Underbid?

[nige1]

[hv=lin=st||pn|,Nige1,,Traqupolly|md|4S94HQJT4DKQT5CT87,SAQT86HK753DJ9CA4,S732H82D7642CJ632,SKJ5HA96DA83CKQ95|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%2038|mb|1N|mb|P|mb|2C|mb|P|mb|2D|mb|P|mb|3N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HQ|pc|H3|pc|H8|pc|HA|pc|SK|pc|S9|pc|S6|pc|S2|pc|SJ|pc|S4|pc|S8|pc|S3|pc|S5|pc|C7|pc|SA|pc|S7|pc|SQ|pc|D4|pc|D3|pc|CT|pc|ST|pc|D2|pc|D8|pc|C8|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|C5|pc|D5|pc|C4|pc|C2|pc|C9|pc|H4|pc|CK|pc|DT|pc|D9|pc|C6|pc|CQ|pc|DQ|pc|H5|pc|CJ|mc|12|]300|300|

Scottish Mixed Teams.

I settled for 3NT but wondered how could you reach the reasonable 6♠, with any confidence.

Against East's 3NT, South led ♥Q, won by East's ♥A. When declarer ran ♠s, South was under pressure. He elected to throw 3 ♣s. On the ♣s, declarer can throw 2 ♥s from dummy to criss-cross squeeze defenders for 13 tricks.[/hv]

[smerriman]

While I would have used Smolen as West, slam isn't looking good if either of East's club honors were moved to diamonds, so I think I'm happy to settle for 4♠.

[shyams]

If I were bidding with one of my regular partners of the past, we probably will not reach this. However, we definitely would not be playing this in 3NT. As West, I think it would be normal/automatic to invoke Smolen after the 2♦ response to my Stayman.

 

Now, if East-West have some artificial bid or agreement to show a slam interest (e.g. 3NT by West as mild slam try), then it is possible for East to reevaluate and sniff out the slam. Otherwise, I cannot think of anything specific.

[Cyberyeti]

Our auction conveys a lot of info at a low level:

 

1♣(4+, weak NT system)-1♠

1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(enquiry)

2N(3334 17-bad 19)-3♥(natural shaping out, slam interest)

3♠-4♣

4♦-4♥

4N-5♠

5N(anything else, looking for ♥Q)-6♠ (no)

 

E knows about AQxxx, Kxxx, and 4 minor suit cards with no void and ♣A, so he can cover all of them.

[sfi]

I settled for 3NT but wondered how you could you reach the reasonable 6♠, with any confidence.

Maybe not with confidence, but I think you should get there with this start:

1NT - 2C

2D - 3H (Smolen)

 

Opener should cue 4C just in case partner has slam interest. Responder cues 4H to look for slam. Now opener's hand almost literally cannot be any better, so should simply drive to 6S. Opener should probably use Blackwood, not because it's overly useful but because it is the best way to let partner know the side has all the key cards in case the grand is on the table.

[nullve]

nullve-nullve:

 

1♣(1)-1♥(2)

1N(3)-2♦(4)

2♥(5)-2♠(6)

3N(7)-4♣(8)

4♦(9)-4N(10)

5♦(11)-6♠(12)

P

 

(1) "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "11-13/17-19/23+ BAL"

(2) "0+, 4+ S, less than 4 H unless GF values"

(3) "10-12", 2-S6+C OR 13-15, 22(54) OR "16-18, 2- S, unBAL" OR "17-19 BAL", 2-3 S

(4) ART GF

(5) "17-19 BAL"

(6) relay

(7) 3334

(8) puppet to 4♦

(9) forced

(10) Parity Key Card Blackwood agreeing S

(11) odd # of key cards, no trump Q

(12) contract

 

(Meh.)

[DavidKok]

My NT is 14-16 which gives me a slightly unfair advantage. With 15-17 NT the auction would simply go 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-3♥*; 3♠-4♠. No slam for me.

 

Or, with my NT range, 1♣*-1♠; 2NT-3♣*; 3♠-4♣; 4♦-4♥ (last train); ???, where I have no idea what opener should do. The three keycards and club values are wonderful, but 17 points with a 4333 shape is a dead minimum. No tens either. Also I think I can systematically bid 3NT (serious) instead of 4♣ because of a technicality, but I'm also confident that at the table neither me nor my partner would figure this out.

