[FelicityR]

---

Note: Honour cards and distribution are correct but small cards have been randomly assigned.

In the recent Vanderbilt final, Gold and Bakhshi bid the above using a Texas 4♣ transfer. The NT range was explained by the commentator as 11(12-14). Even given the favourable vulnerability, I was a little bit stunned by the high level transfer.

I would be interested in others' opinion on the 4♣ bid. Was it a stroke of genius crowding out the opposition, or a normal bid for experts to make, or a double-edged bid that could have gone seriously wrong?

[TylerE]

Looks fairly normal to me. Axxxxx and a stuff.

[SteveMoe]

Preempt.

[mycroft]

It's unfortunate that partner has a maximum and their fits are in the minors (and South's spades are Jxxxx). 4♥ makes on the lie of the cards (and while Gold may have made it, mere mortals like me would guess something wrong and go down), and they have a loser in each suit.

It's very easy for the cards to be slightly different and they can make any game they bid. 4♥ goes down 2, maybe 3, maybe doubled. Great. Or it could be that a game makes, but it's 3NT. Or it's not the one they guess to play. Or maybe they sit for it, and -100 beats -140. Or maybe they have this 800, but they just can't sit for it.

Preempts work - especially after a weak NT. Double especially in an American tournament, where the opening NT at the other table is 14-16 or 15-17, and you're reasonably certain that your teammates are going to catch 1m-p-1♥ or some weak jump shift (I doubt that with the Nickell pairs, though).

I agree with Tyler. Six pieces and a stiff, at this vulnerability, is a 4-level transfer. The ace is, almost, a minus card (I'd much rather have KJ or KQ, for instance).

I would also suggest that while the #20 seed in this event (with one of my former partners of a *long* time ago, back when he was only obviously, rather than ludicrously, better than me) is no pushover, they're playing the team that's only the #2 seed because #1 goes to the holders, and they can't win it every year. You don't beat that team by playing passive.

[ggwhiz]

Count me in for extraordinary but not because I think it was any good.

[nige1]

FelicityR, on 2017-March-20, 06:43, said:

Note: Honour cards and distribution are correct but small cards have been randomly assigned.

In the recent Vanderbilt final, Gold and Bakhshi bid the above using a Texas 4♣ transfer. The NT range was explained by the commentator as 11(12-14). Even given the favourable vulnerability, I was a little bit stunned by the high level transfer.

I would be interested in others' opinion on the 4♣ bid. Was it a stroke of genius crowding out the opposition, or a normal bid for experts to make, or a double-edged bid that could have gone seriously wrong?

---

In Bridge, as in Poker, bluff is important. Pre-empts cover a wide-range. Not vulnerable, 4♣ seems a reasonable gamble. 4♥ would rarely make, but could well result in opponents reaching the wrong strain or level.

It's surprising, however, that East, with a maximum, 4-card trump support, and 2 side aces, failed to make a 4♦ slam-try,

[MrAce]

nige1, on 2017-March-20, 12:05, said:

It's surprising, however, that East, with a maximum, 4-card trump support, and 2 side aces, failed to make a 4♦ slam-try,

4 ♦ slam try comes with a price, such as playing the 4♥ from wrong side. It may not be the case for this hand but I would definitely want to play 4♥ from E, seeing only 13 cards.

[rmnka447]

I'm not entirely surprised by the bid. It's a bit of a strategic bid at IMPs. It may be able to shut out a good game their way, or, hit a lucky holding in partner's hand to get to a thin game swing.

You know an 8+ card fit is present. So you're less likely to be hit with a big misfit penalty. Strong NTer's will open 1 ♣ with East hand and possibly have West make a 2 ♥ weak jump shift ending the auction.

Also, the state of the match comes into play. If you're quite a bit behind than you need to create some swings in your favor to catch up. So gambling on a hand like this would be well justified.

[Zelandakh]

FelicityR, on 2017-March-20, 06:43, said:

I would be interested in others' opinion on the 4♣ bid. Was it a stroke of genius crowding out the opposition, or a normal bid for experts to make, or a double-edged bid that could have gone seriously wrong?

Any reason it could not be all three of these at once?

[jogs]

nige1, on 2017-March-20, 12:05, said:

It's surprising, however, that East, with a maximum, 4-card trump support, and 2 side aces, failed to make a 4♦ slam-try,

Opponents did double. Don't you ever trust opponents?

