Yellow rose of texas

[phoenix214]

Today browsing the web i found a convention called - "Yellow rose of Texas" which is an extension of the Texas transfers used after NT opening. The idea is that it shows a balanced slam try with exact distribution by responder. I was wondering if someone has tried it, and do if it is usable.

And following things up, how do in natural biding you normally drive to slam with lets say an 16 count 4432, with lets say 4 spades and 4 diamonds

[TylerE]

Would be helpful if you stated what the bids are. Naming varies wildly, and often inconsistently.

[helene_t]

It is described in Kleinman's "The notrump zone". He uses 4♠ and 4NT to describe two different quantitative raises of 1nt, making it easier to find a minor suit fit.

[phoenix214]

Sorry, forgot to add a link to the convention, my bad

http://www.bridgebum.com/yellow_rose_of_texas.php

[TylerE]

I don't like that scheme at all. 4432 is the WORST shape for slam opposite a 1N opening, so I don't see why you'd want to play a system that caters to it.

[benlessard]

I like to play texas followed by something = void optionnal exclusion. Not really frequent but IMO Voids are just not the same than splinters.

[johnu]

You are too high to find out about controls. You could be off a cashing AK or if missing an ace and king in different suits, be at best on a finesse. You don't have the room to find out how good a trump fit you have, so if you have a sure or likely outside loser and a trump loser, why do you want to be in slam?

 

You might want to look at the Confi convention. The original write up was in the Bridge World a long time ago, but I found this description Confi description. There is also a Super Confi which is similar but is used for investigating 4-4 fits for grand slams.

[gnasher]

I don't like that scheme at all. 4432 is the WORST shape for slam opposite a 1N opening, so I don't see why you'd want to play a system that caters to it.

Why do you say that? To me 4432 seems significantly better than 4333. If gives us an extra long card that we may be able to set up, an extra chance of finding a 4-4 fit, and more ruffing value if we do find a fit. The only downside is that our doubleton may be opposite partner's long suit, which may make it harder to set up if we play in notrumps.

[gnasher]

I think the methods themselves are horrific. I want to be able to investigate 4-4 fits, but not at the five-level.

[TylerE]

Why do you say that? To me 4432 seems significantly better than 4333. If gives us an extra long card that we may be able to set up, an extra chance of finding a 4-4 fit, and more ruffing value if we do find a fit. The only downside is that our doubleton may be opposite partner's long suit, which may make it harder to set up if we play in notrumps.

 

Ok, 2nd worst....but it's still a long way behind anything with a 5 card suit. The big problem is that you are going to have a minimum of pitches to get rid of losers.

[quiddity]

Ok, 2nd worst....but it's still a long way behind anything with a 5 card suit. The big problem is that you are going to have a minimum of pitches to get rid of losers.

 

The fact that these balanced shapes are sometimes bad for slam was the reason behind having a convention in the first place. Kleinman wanted to be able to stop short of slam even with 33/34 points if the hands don't fit.

Anyway, I agree with everyone about the method's worth. The risk of forgets, information leak, lead-directing doubles, etc are too high, and the frequency of gain seems way too low.

[ArtK78]

I don't see why you think the method is so bad. It gives a very precise definition to an unused sequence, and gives the partnership some options that they might not otherwise have. The cost of describing a hand which is likely to become the dummy much of the time anyway is minimal.

 

I have never used this convention, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand by others who have not used it.

 

Yes, it has some additional brain usage problems and the possibility of forgetting it exists. But it is not so difficult that it would cause anyone any serious problems.

[ArtK78]

It is described in Kleinman's "The notrump zone". He uses 4♠ and 4NT to describe two different quantitative raises of 1nt, making it easier to find a minor suit fit.

I don't remember if I got this from Kleinman, having not read his book, but I also play that 4♠ and 4NT are different quantitative raises of 1NT (and 2NT). This applies whenever 4♠ is not otherwise defined.

 

4♠ is the weaker raise, essentially asking partner to bid 6NT only if he has a maximum for his previous bidding.

 

4NT is the stronger raise, essentially asking partner to bid 6NT unless he has a minimum for his previous bidding.

 

So, over a 1NT opening, 4♠ and 4NT are both available if the partnership uses Texas Transfers and has not otherwise defined a 4♠ response for another purpose. If 1NT were 15-17, then 4♠ would show 16 HCP and 4NT would show 17 HCP. That is clearly an improvement over 4NT showing 16-17 HCP.

[quiddity]

I don't see why you think the method is so bad.

 

I think it is so bad because:

1. It comes up rarely and hence is liable to be forgotten.

2. The utility of stopping short of slam with 33-34 hcp is questionable; the gain over the standard approach of 5NT "bid 4-card suits up the line" for finding a minor-suit slam is also questionable.

3. It takes up sequences which are useful for exclusion blackwood. It is true that you could bid exclusion over jacoby (instead of texas) but when you have an exclusion bid you often have to worry about preemption over a low-level transfer.

4. It leaks information about dummy's shape, and based on opener's choice of contract it leaks information about his shape as well.

5. It is prone to allowing lead-directing doubles because dummy is bidding his shortest suits not once but twice at high levels.

[ArtK78]

I think it is so bad because:

1. It comes up rarely and hence is liable to be forgotten.

2. The utility of stopping short of slam with 33-34 hcp is questionable; the gain over the standard approach of 5NT "bid 4-card suits up the line" for finding a minor-suit slam is also questionable.

3. It takes up sequences which are useful for exclusion blackwood. It is true that you could bid exclusion over jacoby (instead of texas) but when you have an exclusion bid you often have to worry about preemption over a low-level transfer.

