[thepossum]

Sadly I took the wrong approach and was left in 4

---

regards P

[smerriman]

I want to be in slam if and only if partner has a diamond control, which I can find out exactly by Texas followed by 4S.

[MatthiasK]

A remark regarding your options: Jaboby transfer, then Blackwood doesn't exist. This is (should be) quantitative.

The hand looks too good for a slam invite. Partner would reject the invitation with some hands that look
minimum, where slam is very good or even cold, e.g. ♠Kxx ♥QJ ♦KQJx ♣Kxxx.

Ace ask doesn't help either. All I need is ♦K and some tricks from partner.

The best option seems to be Texas transfer, then 4♠ cuebid. Whether this works depends on our
agreements and partner's judgement but it conveys the message that I have strong slam interest.

[apollo1201]

Wouldn’t any kind of transfer followed by 5H convey this quantitative invite message? Same as transfer followed by 4NT quantitative, except that it shows the 6th H and conveys if you’re max, please go on.

Over transfer and 4S cue, what will you do over 5C from partner. 5H then blame on partner? Would it be so clear you are that strong?

[Cyberyeti]

2 approaches, both reasonable, 1N-2♦-2♥-6♥ as this could easily make if they fail to take the 2 cashing tricks on the opening lead, or try science.

At MPs I blast the slam (winning the post mortem but pinpointing the diamond hole as you get a zero for 5♥= while everybody else makes overtricks or slams doesn't appeal).

At IMPs, both are valid, and also there's plenty of room for partner to have Kxx, Qxx, Axx, KQJx and you to have a cold 7N on opposite a pretty bad 1N.

This is actually one case where the old Acol 1N-3♥ makes this much easier than US methods.

[pescetom]

apollo1201, on 2019-June-16, 02:04, said:

Over transfer and 4S cue, what will you do over 5C from partner. 5H then blame on partner? Would it be so clear you are that strong?

5H, of course, and partner must continue if he controls diamonds which I just denied. If 4S showed slam interest then I can't have lost it because he showed a club control, and he now knows I must have first level club control too.

[pescetom]

Deleted

[fromageGB]

Transfer then jump to 4♣, if you were playing positive cue bidding and not natural for this. This will elicit a diamond control if there is one, but it depends on your cue style I suppose, if this denies spades. I never did see the point in that, though, as you are not normally looking for slam with two suits of your own wide open, so therefore bid the one beneath you want to hear about.

But Cyberyeti's approach has appeal.

[thepossum]

Thx everyone

Matthias is corrent that Blackwood over transfer did not exist - it was quantitative - I have deleted it

Regarding Texas I alays thought that it showed only game, not slam interest - but to be honest I forgot about it as always - it was a nice option since you could initiate the slam discussion

The interesting thing about Gerber is that in this case is acted as a transfer too since the response was 4H


PS I will post the hands later and it does potentially make 7H (with smart trump play and finesse) and 6NT - despite having a bad trump break. No idea what the correct odds are but I certainly did not want to be in 4H

[pescetom]

fromageGB, on 2019-June-16, 02:53, said:

Transfer then jump to 4♣, if you were playing positive cue bidding and not natural for this. This will elicit a diamond control if there is one, but it depends on your cue style I suppose, if this denies spades. I never did see the point in that, though, as you are not normally looking for slam with two suits of your own wide open, so therefore bid the one beneath you want to hear.

We would Jacoby transfer and then bid 3S, which shows a 6+card suit with slam interest and control in spades. For us, bidding clubs would deny spades and partner with no control of spades would sign off in trumps, even with control of diamonds. I can only see advantages in such honesty and precision, but to each his own. It's nice to be interested only in one suit, but hardly the norm, and the system will handle that case correctly anyway even without shortcuts.

[MatthiasK]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-16, 02:22, said:

...
At IMPs, both are valid, and also there's plenty of room for partner to have Kxx, Qxx, Axx, KQJx and you to have a cold 7N on opposite a pretty bad 1N.

This is actually one case where the old Acol 1N-3♥ makes this much easier than US methods.

I'm not convinced.

With your sample hand, wouldn't opener rebid 4♥? You are in the same position as after Texas transfer.
In some cases, you wrong-side the slam, e.g., ♠KQx ♥QJx ♦Kxxx ♣KQx. You have to
hope that ♦A is onside.

[Cyberyeti]

MatthiasK, on 2019-June-16, 04:06, said:

I'm not convinced.

With your sample hand, wouldn't opener rebid 4♥? You are in the same position as after Texas transfer.
In some cases, you wrong-side the slam, e.g., ♠KQx ♥QJx ♦Kxxx ♣KQx. You have to
hope that ♦A is onside.