[mycroft]

depends on whether the double is clubs or just cards (could be either or both here). But yes, playing SATexas allows you to make a slam try with the East hand; at the expense of wrongsiding the contract most of the time (if partner wanted to play 4♥, he can just bid it. 4♣ means "you play it, partner").

[nekthen]

I am interested in the concept of the difference between a direct 4♥ and 4♣. It used to be that 4♣ expressed some slam interest. If we are now saying that its purpose is to right side the contract and presumably use regular transfers to start slam sequences. Can we construct a hand where we would want to be in 4♥ as West?
If 4♣ is not the route to slam then surely it is better to keep 4♣ as Gerber and 4♦ and 4♥ as transfers?

Any thoughts?

[Zelandakh]

nekthen, on 2017-March-21, 03:17, said:

If 4♣ is not the route to slam then surely it is better to keep 4♣ as Gerber and 4♦ and 4♥ as transfers?

There is another alternative, namely 4♦ and 4♥ as transfers but using 4♣ to show both majors. As with the regular Texas transfers, this can be done both with a weak hand and a slammy one. The same structure also works over a 2NT opening of course.

[msjennifer]

The SA Texas can be played with the only purpose of preempting the opponents.With a strong hand with a long suit and slam ambition we will try to go slowly to enable the opener to clarify his hand or for the responder to show his hand in details and for this purpose we use the usual four suit ransfers namely 2D/H/S/NT .We use the SA Texas to show a WEAKISH hand with 1) with not the slightest slam ambition or 2) to preempt the opponents,having practically no defencive values.The 4H/S over partners 1NT opening or overcall is to play in order that the lead may not go through an unprotected King in responders hand,and show a game hand WITH defensive values.

[FelicityR]

Thank you again for all your replies. I certainly learnt something from this hand. That a high level pre-emptive transfer at the right vulnerability makes it so difficult for the opponents to judge what action is best. And when game comes home - as it did on this hand - as a result, it is just another bonus for making a superlative bid.

[RD350LC]

If I were playing South African Texas, I definitely would make that bid-especially opposite a weak NT bid. I would call it a normal bid.

[RD350LC]

Sorry, duplicate reply

[msjennifer]

nekthen, on 2017-March-21, 03:17, said:

I am interested in the concept of the difference between a direct 4♥ and 4♣. It used to be that 4♣ expressed some slam interest. If we are now saying that its purpose is to right side the contract and presumably use regular transfers to start slam sequences. Can we construct a hand where we would want to be in 4♥ as West?
If 4♣ is not the route to slam then surely it is better to keep 4♣ as Gerber and 4♦ and 4♥ as transfers?

Any thoughts?

Then it will no longer be South African Texas.To tell the truth,In thousands of deals played I have not seen EVEN A SINGLE hand where Gerber for Aces could have been useful.For us Gerber remains an obsolete gadget no longer of any use whatsoever.This is the reason why 4C is played as a transfer to Hearts.As regards the detailed concepts ,please read my later post.Many players use 4C(with or without jump) as RKCB if Diamonds is the agreed suit and 4D as RKCB if clubs is the agreed suit.

[gwnn]

I used to play 4♣ as primarily right-siding, but partner was allowed to bid 4♦ with a very good hand (let's say 90th percentile, not the hand in the OP). Our reasoning was that if your hand is so good, it will have lots of A/K's so "right-siding" might actually be the other way around, and you might catch some slams.

I would have bid 4♥ to hide my paucity of values from defense and give one less chance for a value-showing double.

I don't know if it's automatic or if I'd have thought of it at the table, but I like 4♥ a lot and I hope I would do it.

[mycroft]

nekthen, on 2017-March-21, 03:17, said:

If 4♣ is not the route to slam then surely it is better to keep 4♣ as Gerber and 4♦ and 4♥ as transfers?

Opposiste a weak NT, there are several hands that would like to be declarer in 4M. They fall into four types:

• 12 opposite 12, but I have the tenaces that we don't want led through;
• I have a surprise that's more important to hide than protecting partner from the opening lead;
• I'm declaring a lot better than partner is today; and, at least in North America,
• Everyone else will be playing 4♥ this way up, might as well play with the field.

Note that only one of these come up anywhere near as often playing a strong NT, and even that one is dangerous, putting the strong hand on the table and through the opening lead. Plus it's masterminding.

But, of course, the biggest reason to play SA Texas transfers is to stop partner from bidding Gerber. I've had the one hand a year that it would be useful on this year, so we don't need to have it. And partners *will* bid it, whether it's helpful to them or not.

Quote

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I have a few...