[pescetom]

MP

---

Out of 125 tables playing this board, only 10 were in 6♣+1 (for 96%), as opposed to 89 in 3NT of whom 23 making +3 (for 81%) and 66 +2 (for 40%).
At the tables I saw, it went 1NT - 2♥ (transfer); 2♠ - 3♣ (4+ GF); 3NT - p, receiving a hearts lead.
My doubt here is how many pairs were incapable of envisioning or bidding the slam and how many simply decided that 3NT was a wiser choice at MP.
How would this go in your partnership, at MP (as here) and at IMPs?

[Cyberyeti]

1♣(4+)-1♠(in the context of going back to clubs later, the spades will not be a good suit, AJxxx max, or we'd have bid 2♠)
1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(asking)
2♥-(15-16 nat not denying 3♠)-2♠(F, 5♠)
2N(2434)-3♣(F)
3♦-3♠
4♣(I can't really be better than this)-4♥(singleton or would have bid 3♥, 4♦ would have been KC)
4♠-6♣

If we did bail out, is 3N the right spot ? You might well not make it if you have a club loser.

[mikeh]

For us, in both my partnerships, I think it fairly easy to reach 6C.

1N (14-16) 2H

2H shows 5+ spades and is either GF or weak: invitational hands with 5S go through stayman

1N 2H
2S 2N 2N is GF showing 4+ clubs.
3C 3C says opener has good clubs in context. He could have bid 3S with 3S even with 4 clubs (game before slam), 3R with concentrated values and no strong liking for either black suit or 3N with both reds stopped and 2=3 in the blacks

Over 3C, responder bids 3D. Opener now has an amazing hand for clubs. The perfect spade holding and all those Aces. If I were opener and were permitted only one call over 3D it would be 6C and I'd be more afraid we'd miss 7C than that 6C might fail.

Once opener bids 3H over 3D, responder has a great hand as well: opener could have slowed things down via 3N so has shown a good hand in context, and responder has all those controls and a 5th club!

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2022-March-02, 12:09, said:

For us, in both my partnerships, I think it fairly easy to reach 6C.

1N (14-16) 2H

2H shows 5+ spades and is either GF or weak: invitational hands with 5S go through stayman

1N 2H
2S 2N 2N is GF showing 4+ clubs.
3C 3C says opener has good clubs in context. He could have bid 3S with 3S even with 4 clubs (game before slam), 3R with concentrated values and no strong liking for either black suit or 3N with both reds stopped and 2=3 in the blacks

Over 3C, responder bids 3D. Opener now has an amazing hand for clubs. The perfect spade holding and all those Aces. If I were opener and were permitted only one call over 3D it would be 6C and I'd be more afraid we'd miss 7C than that 6C might fail.

Once opener bids 3H over 3D, responder has a great hand as well: opener could have slowed things down via 3N so has shown a good hand in context, and responder has all those controls and a 5th club!

For once we are on the same wavelength, maybe because I copied your idea of the retransfer and then fragment In my main partnership it would go the same way.
Even after a natural rebid of 3♣ I would be comfortable raising to 4♣ as opener. Yes I am minimum for NT, but with the black suit situation and these aces, clubs is what I want to know about. Now we can control-bid comfortably to slam, stopping in 6♣ when one of us bids 5NT revealing the lack of ♣Q.

But I figure that more than 8% of pairs should be capable of something like that, and I wasn't born for MP, so just wondering why they are all running to a "safe" 3NT rather than the clubs slam.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2022-March-02, 13:47, said:

Even after a natural rebid of 3♣ I would be comfortable raising to 4♣ as opener. Yes I am minimum for NT, but with the black suit situation and these aces, clubs is what I want to know about. Now we can control-bid comfortably to slam, stopping in 6♣ when one of us bids 5NT revealing the lack of ♣Q.

I'd have a slightly different continuation after 3C. I've adopted the idea that the raise to 4C shows a double-fit, so here 3D or 3H shows 4+ clubs, a cue in that suit and a doubleton spade. This is even better news for South's hand, who now can visualise a grand opposite the perfect opener. So a straightforward auction may be:

1NT - 2H
2S - 3C
3D - 3H
3S - 4D (key-card ask)
4S - 4NT (CQ?)
5C - 6C

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2022-March-02, 13:47, said:

Even after a natural rebid of 3♣ I would be comfortable raising to 4♣ as opener. Yes I am minimum for NT, but with the black suit situation and these aces, clubs is what I want to know about. Now we can control-bid comfortably to slam, stopping in 6♣ when one of us bids 5NT revealing the lack of ♣Q.

While I don't understand anyone that bid 3NT over 3♣ (3♦ seems clearcut), I wouldn't be too comfortable with a 4♣ raise. Won't that guarantee a near bottom every time partner has no slam interest? (Or in fact any time we're not making slam, whether they have interest / we bid it or not).

