[mike777]

akwoo, on 2025-October-13, 11:43, said:

I can see the problem your partner has - they likely need either Ax or AQ(x) in clubs from you for slam to be better than a finesse. Given they have the ♣K, they can find out about the ♣A by bidding 5♦, but 5♠ might be too high if you don't have A♣ and whichever club finesse they take is off, and you could still have Axx in clubs. (I suppose slam could make if you have AKQxxx Kx Kxx Qx, but is that too good for a mild slam try?)

If you have time and want to invest in the partnership, it might be worth a long discussion over exactly how strong a mild slam try is in terms of playing strength - whether your hand qualifies and if it's a max or a min for that bid - and consequently what hands proceed over such a mild slam try. (You could also do it the other way - decide which hands by opener will keep going and use that to decide which hands by responder qualify.) Keep in mind slam bidding is not about counting points, but about visualizing possible hands for partner and deciding if the combined hands have 12 tricks before they get 2 or if there is some other information you need to (and can) find out before deciding.

But it's not clear to me if you and your partner have the level of bidding skill for this discussion to actually be helpful (I'm not sure I do - analyzing is much easier away from the table when you have infinite time), and, on net (keeping in mind you lose when you find a 60% slam and go down), this is worth less than a board in a few hundred, probabilistically speaking.

Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful post. Last night those were some of the questions my partner raised. I sent some old notes which at the time I thought covered this hand problem. This morning in reviewing those notes I saw the notes did NOT solve this issue.

Your final sentence was important and interesting, thanks for including it.

[mike777]

steve2005, on 2025-October-13, 12:23, said:

Playing secondary transfers after 2 red transfers handles one suited slam tries like this easily and also handles minor 2 suiters better.
After 1NT-2♥-2♠
2NT - shows 4+ clubs GF
3♣ - shows 4+ diamond GF
3♦ - shows both majors
3♥ - shows 6+ spades either INV or a slam try

TY

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-October-13, 07:59, said:

Unfortunately, that shows a second suit for me, 5-4. I cannot do both.

And for anyone with any idea about constructive bidding.edit: tho the shape is unlimited, at least 5=4

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-October-13, 10:10, said:

Thanks, all excellent points. This was a Cuebid daily challenge deal, actually todays, still going on.. Group of 8 hands daily.

About half the field, bid the slam, three stars max EV.

You need to understand that cuebid results are only loosely correlated with whether you’ve bid to a good contract. It seems to me that their analysis is based on double dummy play…you never lose a 2 way finesse, you never lose to Qx offside holding an 8 card fit, and so on. I use cuebids all the time but we evaluate our results by looking at the two hands and assessing how good any particular contract appears, on a single dummy basis.

[mikeh]

steve2005, on 2025-October-13, 12:23, said:

Playing secondary transfers after 2 red transfers handles one suited slam tries like this easily and also handles minor 2 suiters better.
After 1NT-2♥-2♠
2NT - shows 4+ clubs GF
3♣ - shows 4+ diamond GF
3♦ - shows both majors
3♥ - shows 6+ spades either INV or a slam try

I think a better approach is to use the 3H rebid as a strong slam try, and 3S as 6+ invitational. It makes bidding over 3H easier. Opener can bid 3S, knowing it can’t be passed and this can be very helpful, especially if opener has a slam suitable hand but no club control. With a slam suitable hand and a club control, he cuebids 4C, so by bidding 3S responder is alerted to the lack of a club control. When 3 H could be invitational, opener can’t bid 3 S with a hand that accepts the invite. Plus…what else do you use 3S for, over the 2S bid?

The corollary is that 2H then 4S is a mild slam try…opener needs some spade fit and lots of controls.

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2025-October-13, 12:23, said:

Playing secondary transfers after 2 red transfers handles one suited slam tries like this easily and also handles minor 2 suiters better.
After 1NT-2♥-2♠
2NT - shows 4+ clubs GF
3♣ - shows 4+ diamond GF
3♦ - shows both majors
3♥ - shows 6+ spades either INV or a slam try

I played this with a more enthusiastic partner years back and it is the works.
But even standard developments of transfer then game to show mild invite should work here, opposite that loaded balanced hand.

[steve2005]

mikeh, on 2025-October-13, 13:07, said:

I think a better approach is to use the 3H rebid as a strong slam try, and 3S as 6+ invitational. It makes bidding over 3H easier. Opener can bid 3S, knowing it can’t be passed and this can be very helpful, especially if opener has a slam suitable hand but no club control. With a slam suitable hand and a club control, he cuebids 4C, so by bidding 3S responder is alerted to the lack of a club control. When 3 H could be invitational, opener can’t bid 3 S with a hand that accepts the invite. Plus…what else do you use 3S for, over the 2S bid?

The corollary is that 2H then 4S is a mild slam try…opener needs some spade fit and lots of controls.

This transfer method I have only seen in two Precision writeups; Santa Fe Precision and Standard Modern Precision. They seem such a major improvement on Standard surprised they arn't more popular.
So they use 3♠ as 5 card suit that insists on playing in a 5-3 fit, while 3NT is a hand that will accept 3NT if opener thinks right even with 3-card fit.
This is really splitting hairs, so Mike's suggestion would simplify the situation

The other major difference with this method is you show a 5-card spade invite by Staymaning and then bidding 2♠

[mikeh]

steve2005, on 2025-October-13, 20:45, said:

This transfer method I have only seen in two Precision writeups; Santa Fe Precision and Standard Modern Precision. They seem such a major improvement on Standard surprised they arn't more popular.
So they use 3♠ as 5 card suit that insists on playing in a 5-3 fit, while 3NT is a hand that will accept 3NT if opener thinks right even with 3-card fit.
This is really splitting hairs, so Mike's suggestion would simplify the situation

The other major difference with this method is you show a 5-card spade invite by Staymaning and then bidding 2♠

The using stayman with an invite and 5S is an inevitable consequence of extended transfers. Afaik, it’s integral to the very idea of extended transfers. Although personally I prefer a somewhat more complex solution.

[WasWinM]

The immediate problem is: are our trumps good enough?
Without a super accept we can’t know. That flaw alone negates any serious slam try. The right 15 could make this laydown; the wrong 17 and slam can’t be made. A hand’s got to know its limitations, said Dirty Harry after his partner went down 1.

[Huibertus]

AL78, on 2025-October-13, 07:38, said:

Isn't 1NT - 3M a standard way of showing slam interest in a major?

Wasn't that the standard 8 decades ago?