[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

Partner opens 2NT (20-22).

---

In a teams match the two South players had very different views about this hand, what do you think?

Paul

[Codo]

I really like to play slam with a good long suit opposite a strong NT, but here I need partner with a long minor and 3+ card spade support and the HCP in the right place. Possible, but a small target, so I simply commit to 4 ♠.

[helene_t]

Your methods sound strange. Transfer followed by a new suit would not be a cue but natural in standard methods, I thought.

If you use a new suit as a slam try for spades, I think I would prefer short-suit trials instead of normal cuebids.

[655321]

Playing the described methods, transfer then 4♠, mild slam try, seems perfect.

Lacking an agreement like this I would just bid a game without looking for slam.

[dicklont]

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♠.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Jun 11 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Your methods sound strange. Transfer followed by a new suit would not be a cue but natural in standard methods, I thought.

If you use a new suit as a slam try for spades, I think I would prefer short-suit trials instead of normal cuebids.

You are right about standard of course. I should have said 'whatever is a strong slam try' in your methods.

In my methods, which I'm told are fairly standard in France, acceptance of a transfer shows 3-card support and then you can start cue bidding (in a standard way rather than shortage). Since the shortage is likely to be critical for a min-HCP slam, that agreement would be more suitable on this hand.

Paul

[cherdanno]

cardsharp, on Jun 11 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 11 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Your methods sound strange. Transfer followed by a new suit would not be a cue but natural in standard methods, I thought.

If you use a new suit as a slam try for spades, I think I would prefer short-suit trials instead of normal cuebids.

You are right about standard of course. I should have said 'whatever is a strong slam try' in your methods.

In my methods, which I'm told are fairly standard in France, acceptance of a transfer shows 3-card support and then you can start cue bidding (in a standard way rather than shortage). Since the shortage is likely to be critical for a min-HCP slam, that agreement would be more suitable on this hand.

Paul

That's a different story then. After partner has shown 3-card support, the hand is worth a stronger slam try, especially as I can do that and still play in 4♠ after partner cooperates with a cue.

[Hanoi5]

What 'no 4' said.

[gnasher]

With the given methods I'd just sign off in game.

If I had a way to show the shortage below 4♠, I'd do that. What does 2NT-3♥;3♠-3NT mean in your methods?

[mtvesuvius]

Mild slam try: Transfer then 4♠.

[paulg]

cherdanno, on Jun 11 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 11 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 11 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Your methods sound strange. Transfer followed by a new suit would not be a cue but natural in standard methods, I thought.

If you use a new suit as a slam try for spades, I think I would prefer short-suit trials instead of normal cuebids.

You are right about standard of course. I should have said 'whatever is a strong slam try' in your methods.

In my methods, which I'm told are fairly standard in France, acceptance of a transfer shows 3-card support and then you can start cue bidding (in a standard way rather than shortage). Since the shortage is likely to be critical for a min-HCP slam, that agreement would be more suitable on this hand.

Paul

That's a different story then. After partner has shown 3-card support, the hand is worth a stronger slam try, especially as I can do that and still play in 4♠ after partner cooperates with a cue.

There is a downside of this method, namely when partner denies 3 spades the auction 2NT-3♥-3NT (no fit) - 4♥ is a retransfer that still implies a mild slam try (as it should).

If partner has a maximum with ♠Ax or ♠Qx you are less happy with the situation if he moves forward but with ♠AQ you do not mind or even ♠AJ.

[paulg]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

With the given methods I'd just sign off in game.

If I had a way to show the shortage below 4♠, I'd do that. What does 2NT-3♥;3♠-3NT mean in your methods?

Asks for a cue bid, generally denying club control.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Jun 11 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

There is a downside of this method, namely when partner denies 3 spades the auction 2NT-3♥-3NT (no fit) - 4♥ is a retransfer that still implies a mild slam try (as it should).

If partner has a maximum with ♠Ax or ♠Qx you are less happy with the situation if he moves forward but with ♠AQ you do not mind or even ♠AJ.

Maybe it's better to use your four-level action as a mild slam try, and 3♥-any;4♠ as a signoff? Then responder can decide whether to make a slam try after hearing about the degree of fit. 3♥-3♠;cue becomes either a strong slam try or an improved signoff. The strong slam try will have to move again, but that's not such a problem.