[Stephen Tu]

smerriman, on 2022-March-02, 18:45, said:

While I don't understand anyone that bid 3NT over 3♣ (3♦ seems clearcut), I wouldn't be too comfortable with a 4♣ raise. Won't that guarantee a near bottom every time partner has no slam interest? (Or in fact any time we're not making slam, whether they have interest / we bid it or not).

Well, not bottom every time. Reasonably often 5m and 3nt just make for a tie, and occasionally 5m makes 6 while 3nt only makes 3.

But this issue is why I prefer sfi's agreement, 4c shows double fit (so can play 4M without slam interest, and also have 6 keycard auctions), and play slam in either denomination, with 3 new suit to show minor fit without M fit. Optimal would probably involve more re-arranging of opener's rebids but this works OK enough for non-pros IMO.

[apollo1201]

smerriman, on 2022-March-02, 18:45, said:

While I don't understand anyone that bid 3NT over 3♣ (3♦ seems clearcut), I wouldn't be too comfortable with a 4♣ raise. Won't that guarantee a near bottom every time partner has no slam interest? (Or in fact any time we're not making slam, whether they have interest / we bid it or not).

4C guarantees a bottom only if partner have bid their C for the pleasure of « hearing their voice », while they should have bid 3NT w/o leakage, eg 5422 hands with average strength, or even 5431 with a sg honor.

If partner bothers mentioning their C, to me, it means doubts over 3NT, ie:
- either a red shortage, which in that case is worrying since those blank aces are not completely adequate stoppers (they’ll find the lead!), and are more appropriate for suit play
- or slam interest, and my hand with all those A and a super Kx in partner’s other suit cries for action

So I’d definitely not be inconfortable with a 4C raise.

If partner is minimum, in the GF context, they can bid 5C (and I’ll have to resist the temptation!), if in between, they can cue and not take control later on, so we are not necessarily bound to bid slam and I’ve already avoided some doomed 3NT for safer 5m or 4M in 52 fits.

FWIW, I play a game forcing 2NT rebid for 5431 hands (among others), so 3C guarantees a 55 (or a concentrated 54 with slam interest). 4C is even easier in this context but I’d bid it even if it showes 4+.

[akwoo]

1C-1S
1N(15-17)-3C(5-5 or longer, slam interest)
4C(minorwood)-4S(2 no Q)
6C

(from opener's point of view, 6C is better than 35% if responder had nothing other than AS and KC, and surely they have more than that)

[AL78]

smerriman, on 2022-March-02, 18:45, said:

While I don't understand anyone that bid 3NT over 3♣ (3♦ seems clearcut), I wouldn't be too comfortable with a 4♣ raise. Won't that guarantee a near bottom every time partner has no slam interest? (Or in fact any time we're not making slam, whether they have interest / we bid it or not).

Shouldn't a major suit transfer followed by a minor show a hand with mild slam interest?

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2022-March-03, 02:50, said:

Shouldn't a major suit transfer followed by a minor show a hand with mild slam interest?

Unless you want to pinpoint your suits so you play 4♠ in the 5-2 if one of the red suits is wide open.

[DavidKok]

Another day, another set of methods to patch the holes in Stayman and Jacoby. As long as you agree to either play re-transfers or that a new minor suit is GF you will land on your feet - opener only bids 3NT with lots of values in the other two suits, and any other bid keeps both 6M and the 5-2 fit 4M in the picture.

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2022-March-02, 10:56, said:

At the tables I saw, it went 1NT - 2♥ (transfer); 2♠ - 3♣ (4+ GF); 3NT - p, receiving a hearts lead.

3NT is obviously not good with a hand that is so good for a club slam, but I suppose the problem is that bidding 3♦ might be taken as showing doubt about the heart stopper?

Maybe something like this would work:
3♦: diamond stop AND (slammy and/or no heart stoper, otherwise direct 3NT)
Now responder can bid:
- 3♥: heart stopper AND slammy
- 3♠: no heart stopper, not slammy, interested in a 5-2 fit
- 3NT: heart stopper and not slammy
- 4♣: mildly slammy and no heart stopper can still suggest diamonds or spades.
- higher bids: serious slam interest

This is fairly natural but I haven't discussed it with anyone.

[ali quarg]

I'd look for the small slam as South from the open on the basis of a sufficient combined modified loosing trick count if a fit can be found.
Simply 1NT (assume 6.5 MLT) versus ~6.5 giving 19-6.5-6.5 = 6-level.

1NT- 2♥
2♠ - 3♣ 4+♣ forcing to 3NT
3NT - 4♣ 5+♣ SI (playing a balanced 1NT, opener must have at least 3♣)
then using Kickbo
4♠ (3KCs with K♠) - 4NT (K♦ potential grand?)
5♣ - 5♦ all KCs no Q♣
6♣ (nothing more to add)

Playing for 7♣ would likely be a step too far

[DavidKok]

helene_t, on 2022-March-03, 05:37, said:

3NT is obviously not good with a hand that is so good for a club slam, but I suppose the problem is that bidding 3♦ might be taken as showing doubt about the heart stopper?

