Underbid?

[kgr]

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.

+1

[Cyberyeti]

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)

 

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

[mikeh]

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?

Irrational? I guess one could construct hands where right-siding matters but I far...far...prefer to allow opener to distinguish between blah 15 counts and prime 17 counts. One of the issues with smolen (I think it’s a great gadget, but all gadgets have soft spots) is that we’ve reached to 3 level and responder is unlimited while opener has yet to refine his hand, beyond denying a major.

 

Yes, one can bid, say, 3S with a max and 4S with a min, but jumping to 4S should be a really bad hand, since responder is unlimited

 

Plus, if responder has bid 3S, showing longer hearts, opener has to have a cuebid to show a good hand, since he can’t bid 3H. One may as well be consistent.

 

Frankly, in my experience, right-siding games and slams is generally over-rated. It can be important, but most of the time it’s not or it doesn’t matter.

[sfi]

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?

The positional question is a valid one, but I have rarely seen a situation where you get to have a discussion about it mid-auction (unless the opponents interfere, such as with a lead-directing double). I did suggest one recently in another context, but it was as an untried thought rather than something that was commonly accepted. Mostly, you just go with the decision made when discussing the system.

 

That being said, it's not an irrational idea. However, it does give up on some options to investigate slam. It's a really common principle that the NT bidder doesn't get to start suggesting suits most of the time, and particularly after transfers, and certainly not after responder has shown two of them. So you are left with the question of how to use the four-level bids here. I would suggest 4H is out altogether, because responder needs to be able to bid 4H to tell opener to play 4S. You could use 4m to try to steer who declares the hand, but the "normal" agreement would be to simply have it show a particularly good hand with a fit and a cue.

 

The advantage of this sort of rule, apart from being applicable in a lot of auctions, is that it goes a long way to allowing sensible slam discussions without having to go past game. As I suggested above, opener gets to show a max with support, responder gets to say "I'm interested in slam", and that's all opener really needs on this particular hand.

 

All that being said, the hand you give above may be a minimum in HCP, but it has excellent playing strength. I would have no problem bidding 4C on that as well. It's a shame your hand has some of the same cards as the original responding hand, but modify it slightly to:

 

Kxx

AJx

AKxxx

xx

 

Slam is certainly playable on these two hands. However, I would expect the auction to proceed:

 

4D (cue & spade fit) - 4H (club cue and slam interest)

4S (not enough to take control)

 

Now responder would likely give up, but if they continue, this is the sort of hand they should expect.

 

We had a similar auction last week:

1C (Polish) - 1H

2NT (18-20, denies 3H) - 3H (must be 6 with a slam try)

 

And now opener should take the opportunity to cue with a reasonable hand. We need 3NT as natural here, because opener may have a singleton heart and be forced to bid 2NT, so opener needs a way to show slam interest without pushing past game.

 

So, it's not the only reasonable interpretation. But it's the only interpretation I would expect playing opposite a good player with whom I have not specifically discussed the sequence. And I would be confident about doing so.

[sfi]

Did I just give a longer reply to a post than Mike? That must be a first. :)

[nullve]

All that being said, the hand you give above may be a minimum in HCP, but it has excellent playing strength. I would have no problem bidding 4C on that as well. It's a shame your hand has some of the same cards as the original responding hand, but modify it slightly to:

 

Kxx

AJx

AKxxx

xx

 

Slam is certainly playable on these two hands. However, I would expect the auction to proceed:

 

4D (cue & spade fit) - 4H (club cue and slam interest)

4S (not enough to take control)

4♥ could not be taken as a retransfer to spades?

[Douglas43]

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

Thanks cyberyeti, that's how I saw it too. It explains why not popular in the UK.

[Douglas43]

Smolen is very much a strong no trump convention, if you play a weak no trump and have a GF 5-4 in the majors, then your hand is as good as openers and there's not so much reason to get the no trump opener to play it.

Thanks cyberyeti, that's how I saw it too. It explains why not popular in the UK.