4. It leaks information about dummy's shape, and based on opener's choice of contract it leaks information about his shape as well.

5. It is prone to allowing lead-directing doubles because dummy is bidding his shortest suits not once but twice at high levels.

1. If you can remember it, then this is not an issue. Besides, the auction is so unusual that it serves as an alarm clock when it happens.

2. I don't see why you say that the method provides you with a means to stop short of slam on 33-34 HCP. It does nothing of the sort. And the "bid 4 card suits up the line" approach provides the defense with a blue print of declarer's hand.

3. I don't see the sequences proposed as being typical for exclusion RKCB. I would think that if you wanted to use exclusion RKCB immediately, you could transfer at the 2 level (or to 3 of a minor) and then jump to exclusion RKCB rather than Texas and bid.

4. So the opening leader has information about the shape of dummy. That is not that unusual. Tansfer auctions, splinter auctions and (horror!) exclusion RKCB auctions also leak information about dummy's shape. Since dummy will be exposed, that leak of information gives one opponent one trick advantage.

5. So do transfer auctions and splinter auctions, etc.

 

On the other hand, it provides opener with a great description of partner's hand. I would think that would be worth something.

[phoenix214]

Actually how do you bid the hands which use yellow rose of Texas?, IF you have some better conventions then it is easier. I know that if your not using balanced invites to games after 1NT, then you can use 1NT-2C, 2M-3M for the fitting hands and 1NT-2C, 2M-4NT if not. But if using invites, then it becomes harder. Do you have alternatives besides CONFIT?

[johnu]

Besides the deficiencies already discussed, the write-up suggests the the combined strength is 32-35 HCP. The more high cards you have, the better 6NT is usually going to be compared to 6 of a suit where a bad trump split (e.g. 4-1 or 5-0 trump splits are ~32%) or an opposing ruff before you can draw trump can sink your slam, and the tipping point is ~33 HCP. If we're just blindly bidding a slam without checking on controls or suit quality, I would just as soon invite with 4NT with 17, or jump to 6NT with 18.

[ArtK78]

Besides the deficiencies already discussed, the write-up suggests the the combined strength is 32-35 HCP. The more high cards you have, the better 6NT is usually going to be compared to 6 of a suit where a bad trump split (e.g. 4-1 or 5-0 trump splits are ~32%) or an opposing ruff before you can draw trump can sink your slam, and the tipping point is ~33 HCP. If we're just blindly bidding a slam without checking on controls or suit quality, I would just as soon invite with 4NT with 17, or jump to 6NT with 18.

No one is stopping you. But this treatment gives you an alternative. You don't have to use it.

[gnasher]

Actually how do you bid the hands which use yellow rose of Texas?, IF you have some better conventions then it is easier. I know that if your not using balanced invites to games after 1NT, then you can use 1NT-2C, 2M-3M for the fitting hands and 1NT-2C, 2M-4NT if not. But if using invites, then it becomes harder. Do you have alternatives besides CONFIT?

There are various ways to fit a balanced slam try into standardish methods:

- Play 1NT-2C;2M-3OM as a balanced slam try (either with or without support).

- Play 1NT-2C;2M-3OM as any slam try with support, relinquishing 1NT-2C;2M-4m for use as balanced slam tries.

- If you play Puppet Stayman, you can usually fit the balanced slam tries into that structure.

- Play 1NT-2♦;2♥-2♠ as a balanced slam try.

- You might be able to multiplex the sequence 1NT-2♣;2x-3♣

[Phil]

Nothing like exploring for slams at the five level.

[phoenix214]

Actually while on the note on NT systems. Which is the best NT system available now. I was looking at some and its a bit hard to tell.

[Vampyr]

I think it is so bad because:

1. It comes up rarely and hence is liable to be forgotten.

 

I hate when people use this as a reason for not liking a convention. There should be an implicit understanding that a pair using the device will not forget it.

[helene_t]

I hate when people use this as a reason for not liking a convention. There should be an implicit understanding that a pair using the device will not forget it.

Yes, but pairs that decided not to play it may have chosen so because they were afraid of forgetting it.

[Zelandakh]

And following things up, how do in natural biding you normally drive to slam with lets say an 16 count 4432, with lets say 4 spades and 4 diamonds

One of the possible solutions is to play a Baron-style (ie 4 card suits up-the-line) follow-up after Stayman. So after 1NT - 2♣; 2♦, 2♠ = Baron range ask, handling normal game invites as well as balanced slam tries looking for a minor suit fit. Similarly, 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2♠ = Baron range ask. After a 2♠ response, we do not have enough space for such a 2-way bid. Instead, you can re-arrange things to use 3♦ as Baron: 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3♦ = minor suit Baron with ♥ linked to ♣ and ♠ linked to ♦.

 

You can do something similar with Puppet too but here it is easier since you only really have to handle the 2♦ response:

1NT - 2♣; 2♦

==

2♥ asks if Opener holds 4 spades; then 3m next time around is Baron

2♠ shows 4 hearts and denies 4 spades; then 3m over 2NT is Baron.

 

 

So with 4 spades and 4 diamonds, you would respond 2♣. If partner bids 2 of a red suit you continue 2♠. Partner will now either bid 2NT with a minimum (upon which you bid 3♦), or bid a 4 card minor with a maximum (and now you can show your diamonds).

 

In Britain it is popular in some parts to use an immediate 2♠ response over 1NT as a Baron range ask. This is arguably simpler than the delayed Baron method above but is (imho) theoretically inferior.

 

There are other methods around too, some using a full relay structure, but I think those are probably better left for an interested reader to discover.