Worth exploring slam or too flat?

[diana_eva]

From BBF vs JEC on Jan 24. That was a game we could have won, BTW.

 

Playing 15-17, no thorough agreements but competent partner, so assume exp standard:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=SQT95HAKQ7D86CKJ5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1NP2CP2HP?]133|200[/hv]

 

Would you try to explore slam or sign off? If looking for slam, what's the best way to go about it?

Also, would you have staymaned in the first place, or done something else?

[gordontd]

From BBF vs JEC on Jan 24. That was a game we could have won, BTW.

 

Playing 15-17, no thorough agreements but competent partner, so assume exp standard:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=SQT95HAKQ7D86CKJ5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1NP2CP2HP?]133|200[/hv]

 

Would you try to explore slam or sign off? If looking for slam, what's the best way to go about it?

Also, would you have staymaned in the first place, or done something else?

I'd explore, by bidding 3♠, which shows a forcing heart raise.

[aguahombre]

I'd explore, by bidding 3♠, which shows a forcing heart raise.

Yes. And then whatever partner does to cooperate, I would subside in 4H...suggesting pretty much the concentration of stuff. In other words, I would not really be the one "exploring", more like "suggesting". And I think this hand is very, very close to NOT suggesting slam.

[ArtK78]

I believe that "expert standard" is that 3♠ would be a forcing heart raise with a shortness, while 4♦ is a forcing heart raise without a shortness. If I am correct, then 4♦ is the proper bid. If partner bids 4♥ over 4♦, I will abide by his decision.

 

Unfortunately, given that partner has JTxx of hearts at best, it is unlikely that he will cooperate in a slam venture. But I owe him a try. And if partner has something like KJx JTxx Ax AQxx for his 1NT opening (or better - give partner the AJx of spades and some 10s), perhaps he will make a move.

[aguahombre]

I believe that "expert standard" is that 3♠ would be a forcing heart raise with a shortness, while 4♦ is a forcing heart raise without a shortness. If I am correct, then 4♦ is the proper bid. If partner bids 4♥ over 4♦, I will abide by his decision.

 

Unfortunately, given that partner has JTxx of hearts at best, it is unlikely that he will cooperate in a slam venture. But I owe him a try. And if partner has something like KJx JTxx Ax AQxx for his 1NT opening (or better - give partner the AJx of spades and some 10s), perhaps he will make a move.

3S, as a non-descript Slam try for hearts gobbles up enough room. I would be very surprised if people who thought about it would use 4D for that. I think the more space we consume, the more descriptive that bid should be.

[gordontd]

I believe that "expert standard" is that 3♠ would be a forcing heart raise with a shortness, while 4♦ is a forcing heart raise without a shortness.

I'd have expected that to show a diamond shortage, 4C a club shortage and 3S no shortage or a spade shortage. But it may well be there is no real "standard".

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you want looking for slam, the best way is to start with a forcing heart raise,

most would use 2S over H for this.

If you have it, use it, not doing it is understandable but lazy.

 

Added later:

3S instead of 2S would be a splinter, but the discussion shows, what "most would use"

is worth.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

if you want looking for slam, the best way is to start with a forcing heart raise,

most would use 2S over H for this.

If you have it, use it, not doing it is understandable but lazy.

2S over a 2H response is usually taken for some other purpose; that doesn't make it lazy.

[P_Marlowe]

2S over a 2H response is usually taken for some other purpose; that doesn't make it lazy.

The "lazy" remark was meant, that not making a slam move would be lazy.

So better wording may have been: Set hearts in a forcing manner, if you

can, and see, if partner reacts positive.

[ArtK78]

3S, as a non-descript Slam try for hearts gobbles up enough room. I would be very surprised if people who thought about it would use 4D for that. I think the more space we consume, the more descriptive that bid should be.

It is pretty descriptive. 4 hearts, slam try values, no shortness. If you use 3♠ as a generic forcing heart raise, you are then going to start groping around to try to find out more information.

[gwnn]

3S, as a non-descript Slam try for hearts gobbles up enough room. I would be very surprised if people who thought about it would use 4D for that. I think the more space we consume, the more descriptive that bid should be.

How about Grant Baze? Or the people you have seen on Vugraph? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62794-slamming-after-stayman/

[masse24]

Definitely exploring slam.

 

Undiscussed, I bid 3♠, which should be a forcing ♥ raise.

 

If agreed, I prefer 3♠ to agree ♥ and show undisclosed shortage.

4♣ agrees trump with no shortage, requests Q-bids.

4♦ is RKC.

 

Modified Baze

[aguahombre]

I'd have expected that to show a diamond shortage, 4C a club shortage and 3S no shortage or a spade shortage. But it may well be there is no real "standard".

