How would you bid this?

[andrei]

partner opens 1N (15-17).

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj74hj63dk7cq8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

Well 6♠ is out, partner could easily have either xx, Axxx, Axx, AKJx which is cold for 7 (although partner might consider bidding it) or xx, xxx, AQJx, AKJx which can't make 5.

 

I would bid 3♠ (single suited, GF, slam interest, please cue).

 

If I can't do that I have an issue.

[Trinidad]

I would show a GF hand with spades. Many people do that by bidding 3♠. Others transfer to spades and use a gadget to force to game.

 

After I have shown the GF with spades, I will cue bid. If all controls are there, I will bid slam. I certainly should have 12 tricks.

 

Rik

[whereagles]

If I have the methods to stay out of a bad slam, I'll use them.

 

Otherwise I'll bid a straight 6♠.

[akwoo]

Without gadgets, I'm bidding 2♥ (transfer) followed by 5♠, which asks partner to pass with a minimum and bid 6♠ with a maximum.

 

Partner should know that, in this context, any hand with 3 aces and a king is not a minimum.

[ggwhiz]

Transfer followed by 4nt.

 

Right sides everything and transfers responsibility :)

[mike777]

I will try a straight 6nt.

[mikeh]

since partner could have 15 hcp, it is obvious that we could be off 2 Aces or a cashing AK or even the nightmare AKQ in hearts, so just bidding slam is silly.

 

Not many players use 3M over 1N as slamming in the major, at least not in NA, and for very good reasons.

 

In more or less standard transfer methods, we can bid 2♥ then 4♠ as a mild slam try. 2♥ then 4N shows a slightly better hand in terms of hcp but usually 5 spades.....with 6+ we bid 4♠ rather than 4N.

 

The question, then, is whether we rate this as better than a mild slam try, in which case standard transfer methods leave us with a gap, which can be filled, to some degree and at some risk, by transferring and then bidding a minor at the 3-level, ostensibly natural and forcing to game. We really only want to see if he likes his hand.

 

Personally, I would transfer and bid 4♠ as a mild slam try. I expect partner to cooperate with a control rich 16 count or better, and that's what I need.

 

In particular, he definitely won't move if he is off the heart AK or if he holds only 1 Ace.

 

I may miss a few decent slams since he won't like his spades but I won't reach any silly slams either, and I expect, with an expert partner on the same wavelength, to do well.

 

If partner doesn't know to value controls on these auctions, then I would transfer and fake a 3♣ call and hope to survive.

[msjennifer]

3S asking parter to cue bid cheapest 2nd or 1st round control.

[rhm]

Personally, I would transfer and bid 4♠ as a mild slam try. I expect partner to cooperate with a control rich 16 count or better, and that's what I need.

Sorry but this can not be right. You do have 16 HCP and a solid suit opposite a strong notrump.

You claim rightly that transfer and then 4♠ is a mild slam try.

The rest is wishful thinking

With no fitting honor in spades no sensible partner will continue over 4♠.

 

Meanwhile a simple simulation shows that 6NT makes on 818 deals of 1000 and my guess is that in this case the defense will not always find the right lead when you miss AK in a suit, in particular if you do not tell them that you have a long suit.

South should simply check on aces (Gerber is perfect for this hand, provided 4NT is to play thereafter) and if partner has at least two bid 6NT.

Transfer at the four level followed by 4NT is okay but more revealing. Chances that you do not have even 11 tricks is 4%. The bigger problem is that most can not stop in 5NT on this sequence and at matchpoints I do not want to play 5♠.

If you have no way of checking for aces close your eyes and bid 6NT. (6♠ is okay at IMPs)

Checking on aces increases your chances of making 6NT only by a little bit more than 1% anyway

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikestar13]

My God, a hand where I think Gerber is the right bid if we are playing it!

[wanoff]

Meanwhile a simple simulation shows that 6NT makes on 818 deals of 1000 and my guess is that in this case the defense will not always find the right lead when you miss AK in a suit, in particular if you do not tell them that you have a long suit.

South should simply check on aces (Gerber is perfect for this hand, provided 4NT is to play thereafter) and if partner has at least two bid 6NT.

Transfer at the four level followed by 4NT is okay but more revealing. Chances that you do not have even 11 tricks is 4%. The bigger problem is that most can not stop in 5NT on this sequence and at matchpoints I do not want to play 5♠.

If you have no way of checking for aces close your eyes and bid 6NT. (6♠ is okay at IMPs)

Checking on aces increases your chances of making 6NT only by a little bit more than 1% anyway

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Unfortunately 4♣ is a transfer to ♥.

My guess would be that 6♠ makes on more than 818 of 1000 so at imp if in gambling mood, why not transfer and bid 6♠.