We would always cue over 3♥ with 3 trumps to an honour, but yes it can wrongside the contract. (bear in mind that my system is weak NT based so the 3♥ bidder will be the strong hand)

[hrothgar]

Few quick thoughts

1. There is a lot to be said for the auction 1N - 6NT or 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 6♥

2. If you want to be scientific, the key issue is to identify whether partner has Kx in Diamonds and the Queen of Hearts. This will depend a lot on cue bidding style

3. If you plan to invite slam, Jacoby followed by 4M is the typical way to go. (However, I think that you are too strong for this)

[rmnka447]

As always, the first thing to ask yourself if thinking slam is possible is "What do we need to know before we bid slam?" The obvious first issue is whether there are 2 possible ♦ losers. That should push you toward cue bidding to identify if the control exists.

So I support a Jacoby transfer followed by 4 ♣. 4 ♣ should be a cue bid in this sequence. If you have a real ♣ suit along with ♥, the proper sequence would be to transfer and then bid 3 ♣.

Texas transfers are usually just game oriented. But many good players now use Texas followed by 4 NT as the keycard ask. So Jacoby followed by 4 NT is always quantitative. It also eases the possible confusion about what 4 ♣ means in Jacoby sequences. 4 ♣ can't be Gerber with the keycard ask available through Texas.

If you use Texas as strictly game interest outside of the keycard ask sequence, then a Jacoby transfer followed by jump to game ought to show at least some mild slam interest.

I know lots of players like to use 3 M over 1 NT to describe various hands. I guess I'm the dinosaur in that I like to play 1 NT - 3 M as slammish bids so that responder can play the hand. Make the hand something like ♠ Kxx ♥ AKQ10xx ♦ xx ♣ Ax and this would be a good candidate for this bid as you want to protect the ♠ control.

[helene_t]

Texas followed by 4♠, as smerriman suggests, is the normal auction.

At matchpoints you might consider just blasting 6NT, but I am not sure about this. Sometimes you lose to ♥Q and need to discard a loser from the hand before drawing trumps. And sometimes partner has ♠Kx and the spade ruff is the 13th trick. So maybe 6♥ is the best contract at any scoring.

The chance that we are missing ♦A and ♥Q is higher than the chance that we are missing ♦AK, so maybe asking for keycards is worthwhile. But even if we are missing ♥Q, it may be finessable. OTOH, asking keycards has the added advantage that it doesn't help opps find the diamond lead. Then again, if we stop in 5♥ the lead probably doesn't matter so much at IMPs.

There's also the issue that a transfer allows LHO to double to ask for a diamond lead. But, unless we play South African Texas, which we apparently don't, there is no attractive way to avoid this. One could:
- Punt 6♥. But the contract is often better placed in partner's hand, for example if he has ♦Kx(xx) or ♠KJ(xx). On the other hand, if partner has QJ(xx) in eitherr black suit, the contract may play better in our hand.
- Punt 6NT. But as mentioned I think 6♥ is a better contract.
- Jacoby followed by 6♥, as 2♦ is less likely to be doubled than 4♦. But opps might know this.

All in all, there are many reasonable ways to bid this. Mark me down for 4♦ followed by 4♠.

[thepossum]

Thankyou for everyone's comments

Here are the four hands with my auction. Sadly as has been pointed out the 4H wasnt a strong enough bid and was passed by North in this case. North had a very nice fit for everything, despite the 4-0 heart break

regards P

---

[Vampyr]

rmnka447, on 2019-June-16, 07:35, said:

So I support a Jacoby transfer followed by 4 ♣. 4 ♣ should be a cue bid in this sequence.

Am I just super old- fashioned to play this as a splinter?

[thepossum]

I think Jacoby followed by 4C was a splinter and not a cue in the system (GiB 2/1) I was playing. I think I checked all cue bid options after Jacoby and they were not available

Cue bids (4S etc) were available after Texas 4H

Note also, I checked that if you do a quantitative 4NT after Jacoby 2H, then North bid to 6H but that seems a rather ill defined sequence

There was also a quantitative 5NT available, inviting to 7NT which resulted in 6H also

A few players also bid a second suit after the Jacoby transfer to force the auction

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-16, 02:22, said:

This is actually one case where the old Acol 1N-3♥ makes this much easier than US methods.

I agree and this would be my approach. But I think that a natural 1NT-3♥ works better opposite a weak NT than a strong NT.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-16, 02:22, said:

At MPs I blast the slam (winning the post mortem but pinpointing the diamond hole as you get a zero for 5♥= while everybody else makes overtricks or slams doesn't appeal).

I tend to dislike this approach, as opponents always seem to find the right lead against me. I particularly dislike blasting slam here, because you don't know which slam to blast - do you blast 6♥ and find that you are losing MPs to pairs who bid scientifically to 6NT or blast 6NT and find that it goes down when 6♥ would make?

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-June-16, 18:46, said:

Am I just super old- fashioned to play this as a splinter?

Just a bit irrational, I think. You're much more likely to have a useful A or K to show than a singleton or void, which you can still show with a control bid anyway. This is your most economical way of fixing trumps and initiating slam investigation so it makes sense to exploit it fully.