 

How about Grant Baze? Or the people you have seen on Vugraph? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62794-slamming-after-stayman/

Yep, Gwnn, as I mentioned in your research thread, I posted it because we were thinking seriously of changing to the Baze/other experts' method. And, we decided Gordon's method was less space-consuming when space is needed because Responder is flat and concentration of strength is important. Sometimes you just can't inject expert methods into my duffer's head.

[Phil]

I'd hunt. Hopefully partner can cooperate, but we both know his hearts suck.

[aguahombre]

I'd hunt. Hopefully partner can cooperate, but we both know his hearts suck.

When two relatively balanced hands actually end up with 31 HCP, but have persisted to the 5-level anyway, and are missing exactly the three key trumps, it will be a bad day. If it has happened to us once, our quota for a lifetime is reached.

[0 Subrata]

3♣ is the proper bidding, it means partner Heart suit is agreed and I am starting cue bidding.

 

Thx

 

Subrata Basak

 

user i.d.- 0 Subrata

[gordontd]

3♣ is the proper bidding, it means partner Heart suit is agreed and I am starting cue bidding.

Good luck with trying that out on an unsuspecting partner!

[diana_eva]

Thanks all. Here's what happened, and I'm still unsure where the inconsistency in my train of thoughts lies:

 

Pd opened 1NT, I was South. My first GIB style impulse was to bid a straight 4NT quanti. Then, I stopped and thought some more, and realized if we have a fit, we might belong in slam.

So I bid stayman and partner gave the 2♥ response. Now, I got stuck. I knew we're 30+ HCP with a fit, which to my mind was plenty for slam.

 

I did not know how to explore intelligently. I didn't know that 3♠ can be a forcing heart raise, I thought it would show spade shortness. Anything else wd have been either a natural side suit or splinter, so I just blasted 6♥.

 

Something broke between "this hand sucks for 6NT" and "30+ points in a suit contract = slam".

 

The other table bid

 

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 4♥

 

So I wondered how reasonable it is to think slam at all.

[PhilKing]

So I wondered how reasonable it is to think slam at all.

 

My guess is that if your only two choices were 4♥ and 6♥, blasting slam would be the better option.

 

Without any fancy agreements, I quite like 5♥ if partnering a good player.

[MrAce]

Thanks all. Here's what happened, and I'm still unsure where the inconsistency in my train of thoughts lies:

 

Pd opened 1NT, I was South. My first GIB style impulse was to bid a straight 4NT quanti. Then, I stopped and thought some more, and realized if we have a fit, we might belong in slam.

So I bid stayman and partner gave the 2♥ response. Now, I got stuck. I knew we're 30+ HCP with a fit, which to my mind was plenty for slam.

 

I did not know how to explore intelligently. I didn't know that 3♠ can be a forcing heart raise, I thought it would show spade shortness. Anything else wd have been either a natural side suit or splinter, so I just blasted 6♥.

 

Something broke between "this hand sucks for 6NT" and "30+ points in a suit contract = slam".

 

The other table bid

 

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 4♥

 

So I wondered how reasonable it is to think slam at all.

 

It is reasonable to to think slam. But to say 30-31 hcp with only 8 card fit and balanced vs balanced is plenty for slam, is an overstatement imo.

[diana_eva]

It is reasonable to to think slam. But to say 30-31 hcp with only 8 card fit and balanced vs balanced is plenty for slam, is an overstatement imo.

 

Yep. I know, that's what I am trying to debug. Why did I go from "too flat to 4nt" to "slam is certain" :) I guess it was something like

"If he answers 2♥ we might have slam"

"Oh my, he did answer 2♥ - we have slam!"

[gszes]

If your system has a bid that allows for a "mild slam try" this hand

is good enough to warrant its use. The different "standards" proposed all

take up a rather large amount of space w/o exchanging virtually any useful

information. Since responder may be interested in a grand this huge waste

of space may make the grand slam search much more difficult. W/o a low level

exploration mechanism I would subside in 4h.

 

Slam exploration w/o shortness needs a lot of space. IMHO 1n 2c 2h 2s

and 1n 2c 2s 3h (with the first forcing to at least 3h and the latter

forcing to at least 3s) should show some form of 54 in the majors and

invitational or greater. While the shape is unknown this shows opener

where 9 of your cards are located and allows them to much more accurately

make game or no game decisions. This is much like P_Marlowe but with game

decision utility also. It is highly important to be able to show distribution

so opener can tell how well their hand fits opposite yours for game or slam

purposes.

 

This mechanism also allows for slam exploration on hands where opener is

interested in game since they can begin cue bidding immediately (it will be

a rare hand that is not interested in game that is "slam worthy"). If opener

is not interested in game and responder still wants to search for slam all

they have to do is cuebid.