[pescetom]

This one would probably work out with our Stayman and control-bidding:

 

1NT (15-17)

2♣ - 2♦ (no 5cM)

2♥ (spades) - 3♣ (misfit, max)

3♦ (5-4) - 3♠ (nat, fix)

4♣ (ctl) - 4♦ (ctl)

4♥ (ctl) - 5♣ (ctl, odd keycards)

5♠ (!♦ !♥) - 6♠

p

[DavidKok]

Seems quite optimistic. 14 opposite 17 with a 5-3 fit and no long side suit doesn't seem like a recipe for 12 tricks. In particular 4♣ and 4♥ are dubious.

[pescetom]

Seems quite optimistic. 14 opposite 17 with a 5-3 fit and no long side suit doesn't seem like a recipe for 12 tricks. In particular 4♣ and 4♥ are dubious.

In my sequence 4♣ and 4♥ are normal Italian control-bids, if that is what you are referring too.

Calling slam after that sequence doesn't look excessively optimistic to me, even if West's 5♠ negative is ambiguous.

East knows that W has some slam interest and Axxxx Kxxx xx Ax, so his only real doubts are about the major queens and at least one seems likely.

A 12th trick could be as simple as pitching a diamond from dummy on the clubs, if the opponents hands are reasonably balanced.

[gszes]

1n

2c

2d

3h (smolen)

3s spade support not a terrible hand for slam (else 4s or even 3n)

3n at least mild slam try no splinter need more info

4c cue

4h cue still unable to take control

4n rkc spades bidding assures no minor losers and hand is max

5s 2 with trump Q

5n asking for kings shows all 5 keys not enough to bid 7 yet

6h showing king not enough to go to 7 (with !HKQ would hazard 7)

6s having spade J should mean 6 is no worse than 32 trumps and 42 hearts but see no way to avoid heart loser so 7 seems out of the picture

 

the main key is realizing the ability to ruff the 4th round of hearts with the spade J for trick 12 and only the 1n opener can know this.

[DavidKok]

In my sequence 4♣ and 4♥ are normal Italian control-bids, if that is what you are referring too.

Calling slam after that sequence doesn't look excessively optimistic to me, even if West's 5♠ negative is ambiguous.

East knows that W has some slam interest and Axxxx Kxxx xx Ax, so his only real doubts are about the major queens and at least one seems likely.

A 12th trick could be as simple as pitching a diamond from dummy on the clubs, if the opponents hands are reasonably balanced.

Yes, precisely. West is making the questionable bids here, 'normal' Italian control bids showing slam interest. The point is that West should really think twice before showing slam interest. To get to a good slam trump slam you need an 8-card fit, playing strength and controls in all suits (in that order). I'm questioning the presence of playing strength, and West is the only one who can judge this. I'm not worried about East's enthusiasm after that since partner promises slam interest opposite exactly this hand.

[ali quarg]

With a 15-17NT opening - assume a modified loosing trick count of 6.5

West also has 6.5 MLTC before any adjustments so I would be looking for the slam in ♠ from the outset

[pescetom]

Yes, precisely. West is making the questionable bids here, 'normal' Italian control bids showing slam interest. The point is that West should really think twice before showing slam interest. To get to a good slam trump slam you need an 8-card fit, playing strength and controls in all suits (in that order). I'm questioning the presence of playing strength, and West is the only one who can judge this. I'm not worried about East's enthusiasm after that since partner promises slam interest opposite exactly this hand.

 

Fair enough, we have a different evaluation of the potential of West's hand opposite a declared maximum 15-17 1NT with 3-card support. If I was West I would have no compunction in showing slam interest.

 

FWIW this dealer script evaluates the probability of this hand making 6♠ opposite 1NT with 3-card support. At maximum strength of 17 the probability is around 79% and even considering all 16-17 it is around 67%.

 

#Should W investigate slam opposite 1NT declared maximum with 3-card fit?

predeal west SAQT86, HK753, DJ9, CA4

1NTshape = (shape(east, any 4333) or shape(east, any 4432) or shape(east, any 5332))

produce 1000

make6S = (tricks(east,spades) >= 12)

action frequency "of making 6S" (make6S,0,1)

condition 1NTshape and spades(east)==3 and hcp(east)>=16 and hcp(east)<=17

[Zelandakh]

gszes's sequence looks like the right way to me: 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 3NT (frivolous) or 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 4♣ (if playing S3NT). After that it is a matter of slam-bidding style and risk assessment. For Puppeteers, the equivalent auction: 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♥; 3♠ gets you to the same spot.