[kenrexford]

If Responder bids 3♥, Opener is not required, nor is it a good idea, to always bid 3♠. If he super-accepts, then you can do something.

You need partner to have about six cover cards and something else. The ideal hand would be something like ♠AQxx ♥xxx ♦AQx ♣AKQ, which is very possible. Give partner other possible hands, like ♠AQx ♥xxx ♦AQxxx ♣Axx or ♠AQx ♥Axx ♦Jx ♣AKQxx, and slam looks good.

So, it sure seems like a time for a transfer.

Even if partner won't make a super-acceptance with three-card support (which he should occasionally do, IMO), a transfer...4♠ sequence suggests slam interest if partner has a super-acceptance, which partner may have denied. If partner still accepts, despite not making a super-accept, he should have a fairly legitimate reason.

After a super-accept, there should be ways of describing what you have, I would hope. But, many just do not discuss this sort of thing, which could be a problem, admittedly.

[paulg]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 11 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

There is a downside of this method, namely when partner denies 3 spades the auction 2NT-3♥-3NT (no fit) - 4♥ is a retransfer that still implies a mild slam try (as it should).

If partner has a maximum with ♠Ax or ♠Qx you are less happy with the situation if he moves forward but with ♠AQ you do not mind or even ♠AJ.

Maybe it's better to use your four-level action as a mild slam try, and 3♥-any;4♠ as a signoff? Then responder can decide whether to make a slam try after hearing about the degree of fit. 3♥-3♠;cue becomes either a strong slam try or an improved signoff. The strong slam try will have to move again, but that's not such a problem.

Perhaps, although the real problem is too many hands and too little space

[paulg]

The reason that I asked the question is that I signed off in game and the player in my seat at the other table (effectively) just bid blackwood.

I thought we were at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Partner held ♠AQx ♥A10xx ♦Ax ♣AQxx. I'm not saying that this is the perfect 20 count, but even the ♥10 proved valuable for the squeeze for the 13th trick.

Paul

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I'd super accept with that.

[ArtK78]

As several posters have said, bidding 3♥ as a transfer to 3♠ followed by bidding 4♠ is a mild slam try, which is exactly what my hand appears to be.

Partner will know that he did not superaccept and that my hand is still worth more than a mere game bid.

Generally speaking, I don't superaccept without 4 spades, but I would probably make an exception on the 2NT opening shown in this thread. The hand is tremendous for play in spades. On the off chance that I did not superaccept, I would certainly act over partner's 4♠ mild slam try (probably by just bidding 6♠).

[jdonn]

Mild slam try my arse. My math skills tell me we have 27-29 and six spades. What is a slam try about that? So partner has four aces and the queen of trumps and another working queen, oops?

This always happens with this term 'mild slam try'. It is simply 'the only slam invitational bid available with this shape' and there is nothing mild about it other than that it isn't blackwood. It's not a license to make a slam try on any hand that could conceivably have slam, just because you called the try "mild".

I see our awesome forum evaluators are also super-accepting on a 20 count with three spades. Does anyone ever just admit they would miss a slam? I guess I'm the worst bidder out here (and codo and gnasher and maybe others).

Edit: LOL I went on my rant without seeing we really had a stronger slam try available. That never happens! Ok I'll go back into my hole, though I maintain the mockery of the super-accept.

[mikeh]

I confess that I would have used texas, thinking that this hand is the upper range for the call... and being cognizant of the risk of missing a slam.

Yes, partner has the perfect hand.. all the Aces, the spade Q and nothing wasted.

But what if he had a 'better' hand? Wouldn't all of us commit to slam opposite a mild slam try with, say, AQJ KQx AJx AQxx? Hey... this is a 23 count!!!! And it has 7 controls and great spades, and slam isn't great.

We can always create hands to show why our choice is good, and this is obviously a construction... but the point is that there will be many, many hands on which opener SHOULD move, after a slam try, on which we have little or no play.

I do often play with a partner who, I think, would at least think, more than I did, about the mild try.. I will ask him on the weekend, if I remember.

For me, the given hand is worth a mild try opposite a super-accept, but our methods do not draw that distinction... the transfer and raise method shows a slam try opposite a non-super-accept.... so partner will and should be aggressive.