one unless it has other aspects I'm missing. Anyway, I didn't even consider the idea of transferring to hearts, because in my hand "5/4 Majors and GF -> Smolen, start with stayman". So thanks for the suggestion.

 

Now, about the actual judgment. As you may have guessed, I bid 4♥ SI and we found an unbeatable 6♠, and were the only pair to do so. I tried to apply the "perfect minimum" here, so I gave partner a 22-count that looks like this:

♠AKxx ♥AKx ♦Axxx ♣Ax

 

This makes 6 whenever spades are 3-2 and can make on some 4-1s assuming the long hand has at least two hearts, and probably other cases I didn't consider.

Does "perfect minimum" not apply here? Did I abuse it somehow, i.e. I only get to place HCP but the shape makes this worth extra? For that case, is AKxxx AKx Axx Ax a legitimate "perfect" minimal holding?

 

BTW, kudos phil, move one x from diamonds to clubs and this was partner's hand :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think its fairly standard if you play normal stayman that bidding the other major should show a slam try in partners major. So 2N-3c-3h-3s or 2n-3c-3s-4h.....

I think you have given me a solution to a Side Issue:

 

wyman ( post # 16 ) had asked how Responder can show a 4M/6m GF, slammish hand.

You can easily show it for the following when Opener has NO 4 card Major:

2NT - 3C ( regular Stayman )

3D! ( no 4 card M ) - 4m ( 4M/6m )

 

But I always wondered about the case when Opener HAS a 4 card Major:

2NT - 3C

3M - 4m ( I didn't know if this is a cuebid agreeing M or 4oM/6m; where 4oM = 4 cards other major )

 

But phil_20686 says he uses the following to "agree M, slammish" :

2NT - 3C

??

..3H - 3S! = artificial, agree ♥ , slammish

or

..3S - 4H! = artificial, agree ♠ , slammish

 

That being the case will free up the 4m bid to show the 4oM/6m hand .

[Antrax]

I'm still interested in this, BTW. The answer "no" was pretty unanimous, but what is the guiding principal? My "pro" column has we could have as much as 31 HCP and a perfect minimum is enough for slam. What are the cons to balance this?