Would you consider slam?

[barsikb]

Partner opened 2 NT (20-21)

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s64hatdkq97432c93]133|100[/hv]

[ArtK78]

Slam is the first thing that would occur to me.

 

Most players do not have methods that allow for them to explore minor suit slams opposite a 2NT opening. If I didn't have any reasonable methods, I might just bid 3NT and hope it was right.

 

Fortunately, my regular partner and I play 4-suit transfers over 2NT openings. Given that this is the Novice and Beginner Forum, I won't go into details. But our 3NT response to 2NT is a transfer to diamonds. Since 3NT is not natural, one must bid Stayman to get to 3NT. A lot of players play 4-suit transfers over 1NT openings, but very few play them over 2NT openings.

[wank]

yes definitely think about slam - it would be entirely reasonable just to jump to 6nt. you won't have an issue with tricks as tyour hand is worth 7 of them on its own. the only issue is the opps cashing 2 first which is very odds against with about 30 high between you (don't forget that the opps lead passively versus 6nt so even if they hold ace and king of a suit between them, they won't normally lead one). being off 2 aces would be more of an issue than a missing AK, so it would be good to use gerber if you played that.

 

you could bid 4d, assuming that's natural and then if partner signs off bid 5h, but you would need to be confident partner would know to sign off in 5nt with a lack of controls, which is obviously a big if at novice level.

 

btw though it could be right to play in diamonds, i would always go for NTs here to protect any kings in partner's hand.

[billw55]

Without advanced methods, I would just bid slam directly. Yes, we could go down but usually won't. Off two aces is possible but unlikely. Probably the most likely way to go down is when partner lacks the ♦A and ops set up the setting trick on opening lead. Also, opponents don't defend double dummy. They don't always make the right lead, and occasionally don't even cash two aces when they have them.

 

As for good methods for handling this, I am sure some of our resident bidding theorists will have suggestions. And although I dread to say it, this kind of situation (long strong minor opposite NT opening) is one where Gerber works well.

[aguahombre]

Yep, I will take the scientific approach suggested by Wank and Bill ---just bid it.

 

BTW: Until I realized this was in the N/B Forum, I reacted like Pavlov's dog to the word "consider" --expecting a morph into LA/UI.

[ArtK78]

[\rant] I am tired of hearing from all of the anti-Gerber crowed. Yes, if you are going to bid slam on a hand like this, you should use Gerber first (most people do play Gerber) just in case you are off two aces.

 

Gerber is a fine convention when used properly. And, just like most conventions, when used improperly it leads to poor results.[\endrant]

 

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

I've found that almost all the time opposite a min 20 2N, a 9 count with a 6 card suit has good play for a slam unless there are 2 inescapable losers among trumps and cashing tricks.

 

Here, there's no reason partner's 20-21 can't be say ♣A, ♦A, ♠AK, ♥KQx and you just have 13 top tricks, I'd be much more worried about missing 7 than not making 6.

 

Your options without much science:

 

Gerber and place the contract depending on keycards (you're guessing a bit opposite 2 or 3 aces but at least you won't bid the slam missing 2).

Bid 6♦

Bid 6N (pairs)

[aguahombre]

[\rant] I am tired of hearing from all of the anti-Gerber crowed. Yes, if you are going to bid slam on a hand like this, you should use Gerber first (most people do play Gerber) just in case you are off two aces.

 

Gerber is a fine convention when used properly. And, just like most conventions, when used improperly it leads to poor results.[\endrant]

Gerber with proper continuations would be a two-edged sword here.

 

We have a Pass available if 4C is doubled; opener only responds to Gerber with a prime Club. We could then bail in 5D; but, we might lose a lot of MPs vs the blast with no club lead.

[billw55]

[\rant] I am tired of hearing from all of the anti-Gerber crowed. Yes, if you are going to bid slam on a hand like this, you should use Gerber first (most people do play Gerber) just in case you are off two aces.

 

Gerber is a fine convention when used properly. And, just like most conventions, when used improperly it leads to poor results.[\endrant]

I love a good rant Art :)

 

And I agree that Gerber is good in this situation. Although you didn't mention it in your first reply .. only 4-suit transfers.

[Zelandakh]

Your options without much science:

 

Gerber and place the contract depending on keycards (you're guessing a bit opposite 2 or 3 aces but at least you won't bid the slam missing 2).

Bid 6♦

Bid 6N (pairs)

You have something against setting diamonds and asking for key cards? That must surely be Option #2?

[Cyberyeti]

You have something against setting diamonds and asking for key cards? That must surely be Option #2?

Funnily enough I can't do this conveniently (2N-3♠-3N-4♦ and partner will ask), but as partner can't have ♦KQ or a singleton (at least the way I play), there is no advantage in doing so over Gerber, might be different if I was 7321 rather than 7222.

[Zelandakh]

I thought you were giving options in general rather than for your own system.

[Free]

I hate having 2 suits wide open (prefer a singleton in one of the black suits) but slam is definitely on my mind.

 

The problem with bidding slam immediately is that it calls for an agressive lead which is likely to work. On the other hand, partner may control both black suits in which case slam is very playable.

 

If it's an absolute gamble, I'd gamble on slam for sure. Without proper methods I'd just blast to 6NT immediately.

[neilkaz]

Slam should have good chances to make if PD controls our short short suits as is often likely, but before committing to slam we can use Gerber to make sure that we aren't missing two aces.

[wyman]

IMO, the take-home message for OP here is multi-fold:

 

1) Note that the space eaten up by 2N is tremendous, and now you feel a bit stuck. This is part of the rationale behind big club systems: when you have a strong hand, you make the cheapest bid. This is a bidding principle that you'll see a lot as you learn more.

 

2) Many people have their own ways of showing this type of hand after a 2N opener, but doing so often requires some artificiality. Why? Because most basic systems are (a) keyed around seeking major-suit fits and (b) quite natural. Art can bid 3N to show diamonds. I would bid 3S in my partnerships, which forces opener to rebid 3N, after which 4D is a natural slam try in diamonds (4C would be clubs, and 4M would be a splinter with both minors), and opener can sign off at 4N or can make a forward-going bid.

 

3) System design is all about asking "how many sequences do I have available and how many hand types do I have to show?" Oh, and "will we be able to remember our system?" :) So for hands like this, it's reasonable to think: "What don't I use over 2N?" And "what hand types could I have that I'd want to show that I don't show currently?" My partner and I didn't have any good meaning for 3S, and we had no way to show minor suited hands. So we use 3S for minor suited hands in a way that works well for us. As you grow as a bridge player, you'll fill in these gaps. But it's not incredibly important -- especially as hands like this are infrequent, and you have far better things to worry about as you develop (e.g., declarer play, defense).

 

4) When your system doesn't allow you to show a hand, make your best guess. Here, 6D and 6N are very reasonable guesses. 3N is certainly "taking the low road," but it's fine, especially at matchpoints.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought you were giving options in general rather than for your own system.

But I think it's a not uncommon method, if you play 2N-4♣ as Gerber and (I don't) 2N-4♦ as a transfer which is pretty common in the US, most people will be doing something similar via 3♠.

[barsikb]

Thank you, all. Of all the ideas here I like Gerber best :)

 

I will post another Slam Hand now, more difficult, I think but hope to have a simple solution for it, too ;)