Post by ***@verizon.netPost by Fred.Post by ***@verizon.netPost by Barry MargolinPost by LornePost by dfm1NT 2H(transfer)
2S 3S
3NT
3S promised six spades, and we don't open 1NT with a singleton, so we had a
known 8-card spade fit. But opener was 4332 with a doubleton spade and what
looked like good stoppers in the other three suits
A10
K1084
AJ2
KQ53
so he thought he might be getting the same number of tricks in notrump as
in spades. He decided to try for the extra 10 points in 3NT rather than 4S.
1. Was this logic sensible?
2. If so, should opener's 3NT bid in this sequence be a final decision, or
a suggestion to partner?
3. If it's a suggestion, would you pull it to 4S with this hand
QJ9542
AQ2
96
76
and why or why not?
Look like a clear 4S rebid to me, so I checked it with a sim and found
4S making 68% of the time opposite a balanced 15 count so you clearly
can't afford partner to pass 3S.
In that case it should be a Texas transfer. Jacoby followed by a jump to
4 is a mild slam try if you're playing Texas transfers.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
It has always seemed to me that the "mild slam try" business was a matter of "no idle bids allowed."
To quote a long-ago imaginary dialogue between Marshall Miles and Eddie Kantar. "It's OK to have some idle bids. For example, we've never assigned a meaning to the auction 1D -1NT ; 7S."
Carl
It's not idle bids, but logic of the auction. When
responder goes directly to the 4-level and signs off
in a major it says "nothing you could say would
interest me in slam". When responder makes a lower
level forcing bid and then bids to 4M without support
the implication is that without some sort of slam
interest responder would have bid directly.
1NT 3H
3NT 4H
says responder was hoping for a cue bid if responder
had 3-card support and good controls. Otherwise,
responder would have bid 4H directly. Opener with extra,
good 2-card support, and good controls can go ahead and
cue bid at the 5-level.
Fred.
Yes on the non-transfer auction.
But what hand expects to make four of a major more than 50% of the time facing ANY possible notrump opening but is sure to make 6 less than 50% of the time facing a perfectly constructed notrump opening?
There is a huge gap between a horribly fitting 15 and a perfectly fitting 17.
Carl
What you seem to be claiming is that no-one should use Texas
transfers. When I transfer to 4M I expect partner to make 50+% of
the time but with some openings the contract may be hopeless and with
some there may be a good play for slam. I simply see no chance of
identifying those hands where slam is likely, or those hands where
game is hopeless. So, why give the opponents a low level transfer to
work with? No bidding methods are going to find all the decent slams.
If I transfer first and then push directly to game I've indicated that
some available super accept could have lead us to a reasonable slam.
Opener holding all of the super accept but the trump length can make a move.
The inference isn't useful often enough to justify a bidding system design,
but since it is there I might as well use it when it comes up.
Fred.