Test your 1NT structure

[smerriman]

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?d=w&s=HKJ9DQ92CAKQJ862&v=b&a=p1NP]200|300[/hv]

You probably weren't expecting your partner to open 1NT (15-17) when you picked up this hand. How do you find out everything you need to know?

[DavidKok]

1NT-2♠* club transfer;

3♣* (not Hxx)-3♠* shortness;

3NT (signoff)-4♣ strong slam try establishing clubs, demands that partner starts showing controls.

 

Not ideal with this hand, but at least partner knows to devalue ♠KQ and I get to hear about red suit controls at the 4-level.

[smerriman]

That's exactly how I'd start too. Partner continues with 4♦, and you presumably bid 4♥. Partner doesn't have the ♠A so bids 5♣ (turns out they have the ♠K, but knowing you're short I expect it's right to skip a second round control).

 

5♠ seems the only appropriate continuation, but I always get a bit lost at this point when it comes down to a queen or jack here or there..

[johnu]

I would transfer to clubs via 2♠/2NT, whichever you are using. Then I would use 4♠ as voidwood, asking for keycards outside of spades. With such strong clubs, partner is going to have a hard time cooperating with something like a small doubleton.

 

A quick simulation shows that a small slam makes 95% and a grand makes 58%. A few times you are missing 2 aces so should be able to stop in 5♣ (although sometimes NT opener has ♠AKQ to pitch either red suit if the aces aren't cashed). Other times, small slam goes down on a ruff, or a heart through the ♥KJ9 so the club contract plays best with the long club suit as declarer but how (Gerber anybody, but you don't need ♠A to make a grand)?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a detailed relay system would give the best results on this hand.

[thepossum]

Interesting indeed and well beyond my basic methods. I wouldn't even remember which minor transfer I'm supposed to use

 

After a bit of thought I went for Gerber followed by a decision on which slam. Not perfect but it could work

 

I know this seems very contorted but if RHO had interfered you could use Lebensohl to get clubs etc

[mw64ahw]

I play 4-way transfers, but in this case

1NT - 2♣ Puppet Stayman variation

a) 2♦ denies 5cM - 3♣ 6+♣ SI provides a good base to start looking for the controls.

b) 2♠ 5♠ I have the same 3♣ bid, which is now initially GF. I play Kickbo so after opener's response you move directly to key card/control showing with 4♣ SI in this case showing an even number.

c) 2♥ 5♥ then 3♠ shows control and invites slam. A later rebid of a ♠ control now shows the void.

d) 2NT 3♥2♠ Min - 3♣ GF etc.

e) 3♣ 5♣(332) Max

c) 3♦ 5♦(332) Max

d) 3♥ 2344 Max controls in both Majors 3♠ is now a SI.

e) 3♠ 2344 Max no ♠ control

f) 3NT 2344 Max no ♥ control

[AL78]

I play very simple methods with my primary partner so the only way I could show this hand is start with 4♣ (slam try with clubs) and hope that initiates a cue bidding sequence which drives us to the small or grand slam.

[paulg]

With my regular partner I would do the same as DavidKok and smerriman. It is unsuitable for my relay methods as voids make it tricky to understand the honour structure opposite.

 

With my wife, I would start with a natural 3♣ and follow with 4♣ to get to a similar position although I will not have shown spade shortage.

 

With other club members I am largely fixed due to the prevalence of 4♣ being Gerber in any auction. Can we swap the minors around?

[DavidKok]

[...] Partner doesn't have the ♠A so bids 5♣ [...]

On the auction 4♠ should show the ♠A and 4NT should be last train, so 5♣ shows a poor hand on the auction and denies the ace of hearts. Over that you can safely sign off in 6♣.

[smerriman]

Ah, OK, I wasn't sure on what 4NT would show. In that, assume partner bids 4NT.

[Tramticket]

Our three-level responses might seem primitive, but they would give us a great start on this hand. 1NT-3C is natural and game forcing, allowing plenty of space to show controls.

[kgr]

That's exactly how I'd start too. Partner continues with 4♦, and you presumably bid 4♥. Partner doesn't have the ♠A so bids 5♣ (turns out they have the ♠K, but knowing you're short I expect it's right to skip a second round control).

 

5♠ seems the only appropriate continuation, but I always get a bit lost at this point when it comes down to a queen or jack here or there..

Or 5♦? (you already denied the ♦AK)

Then partner shows his ♥A

And you bid 5♠ to show your void.

partner knows you have: void=K??=Q??=and good clubs

 

It is still difficult to 7♣ with:

Kxxx=AQx=AKxx=xx

Partner can bid 5NT now to invite 6/7♣?

[DavidKok]

Ah, OK, I wasn't sure on what 4NT would show. In that, assume partner bids 4NT.

