[AL78]

A few hands from an absurd session for your mild amusement or facepalming.

A train wreck (and embarassment) of a board:

---

I thought 4♦ showed a maximum original pass with slam interest, holding something like a flat hand with scattered AKK or AAK and after some cue bidding ended up in 6♦. When dummy came down I saw I needed the hand of God to bring it in, who duly obliged. Spades 3-3 with the queen onside and the club ace onside means it is cold. I apologised to the opponents for this hideous example of bridge which gave us a completely undeserved top. Afterwards my partner said she was inviting game in diamonds, not suggesting slam interest.

There was this one we missed (my fault):

---

My mind went blank after partner bid 2NT and I struggled to come up with a way of setting hearts as trumps and starting slam investigation. I didn't trust partner not to pass a 3♥ bid, 4NT is crap with no minor controls, and 3♠ will be taken as natural. It was a choice between 4 and 6♥ and I took the conservative option. It is there as it needs one of the ♦K or ♣A onside on a non diamond lead. Better than it should have been, the slam was only bid once (you can sometimes get away with a lot in a mixed and largely mediocre/poor field). We agreed after that after a NT rebid a club response is Checkback enquiring about the majors.

Finally there was this one where I did my best but partner wasn't on the same wavelength:

---

Maybe I should have bid Blackwood at my second turn and trusted partner to appreciate diamonds had been agreed, but I thought cue bidding the opps suit followed by jump raising in diamonds beyond 3NT must show a strong hand looking for slam. This was not punished properly either as +170 was worth 50% thanks to one other failing to get past 3♦ and two others going off in 4♠.

Playing in a part score with a combined 28 HCP and a good trump fit, missing a 70+% slam and bidding a <10% slam is pretty poor so partner and I have some (a lot of) work to do with our bidding.

[DavidKok]

On deals one and three your partner was way out of line. A good agreement for beginners is that all bids of 4 in a minor suit are game forcing, no exceptions (OK sure, not opening 4 of a minor). It's not perfect but it will at least stop your partner from making tries for 5♦ or playing slams in partscores.

Deal 2 is rough, most people don't have good agreements there to show a slam try establishing hearts as trumps. Checkback works, but if partner happens to have only 2 hearts there's no good way to make a slam try in hearts. There are better alternatives but realistically you are going to have to choose between 4♥ and 6♥ relatively quickly - this is not an area of your system that I would personally focus on.

As an aside, you mentioned Blackwood twice (once implied, once by name) on auctions where the jump to 4NT should be natural. I think this is a common pattern - if you fear partner might drop you in some low level contract, your only option to unequivocally make a slam try is by jumping (and wasting all your bidding space). I would discuss this first and foremost, and keep bidding low (making descriptive forcing bids) and discussing it if/when partner misinterprets it. The route to good slam bidding is not better guessing, but more confidence in your cheap, forcing auctions.

[Cyberyeti]

6♥ (N) needs ♦K onside on a diamond lead on the second one, 6N (S) is more like one of 2, but remember they can duck when you play a club to the K, would be embarrassing now to return to dummy and play a club to the QA when the diamond finesse worked all the time, so really that's on a finesse or a misdefence.

3rd one 4♦ is clearly forcing, how good slam is depends on opps overcalling style.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 08:48, said:

On deals one and three your partner was way out of line. A good agreement for beginners is that all bids of 4 in a minor suit are game forcing, no exceptions (OK sure, not opening 4 of a minor). It's not perfect but it will at least stop your partner from making tries for 5♦ or playing slams in partscores.

Deal 2 is rough, most people don't have good agreements there to show a slam try establishing hearts as trumps. Checkback works, but if partner happens to have only 2 hearts there's no good way to make a slam try in hearts. There are better alternatives but realistically you are going to have to choose between 4♥ and 6♥ relatively quickly - this is not an area of your system that I would personally focus on.

As an aside, you mentioned Blackwood twice (once implied, once by name) on auctions where the jump to 4NT should be natural. I think this is a common pattern - if you fear partner might drop you in some low level contract, your only option to unequivocally make a slam try is by jumping (and wasting all your bidding space). I would discuss this first and foremost, and keep bidding low (making descriptive forcing bids) and discussing it if/when partner misinterprets it. The route to good slam bidding is not better guessing, but more confidence in your cheap, forcing auctions.

With deal 2 is the standard to play 1m - 1M; 2NT(18-19) - 3M as forcing or a minimum response with a long major which may be passed? I think anything bid after 2NT in this auction is accepting the game invite and forcing but I could be wrong. If I trust partner to be on the same wavelength I can bid 3♥, she raises to 4♥, then I can be satisfied she doesn't have ♥xx and start slamming. It would be similar to the hand I posted a while ago where we had 30-31 HCP, a major fit, we got to slam and I went off on a 4-1 trump break.