 

Ours would go 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠ showing a single suited slam try with no splinter. Over 3NT you'd cue 4♦ and over another signoff I think you're worth one last try.(5♠)

[whereagles]

My God, a hand where I think Gerber is the right bid if we are playing it!

 

hmm... not sure about that. Can't we have 3 aces but still be off AK in one of the weak suits?

[wanoff]

Also the punters are opening 1NT with good 14s. I wonder if the simulation includes these in the 818 and if not, another reason to play in the suit.

[kenrexford]

I am chuckling. My post-discussion methods would be a transfer followed by three of the other major as a slam move, demanding cues. Without discussion, I have long advocated a manufactured 3C call with 5332 powerhouses, occasionally also with this hand type if there are no other agreements in place. That sort of approach would typically get derision from some unnamed posters. Now, it appears that either the winds are shifting or that the outrage was feigned. Practical bidding as a part of a conversation works. With no agreements other than as stated or implied by the OP, transfer then 3C makes a lot of sense. If Opener has 3 spades, your problems are solved. If Opener super-accepts clubs, your problems are solved. If Opener bids a mundane 3NT, you have options that are all good.

[rhm]

My guess would be that 6♠ makes on more than 818 of 1000 so at imp if in gambling mood, why not transfer and bid 6♠.

I checked and 6♠ made double dummy on 2 out of 1000 deals more often than 6NT, which is too small a difference to be considered significant.

Average number of tricks was 0.07 less in notrumps, also not significant.

 

Also the punters are opening 1NT with good 14s. I wonder if the simulation includes these in the 818 and if not, another reason to play in the suit.

If you upgrade "good" 14s and this would increase your chances going down in 6NT please explain what was "good" about your 14 in the first place.

No, my simulation did not handle any upgrades nor did it any downgrades.

 

Rainer Herrmann.

[andrei]

Forgot to mention in OP, but this is at IMP.

[mikeh]

Sorry but this can not be right. You do have 16 HCP and a solid suit opposite a strong notrump.

You claim rightly that transfer and then 4♠ is a mild slam try.

The rest is wishful thinking

With no fitting honor in spades no sensible partner will continue over 4♠.

 

Meanwhile a simple simulation shows that 6NT makes on 818 deals of 1000 and my guess is that in this case the defense will not always find the right lead when you miss AK in a suit, in particular if you do not tell them that you have a long suit.

South should simply check on aces (Gerber is perfect for this hand, provided 4NT is to play thereafter) and if partner has at least two bid 6NT.

Transfer at the four level followed by 4NT is okay but more revealing. Chances that you do not have even 11 tricks is 4%. The bigger problem is that most can not stop in 5NT on this sequence and at matchpoints I do not want to play 5♠.

If you have no way of checking for aces close your eyes and bid 6NT. (6♠ is okay at IMPs)

Checking on aces increases your chances of making 6NT only by a little bit more than 1% anyway

 

Rainer Herrmann

No need to apologize B-)

 

Style matters. In my partnerships, inviter, to game or slam, tends to be conservative and acceptance is aggressive. This means that on this hand opener will be aggressive in deciding whether to make a move, bearing in mind that making a move is not slam committal. We are allowed to stay at the 5-level, tho on this hand clearly responder would drive to slam over any move by opener.

 

If your partnership uses a different philosophy, then I wouldn't invite. I hinted as much when I suggested in my OP on this thread that I might, with some partners, fake a minor game force at my second turn.

 

I am not going to bore anyone with arithmetic, especially since one can manipulate the results by one's assumptions. I agree, btw, with your sims.....in mine, slam made almost precisely 80% of the time, with 6♠ by S being the least attractive contract by a very small margin....I assume a statistically insignificant margin over 600 hands.

 

What I can say is that on some not outlandish assumptions, one can readily demonstrate that inviting is as good as or even slightly better than driving to slam IF one assumes that opener will look primarily at the presence or lack of controls as the main factor in deciding whether to commit beyond game.....not, and this is important, whether to commit to slam or not. That isn't what the invite says....'bid slam or pass'. It says...I have interest in slam....is your hand suitable for slam. In my partnerships, that is primarily a discussion about controls, altho of course there are other factors that can influence the decision. Here, for example, we know partner won't like his spades....but if he is control rich outside spades, then he should still co-operate. It seems, from your post, that you and I part company here. I can't imagine confining the invitational sequence to hands that need trump help. You can. That's why bridge is not boring.

 

That's not to say I haven't thought about this or that I am convinced inviting is clearly best. I didn't do a sim before my OP, and the sim persuades me that there is slightly less risk in driving to slam than I had expected. I think it close, and certainly any style that required significant extras for opener to accept would make inviting a bad approach.