I'd bid 5♥, repeating my control (partner already knew that it is the king since I bypassed 3♥ so I'm not short and partner is holding the ace for the 4NT bid). This implies I'm missing second round diamond control and do have first round spade control, since I'm now forcing to 6♣ and trying for 7. With ♥A, ♦AK partner should push to 7 (I think there's enough chances for a 13th trick - queen of hearts onside or in partner's hand, establishing a long diamond in partner's hand, a ruffing finesse with ♠KQ or a squeeze though we can't combine all of these).

 

On second thought 5♠ is better, showing first round control. 5♥ should probably show the heart queen as well as the king. My mistake. The rest of the inferences are still valid.

[smerriman]

Or 5♦? (you already denied the ♦AK)

I don't see where we denied anything in diamonds?

[DavidKok]

Or 5♦? (you already denied the ♦AK)

Then partner shows his ♥A

And you bid 5♠ to show your void.

partner knows you have: void=K??=Q??=and good clubs

We have not denied ♦AK, and partner has already shown ♥A. By bidding 6♠ we paint the picture you're looking for. Deducing that we have ♦Q is not a given, although we do have 'extras' for trying for 7.

[kgr]

I don't see where we denied anything in diamonds?

We have not denied ♦AK, and partner has already shown ♥A. By bidding 6♠ we paint the picture you're looking for. Deducing that we have ♦Q is not a given, although we do have 'extras' for trying for 7.

argh...sorry

[pigpenz]

I would play walsh transfers and show slam try hand with solid clubs

1nt 2♦

2♥2♠ cancels transfer forces 2NT

2nt 3♥showing solid clubs, 3♣ would show broken club suit

 

its sort of old Max Hardy 2/1 style or Aces scientific

 

put into simulator

where NT opener has 2 or 3 aces

maybe HAHA gerber helps, who would have thought.

 

3 aces both grands are about 80%

2 aces both small slams are about the same

 

maybe we are being too scientific?

[Gilithin]

I'll respond 3♣, setting clubs as trumps and asking partner what they think about slam. Assuming they are not enthusiastic they will bid 3♦ and now I ask about their hearts with 3♥, If partner has the ♥A they will now show it along with other controls, if not then they bid 3NT and now I can bid 4♣ asking if they hold a diamond control. It is not perfect - if Opener holds ♠AKQ ♥Q ♦K plus a jack or two it is tricky and requires some subtle agreements - but the approach works on the vast majority of hands in this family and is fairly simple to use.

[johnu]

maybe we are being too scientific?

From general principles, the ability to show a solid suit is useful because in a cooperative slam try, the partner with apparently bad trump support will/should take that into account when evaluating their hand. Showing a solid suit lets partner evaluate the rest of their hand without regard to trump support.

 

However, if you can't show a void and ask for aces outside the void, then maybe you aren't being scientific enough IMHO.

[pigpenz]

i was just showing what a simulator shows using that hand opposite a strong NT

[smerriman]

3 aces both grands are about 80%

2 aces both small slams are about the same

 

maybe we are being too scientific?

But the key is finding grand when you have the right two aces, so those numbers probably aren't that meaningful.

[thepossum]

I also ran a little sim based just on Aces and Kings using Gerber. Interesting :) Even not needing the Ace of spades. But it helps on choosing which slam

 

My basic method in this case is Gerber then take a chance

 

I had forgotten to ask if it was MPs or IMPs :)

[Gilithin]

But the key is finding grand when you have the right two aces, so those numbers probably aren't that meaningful.

Avoiding slam completely when partner has neither red ace or is missing the ♦AK seems to me even more important.

[fromageGB]

I'm a simple soul, so for me with this hand and combined strength it is simply a question of aces.

 

1NT - 2NT (compulsory transfer to clubs)

3♣ (forced) - 4NT (spade void ace ask)

??reply?? - If 5♣ = 0 ace => pass, if 5♦ = 1 ace => 6♣, if 5♥ = 2 aces => 6♣.

Grand would need an ideal but for us undeterminable hand.

 

On the other hand, we do have a side KQ ask when we are playing in a major, so it is a simply a partnership decision to play it with a minor.

 

1NT - 2NT

3♣ - 3♦ (side KQ ask)

3♥ = K♦ or Q♦ (or both) - 3♠ = what about hearts?

3NT = K♥ or Q♥ (or both) [so opener has K♦+Q♥] - 4NT (spade void ace ask)

??reply?? - If 5♣ = 0 ace => pass, if 5♦ = 1 ace => 6♣, if 5♥ = 2 aces => 7♣.

 

This way grand is a laydown if partner has ALL the right cards (apart from a ruff of the opening lead).

If the Q♥ was missing but he had the others, I would think about still bidding 7 as there is a better than 50% chance of partner having another trick.

[Cyberyeti]

We start with 3♣ natural, forcing and single suited, partner almost inevitably bids 3♦ and now we go to 4♠ voidwood.