You have hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. With virtually all partners I have played with, 4NT will be taken as Blackwood in all but the basic situations where it is quantitative after a 1NT or 2NT opening. This can sometimes be a problem when I want to tell partner I wish to engage in slam investigation but want to set the trump suit and have a dialogue, not take over the auction. On deal 3, I explained to partner 4♦ shows slam interest and is inviting a cue bidding sequence, her response was "that sounds like a complicated way of doing it, just bid Blackwood". I don't think Blackwood should be the automatic default tool to use as soon as there is a whiff of slam in the auction.

[Gilithin]

Hand 1: Your partner is wrong here. It is just too narrow a win to use the 4♦ bid that way.
Hand 2: In most systems , using Checkback (whether 3♣ or 3♦) and then going back to a suit other than what partner shows is a slam try. Second round transfers are a good alternative here that can make these auctions simpler.
Hand 3: I think you would have done better responding 3♥ rather than 2♥ but that is not the reason for the issue. Here your partner displayed a complete lack of bidding understanding. After 2♠, if you just wanted to show a minimum (invitational) raise then you would bid 3♦. So 4♦ cannot possibly show the same hand type and must be forcing.

[smerriman]

AL78, on 2022-October-08, 11:12, said:

With deal 2 is the standard to play 1m - 1M; 2NT(18-19) - 3M as forcing or a minimum response with a long major which may be passed? I think anything bid after 2NT in this auction is accepting the game invite and forcing but I could be wrong.

Hard to say for sure that there is a 'standard' here but without agreements I would agree that pass is the only bid that you can make when you don't want to play game, making 3M slam interest. With agreements you can play 3♣ as Wolff Signoff (forces 3♦ so you can sign off in 3M if you must) or transfers.

With more '4♦ inviting game' bids popping up, I think we're past the point where you need to say "Our" in the subject, rather than "Partner's", though if they didn't learn this from the hand a couple of weeks ago..

[AL78]

Gilithin, on 2022-October-08, 13:00, said:

Hand 1: Your partner is wrong here. It is just too narrow a win to use the 4♦ bid that way.
Hand 2: In most systems , using Checkback (whether 3♣ or 3♦) and then going back to a suit other than what partner shows is a slam try. Second round transfers are a good alternative here that can make these auctions simpler.
Hand 3: I think you would have done better responding 3♥ rather than 2♥ but that is not the reason for the issue. Here your partner displayed a complete lack of bidding understanding. After 2♠, if you just wanted to show a minimum (invitational) raise then you would bid 3♦. So 4♦ cannot possibly show the same hand type and must be forcing.

3♥ as a splinter on hand 3? I completely missed that option, I was thinking in my mind cue the opps suit as a forcing bid showing support, then follow with slam investigation (unless partner bids 3NT implying heart wastage). A splinter does all this and shows the shortage in one bid.

[DavidKok]

There is no universal standard over 1m-1M; 2NT-?, but I've seen 3M NF on that auction. I think transfers are superior to the Wolff signoff (and both are better than checkback), but neither is played by many players while checkback is. In fact, I play checkback here.

On auction 3 3♥ should be a splinter, but some partnerships play this as a pure stopper ask, typically with long clubs or both minors. I actually think the North hand is too strong for a splinter - if partner signs off with 3NT you might still be on for slam.

[Gilithin]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 15:01, said:

On auction 3 3♥ should be a splinter, but some partnerships play this as a pure stopper ask, typically with long clubs or both minors. I actually think the North hand is too strong for a splinter - if partner signs off with 3NT you might still be on for slam.

For a normal (close to minimum game force) the hand would obviously be much too strong but splinters are usually played as split-range. I view the given hand as strong enough for the upper range, meaning that you do not respect a sign off but make a further slam try. If you play your upper range to be stronger than this, that would naturally not be an option.

[DavidKok]

Maybe if you play a weak notrump, or an unbalanced diamond. If partner can have a balanced 12-count I think this hand firmly falls in the gap.

[mw64ahw]

Reiterating a check I always make when considering a slam based on a modified loosing trick count. I use other refinements too, but I find this approach invaluable when slam seeking.

Hand 1 - 3♦ shows a minimum MLT of 6/5.5. South has an MLT of 9 & 2 keycards 19-5.5-9=5.5-level so a slam is marginal.
Hand 2 - 2NT shows a minimum MLT of 6/5.5. North has ~7.5 and 3 keycards so 19-5.5-7.5 = 6-level and worth a slam once a suit is established
Hand 3 - North has an MLT of ~5.5 opposite South with an assumed 7.5 so 19-7.5-5.5=6-level. From my perspective you have already signalled support so a 4♣ cue-bid is preferable to 4♦. I also happen to play 4♦ as invitational in this scenario.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-October-08, 13:27, said:

Hard to say for sure that there is a 'standard' here but without agreements I would agree that pass is the only bid that you can make when you don't want to play game, making 3M slam interest. With agreements you can play 3♣ as Wolff Signoff (forces 3♦ so you can sign off in 3M if you must) or transfers.

It would seem masochistic to play 3M as anything but slam interest here.
We teach 3C here as a generic game force which invites partner to proceed naturally, giving precedence to 3 card major support. That works well enough and sounds about the right level for your partners.
This is also as good a place as any to play 4C as Gerber, which should make it clear that 4NT is natural.