[Jinksy]

I hardly ever blast slams, but put me down for an instant 6N.

 

I don't play Gerber, but even if I did, I'm not sure I'd use it here. After 1N 6N, I expect a passive lead, which might mean we make even missing the AK of a suit, if they're not in the same hand. Gerber a) suggests a long running suit, which might warn them to cash out, and b) gives them a chance for a lead-directing X, and some useful negative inferences from not having used it.

[gszes]

I am chuckling. My post-discussion methods would be a transfer followed by three of the other major as a slam move, demanding cues. Without discussion, I have long advocated a manufactured 3C call with 5332 powerhouses, occasionally also with this hand type if there are no other agreements in place. That sort of approach would typically get derision from some unnamed posters. Now, it appears that either the winds are shifting or that the outrage was feigned. Practical bidding as a part of a conversation works. With no agreements other than as stated or implied by the OP, transfer then 3C makes a lot of sense. If Opener has 3 spades, your problems are solved. If Opener super-accepts clubs, your problems are solved. If Opener bids a mundane 3NT, you have options that are all good.

 

FWIW

 

I would choose 3d for the reasons you mention above because I can then convert anything p bids to spades (even if it is 5s)

and they will know I have a slammish hand but need controls in the rounded suits. If p bids 3s hopefully we are playing

serious 3n so we can get a cue bidding sequence started.

[kenrexford]

FWIW

 

I would choose 3d for the reasons you mention above because I can then convert anything p bids to spades (even if it is 5s)

and they will know I have a slammish hand but need controls in the rounded suits. If p bids 3s hopefully we are playing

serious 3n so we can get a cue bidding sequence started.

This is not unreasonable. However, there is a reason to pick 3C. Opener can bid 3D by agreement as an acceptance of clubs. By doing so, Responder can then bid 3S as "I was just kidding about clubs."

 

3D doesn't work, because Opener needs 3H as natural with 5 in case Responder has, say, 5314 shape.

 

The 3S kidding bid would show a six-bagger, by the way, in this method. It is also used for long hearts.

[TylerE]

If you upgrade "good" 14s and this would increase your chances going down in 6NT please explain what was "good" about your 14 in the first place.

 

Because it gets you to way more making thin 3NT contracts than bad slams obv.

[mikeh]

FWIW

 

I would choose 3d for the reasons you mention above because I can then convert anything p bids to spades (even if it is 5s)

and they will know I have a slammish hand but need controls in the rounded suits. If p bids 3s hopefully we are playing

serious 3n so we can get a cue bidding sequence started.

It is a good rule of thumb to try to always use clubs as the fake bid, if at all possible. Sometimes it isn't, as in when partner bids or shows clubs, because you never fake primary support (you can fake preferences in some cases, but never primary support)

 

The reason is to allow opener to know that your diamond bids, when clubs could be fake, are real. In addition, when you always use clubs for the fake bid, it becomes ok for partner to cater to this as a matter of bridge logic without causing UI issues. Despite what Ken implied earlier about people coming around to his way of thinking, the notion that one can fake a club bid has been around since well before even I started playing, and that was more than 40 years ago. Faking a bid in order to get by this round has a very long, honourable ancestry to the point that no experienced player could claim to be surprised by it.

[lrussell]

I'm headed to 6NT not 6S.

If I play 1NT - 3S requires partner to cue Aces and Kings

I'll do that:

 

1NT - 3S - 4D - 4S signoff (we off 2 clubs)

1NT - 3S - 4C - 4D - 4S - Pass (we off 2 hearts)

1NT - 3S - 4C - 4D - 4H - 4NT - 5D (1 key card) - signoff in 5S

1NT - 3S - 4C - 4D - 4H - 4NT - 5H (2 key cards) - 6NT

1NT - 3S - 4C - 4D - 4H - 4NT - 5C (0/3 keys) - bid 5S

partner will convert to 6S with 3 keys and I will bid 6NT

 

If I play 1NT - 3S asks partner to cue Aces only (then Kings)

there is little point in bidding 3S as I can't construct an

auction that will keep me out of slam in all cases when off 2 tops.

I could try Gerber or some sort of sequence where 4NT is Black

however they might get a lead directing double in.

So the heck with it. In this case I just jump to 6NT.

[nige1]

partner opens 1N (15-17). [hv=pc=n&s=sakqj74hj63dk7cq8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200|

[/hv]

IMO

• 4♥ (Jacoby) followed by 4N (RKCB) = 10. Partner might be able to bid a grand..
• 4♣ (Gerber) = 9. Gerber is an under-rated gadget. :)
• 2♥ (Transfer) = 8.
• 6N = 7