[hanp]

Playing standard methods I would just Texas transfer.

With Arend I do not play Texas transfers, I would have to start with 3HH no matter whether I have slam interest or not. If partner now bids 3S (the generic response) then I will sign off in 4S. However, we "superaccept" with 3-card support much more often than others by bidding 3NT. Over this I would bid 4D, partner already has shown exactly 3-card support and a good hand, I think we can make one positive sound to try for slam.

[Phil]

I would make a mild slam try. I thought this before I saw the perfecto minimum opposite, and I still think this.

There may be a philosophical difference on what 2N - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♠ means. To me, "mild slam try" means exactly that. I like my hand for slam if you love yours. It doesn't mean, "I like my hand for slam, but signoff only if you hate yours". That would be a strong slam try.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the idea that a transfer-then-game shows a slam try only opposite a non-super accept. What is the purpose of a super-accept, then?

I also restate that I think this to be a super-accept, IF the systemic super-accept with this hand is 3NT. To me, this super-accept shows three-card support with two of the top three honors and 51/2 to 6 covers. Or, a hand where game makes roughly 50% of the time when partner has Hxxxx in the major and out.

If partner has only that, we make when spades split 3-2 and the hook works, or when we get a lead into the A-Q, or when something else good happens.

The cost to this style is that you cannot sign off at 3♠ IF partner has this very hand. That's so rare anyway, and the extra level of so little real cost, that it seems worth the call.

[Tcyk]

It turns out that there is a very logical sequence for this particular hand. We bid 3♥ transferring to spades and then bid 4♥. This sequence can not be showing both majors. With both majors and a game forcing hand, responder would bid Stayman (whatever variety you prefer). 4♣ and 4♦ would be some kind of a slam try with values in the suit bid. 4♥ must be a slam try with short ♥s.

[Tcyk]

dicklont, on Jun 11 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

I can postpone my decision for one round, because I recently learned a specific treatment for the major suit transfer over 2NT.

Transfer 3♥
- partner accepts: he has two spades
- partner bids 3NT: he has two spades and five hearts
- partner bids something else: shows 3+ spades and values in that suit, but must leave room to repeat the transfer
Yes, we're no longer able to sign off in 3♥/♠.

So when partner answers 4♣ I'll cue ♦K, else we'll play 4♠.

Your method is interesting and is almost the same as the method published by John Montgomery in his book "Revision Club." I don't know where John got his method, perhaps he will tell us.

The difference is that accepting the transfer shows 2 to 5 ♠s, denies 5♥s, and is not a superaccept; less than 4 ♠s or a minimum hand. 3NT is as you stated, specifically 2=5=3=3 shape. 4♣ and 4♦ are superaccepts with 4 or 5 ♠ and control in the suit bid. 4♠ becomes the superaccept with control in ♥s. 4♥ is not an available rebid by opener because it must be left open so responder can repeat the transfer to ♠s.

[Tcyk]

Tcyk, on Jun 19 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

It turns out that there is a very logical sequence for this particular hand. We bid 3♥ transferring to spades and then bid 4♥. This sequence can not be showing both majors. With both majors and a game forcing hand, responder would bid Stayman (whatever variety you prefer). 4♣ and 4♦ would be some kind of a slam try with values in the suit bid. 4♥ must be a slam try with short ♥s.

Okay, I take it back. 4♣ and 4♦ must be pass or correct game tries in ♠s and the minor suit shown; not necessarily slam tries. I still believe that 4♥ after the transfer must show short ♥s.

[Jlall]

Texas.

[hanp]

I have an apple. It cannot be black but it could be green. Therefore it must be green. Sounds good to me!