[Douglas43]

Might there be a route through a natural transfer sequence, if responder's second bid of 3♥ is FG and preference to 3♠ by opener is maximum on the principle of fast arrival?

1NT - 2♥

2♠ - 3♥

3♠- 4♣

4♦ - 4 ♥

 

now I think opener with a maximum and knowledge of partner's club and heart controls is worth a 5♣ cue bid and you are heading to 6S?

[sfi]

gszes's sequence looks like the right way to me: 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 3NT (frivolous) or 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 4♣ (if playing S3NT).

Am I really the only person who thinks it's clear for opener to cue over 3H? Surely 4C can't be anything else but a max with spade support.

[pescetom]

Might there be a route through a natural transfer sequence, if responder's second bid of 3♥ is FG ...?

 

Many people here reserve that sequence for 5♠-5♥ FG: not sure how widespread this may be, but it seems logical if 5♠-4♥ FG can go through Stayman.

[Douglas43]

Many people here reserve that sequence for 5♠-5♥ FG: not sure how widespread this may be, but it seems logical if 5♠-4♥ FG can go through Stayman.

 

Yes, it does depend on agreement. We play all second suits as natural 4+ cards and FG and would rebid hearts (4♥ over 3NT) when we have 5-5. But as long as you have suitable agreements, Stayman should be fine as above.

[Douglas43]

Many people here reserve that sequence for 5♠-5♥ FG: not sure how widespread this may be, but it seems logical if 5♠-4♥ FG can go through Stayman.

 

Yes, it does depend on agreement. We play all second suits as natural 4+ cards and FG and would rebid hearts (4♥ over 3NT) when we have 5-5. But as long as you have suitable agreements, Stayman should be fine as above.

[mikeh]

late to the thread.

 

I agree with those who say that responder should use smolen, and opener should cuebid 4C over 3H to show a slam-suitable raise to 4S.

 

His hand is not 'perfect' in that I'd prefer to have Ax in hearts, rather than Axx, but it's as close to perfect as one is likely to encounter. 6 controls!!!

 

Controls are essential for slam bidding, absent extreme distribution. Back when I played a form of relay stayman, we assumed that the typical 15-17 1N hand would have 4-5 controls (we had control asking relays after opener showed shape). Here, with 6, our hand is very slam oriented and it behooves us to let partner in on the secret. Responder will cooperate and slam becomes inevitable (no need for keycard, btw...responder might use keycard to look for grand if he had a better hand, but with this hand, and knowing opener is balanced, he'd settle for cuebidding to a small slam)

 

Btw, there are a host of methods to handle major 2-suiters. Personally, I like smolen when responder has unequal majors. We use 3D over 1N as 5-5 or better, game force.

 

As for 1N 2H 2S 3H, we use that as a relay to 3S, showing strong slam interest and a very good suit, with 1N 2H 2S 3S as the same slam interest but needing a filler in the trump suit (opener doesn't need to bid 3S over 3H: typically he'd only do that if lacking a club control....3N would be something like a very soft 15-16, every side suit double-stopped: maybe xx AQx KQxx KJ10x

[pescetom]

Yes, it does depend on agreement. We play all second suits as natural 4+ cards and FG and would rebid hearts (4♥ over 3NT) when we have 5-5. But as long as you have suitable agreements, Stayman should be fine as above.

FWIW I put all 5-4 and 5-5 through a (non-standard) Stayman and use the transfer sequence for 6-4.

But my point was that it seems reasonable to distinguish 5-4 GF and 5-5 GF and if the former goes through Stayman then it's not clear why it would be useful that the transfer sequence should indicate the same rather than (say) 5-5.

[nullve]

Surely 4C can't be anything else but a max with spade support.

opener should cuebid 4C over 3H to show a slam-suitable raise to 4S.

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

 

What if someone bid 4♣ (instead of accepting the Smolen transfer with 3♠) on

 

Qxx

AJx

xx

AKJxx

 

in the hope that Responder would become declarer in a spade contract? Would that be irrational?

[Zelandakh]

4♣ is undefined in standard Smolen (isn't it?) and yet you are both sure that this is the only reasonable interpretation?

It is also reasonable to use it as a picture bid with something like ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AKQxx. Once you have agreed Frivolous (or Serious) 3NT over 3♠, it opens up a whole bunch of possibilities for how to treat such sequences in this kind of auction.

[Douglas43]

Thanks to all, very interesting. I'd never played (or played against) Smolen but there's an article on the BridgeBum site for anyone else out there in that situation and wants to know more: Smolen Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses (bridgebum.com)