[blackshoe]

---

You play a pretty standard system here: Jacoby and Texas Transfers, Stayman, Gerber. 3♠ is undiscussed. Your call?

[gnasher]

Does a pretty standard system include a way to show a one-suiter in clubs and slam-interest? If so, I do that; otherwise I ask for aces and then bid 6♣ unless there are two missing.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-September-06, 17:37

[JLOGIC]

I would try 3C then 4C. If I had one bid for my life it would be 6C obv so if I am not sure partner will know what 3C 4C means then gerber followed by 6C seems fine.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 17:36, said:

Does a pretty standard system include a way to show a one-suiter in clubs and slam-interest? If so, I do that; otherwise I ask for aces and then bid 6♣ unless there are two missing.

No, not really.

[johnu]

Finally, a hand where the much maligned Gerber is a logical alternative. Even if you had a sequence to show a long club suit with slam interest, opener could have a hand with only 1 ace and 5♣ is the limit, or with the right prime cards, 7NT could be laydown. 6NT to protect a possible bare K♥ is in the back of my mind, but 6♣ may have better chances of making. If we have all the aces, I'll continue by asking for kings.

What are you using for the king asking bid? If you use 5♣, then you couldn't sign off in clubs, and 4NT is needed to sign off in NT, so I think the next suit above the ace showing response should ask for kings.

[blackshoe]

johnu, on 2013-September-06, 23:21, said:

Finally, a hand where the much maligned Gerber is a logical alternative. Even if you had a sequence to show a long club suit with slam interest, opener could have a hand with only 1 ace and 5♣ is the limit, or with the right prime cards, 7NT could be laydown. 6NT to protect a possible bare K♥ is in the back of my mind, but 6♣ may have better chances of making. If we have all the aces, I'll continue by asking for kings.

What are you using for the king asking bid? If you use 5♣, then you couldn't sign off in clubs, and 4NT is needed to sign off in NT, so I think the next suit above the ace showing response should ask for kings.

We haven't discussed how to ask for kings after Gerber, so I would assume we're using 5♣. I agree that "next suit" is better. As i remember it, that's called "Sliding Gerber", but that's from many years ago.

If you ask, partner will show you three aces. After this, I don't think 5♣ is a sign-off. I hope partner agrees. If you ask for kings, partner shows one.

[beatrix45]

Classic hard to bid hand opposite partner's 2NT opener. At matchpoints you might also give some consideration to a quiet 3NT - shooting by underbidding.

[PhilG007]

I would bid 3NT without any hesitation. The long clubs are an asset
3NT is simple,direct and doesn't tell the opposition what to lead (!)

[PhilKing]

JLOGIC, on 2013-September-06, 18:57, said:

If I had one bid for my life it would be 6C.

Strange - I would have assumed it was obvious to bid 6NT unless your partner was a terrible dummy player.

[blackshoe]

At the table, I bid 3NT. Partner made 6 for 12.5 of 17 match points. One of the better local players bid 6♣. She went down one. In our two sections, 6NT made twice, once from N and once from S. 6♣ from the South made once (no, I don't know how they got there), and 6♣ from the North went down one 3 times. 3NT from the S made 6 twice, and 5 four times. The hand was also played in 5♣ and once in 4♦X by East, down 2, which got East 14 match points. It was a "common game" hand, board 14 from last Tuesday. Neither we nor the player I mention above who bid 6♣ got a preempt (3♦) from East, who passed at both our tables. There's a Bridge Winners thread as well, though no one has posted in it.

I was surprised that the analysis called a first seat 3♦ on ♦QT98632 and no other HCP "a textbook non-vulnerable preempt". Maybe I'm too conservative.

The play was also interesting, as both finesses for the major suit kings fail; to make the hand requires a strip and endplay (which I, at least, did not see at the table) or really bad defense.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-07, 13:02, said:

As i remember it, that's called "Sliding Gerber", but that's from many years ago.

I learned it as Rolling Gerber. Since Gerber should usually only be used for distributional hands, a decent alternative is to use 4NT as the king ask when that is available (when it is not then all the methods use 5♣ as the king ask).

As dealer at favourable, I might well open 4♦ on your textbook 3♦ hand. If you are passing this not vulnerable then you are indeed being conservative (although the remaining distribution is also relevant). Time to get out Robson-Segal and read through the section on pressure bidding.

[PhilG007]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 16:54, said:

---

You play a pretty standard system here: Jacoby and Texas Transfers, Stayman, Gerber. 3♠ is undiscussed. Your call?

I would offer a silent prayer to Allah...and bid 3NT and hope partner has the gaps in my
hand covered by nature of his strong bid(!)

[JLOGIC]

PhilKing, on 2013-September-08, 04:49, said:

Strange - I would have assumed it was obvious to bid 6NT unless your partner was a terrible dummy player.

Is it matchpoints? I don't see why NT>C at imps, just to rightside the hearts? I do have Kx of diamonds and I think the chances of ruffing out a suit/combining chances/pitching a loser before they can cash it in clubs would make it better than NT, but willing to be proven wrong by a simulation or a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong

[PhilKing]

JLOGIC, on 2013-September-13, 11:53, said:

Is it matchpoints? I don't see why NT>C at imps, just to rightside the hearts? I do have Kx of diamonds and I think the chances of ruffing out a suit/combining chances/pitching a loser before they can cash it in clubs would make it better than NT, but willing to be proven wrong by a simulation or a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong

As it so happens, I did a sim (not a double dummy one). I looked at a mere 20 hands and 6NT was cold on 16 and 6♣ on only 13 (but would probably have made 14 or 15 times by my reckoning, since the killing lead was only likely on one of the three). Of course, since the sim did what it wanted, I did not bother looking at more hands.

Anyway, that's quite a few 2 imp swings unless playing against planckton who reach 3NT.

[neilkaz]

This is certainly to much playing strength to not at least invite slam.

Wny isn't some method starting with 3♠ transferring to 3NT a standard prelude to continuing on in search of a minor suit slam or 6NT based on minor suit length?

[billw55]

JLOGIC, on 2013-September-13, 11:53, said:

Is it matchpoints? I don't see why NT>C at imps, just to rightside the hearts? I do have Kx of diamonds and I think the chances of ruffing out a suit/combining chances/pitching a loser before they can cash it in clubs would make it better than NT, but willing to be proven wrong by a simulation or a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong

Turns out it was matchpoints (see post 10) although this was not specified in the OP.

[DJNeill]

If I am playing with a totally random partner, even a moderately seasoned one, I am afraid of what they would think 2N-3♠-3N-4♣ would mean, and 2N-3♣-3y-4♣. At best I am getting nowhere further than I am now, and at worst we are playing 4♣. As many hands get us to slam, I am going for it. I think 6C is reasonable, even if it wrongsides it. The problem with 6N is that we may have a club fit and be able to ruff something good if partner has a 5 card suit. Also, transportation might be easier at 6C.