Too complicated for my tastes. If you have a 15-17 NT and partner has a GF two-suiter then either your values are in the other two suits and you want to discourage, or you can make a slam try (3♠ for spades, anything else as a control for clubs). It's possible to pick up something like ♠KQ, ♥xxx, ♦KQJxx, ♣Axx where the most likely game is 4♠ in the 5-2 fit, but this is very rare (and you can bluff your way out by bidding 3♠ or 4♠, because KQ tight 'looks like 3-card support'). I'd personally rather play other methods over 1NT or accept the loss with this rare hand type than try to cater to this on the third round of the bidding.

ali quarg, on 2022-March-03, 06:42, said:

I'd look for the small slam as South from the open on the basis of a sufficient combined modified loosing trick count if a fit can be found.
Simply 1NT (assume 6.5 MLT) versus ~6.5 giving 19-6.5-6.5 = 6-level.

The average MLT for a 15-17 NT is slightly above 7, not 6.5. Also the 3NT and 4♣ bids on that sequence are quite bad, in my opinion.

[mikeh]

AL78, on 2022-March-03, 02:50, said:

Shouldn't a major suit transfer followed by a minor show a hand with mild slam interest?

No

Too many non experts seem to think that one should never play 5minor instead of 3N.

It’s true that at matchpoints one should strain to play 3N, as opposed to 5m, on the great majority of hands but reaching 3N after 1N 2H 2S when the hands look something like Ax Jxx KQxx AJxx opposite KQxxx x xx KQxxx is silly even allowing for matchpoint scoring.

Transferring and then showing a minor should be either some slam interest or concern about 3N. At matchpoints one tends to bid 3N, rather than show the minor, if one is 5422 unless one has slam interest but it’s unwise to do so with 5-5, especially if one has a non-honour singleton or a void.

[ali quarg]

DavidKok, on 2022-March-03, 07:37, said:

The average MLT for a 15-17 NT is slightly above 7, not 6.5. Also the 3NT and 4♣ bids on that sequence are quite bad, in my opinion.

Nope I use the guidelines below - if I'm 15 hcp and higher than 7MLT I will consider whether 1NT is the right bid. North's hand is 6MLT
https://bridgewinner...ng-trick-count/

3NT is the natural bid as made by 89/125 and would be passed without slam interest, which means that 4♣ describes the fit and intention. As helene_t points out bidding 3♦ could show doubt about the ♥ stopper so I'm not sure why 3NT would be described as quite bad.

[DavidKok]

ali quarg, on 2022-March-03, 08:35, said:

Nope I use the guidelines below - if I'm 15 hcp and higher than 7MLT I will consider whether 1NT is the right bid. North's hand is 6MLT
https://bridgewinner...ng-trick-count/

3NT is the natural bid as made by 89/125 and would be passed without slam interest, which means that 4♣ describes the fit and intention. As helene_t points out bidding 3♦ could show doubt about the ♥ stopper so I'm not sure why 3NT would be described as quite bad.

I am quite familiar with the LTC, and several different modified versions. The one you linked is bog-standard. Near the end it mentions that a minimum opening will usually have 7-7.5 MLT, and an above average opening hand will have 6-6.5. This is correct. However, balanced hands score particularly poorly on (modified) losing trick counts, so strong balanced hands (15-17) still have an average of 7-7.5 MLT. I think factoring that into your 1NT opening decisions is a one-way trip to madness - (M)LTC is useful but just one tool among many, and Miltons are quite appropriate for balanced hands.

The balanced hand in this problem is a beautiful maximum when responder shows an unbalanced spade-club hand. Most 15-17 NT hands are a lot worse. This is why 3NT, discouraging, is a terrible bid over 3♣. The fact that many players chose it does not change that. 4♣ - bidding on over a signoff, at matchpoints - is highly dubious.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-March-03, 08:06, said:

Transferring and then showing a minor should be either some slam interest or concern about 3N. At matchpoints one tends to bid 3N, rather than show the minor, if one is 5422 unless one has slam interest but it’s unwise to do so with 5-5, especially if one has a non-honour singleton or a void.

Sam Stayman wrote in the 60s that while a weak doubleton in responder's hand is bad for 3NT, it's also bad for 5 of a minor. So better to hope the suit blocks. A singleton is way different.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2022-March-03, 08:06, said:

Transferring and then showing a minor should be either some slam interest or concern about 3N. At matchpoints one tends to bid 3N, rather than show the minor, if one is 5422 unless one has slam interest but it’s unwise to do so with 5-5, especially if one has a non-honour singleton or a void.

I think this is a bit controversial, I read in some book (maybe it was Lawrence? Or Bergen? Or Hamman? I don't remember) that transfer...3NT should show specifically 5332, allowing opener to pass even with 3-card support with some 4333 hands. I also recall a discussion on this forum about one top pair (I think it was Hamman-Soloway) that had a way to show specifically 5M332 after partner's 2NT opening, for the same reason.