[Tramticket]

---

IMPs
System Weak NT

We play 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, 3♦ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and if we followed up with a new suit it would be natural (at least 6-4) (Stayman followed by 3♦ would show 4M/5♦).

A few questions arise:
(1) An alternative response to 1NT would have been 3♦ - natural, setting diamonds as trumps and suggesting slam potential. Do you prefer that?
(2) Given our methods and auction, Should we be in slam? If so, who should have bid six. (We haven't found out about the crucial ♣K)
(3) Most seem to play that a new suit after the transfer shows a shortage and we are discussing whether we should tweak our system (it would save a round of bidding here). We are open to tweaking the system, but not fundamentally changing it.

The good news: we gained on the board as our team-mates defeated 3NT!

I'm interested in your views.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the auction upto 4S was fine.
North sees, that the slam will be at least 50%, he sees either A or K in diamonds,
both still possible and the Ace of spades, and there is still room for a useful card,
wastage in hearts included.
The 4S bid should say, that the wastage should is not huge.

The question forNort is,what does he want to achieve with 5C?
By passing 4NT should show a heart void and a first round control in clubs, but:
The weak NT will never go beyond game, so I think North should just go.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: #3 implies, that with a 4 card major you go via stayman, i.e. you loose the option
to differentiate between 64 and 54, take your pick.

[JanisW]

(1) No Transfer into ♦ followed by a shortness showing bid is fine

(2] N could've bid 6♦.

North knows P:

• has 12-14 HCP
  
• has the A♠ therefore 8-10
  
• has at least A/K ♦ 4-7
  
• liked your Splinter so should not have a 12 Count with a lot of wastage in ♥

so he is a huge favorite to have the 2 of the 3 missing minor suit controls.

I guess 4NT by N would've been Blackwood? I prefer it as waiting, tell me more, once cue-bidding has started.
This would have left room for S to show a ♣-control. As North you do not want to tell P about your controls, you want to hear of his.


I agree with South cooperating once, because he has a max 1NT with 3 controls outside ♥. But with the ♥K wasted he should not go beyond 5♦ on his own.
He almost told everything about his Hand and cannot be much weaker for the bidding so far, can he?.



regards
JW

[Cyberyeti]

Partner has ♦Axx/Kxx and A♠ at 4♠, at this point I'm bidding at least 6, I'll give up on 7 particularly if partner will frequently upgrade with AK, A, K. It's likely to be on not a lot more a finesse, and if partner has ♦A10x instead of K10x could easily be one of 2, or cold if he has K♦ or K♣.

We would bid it differently and actually get less info than you had, but would get to the right slam opposite say Axx, Qxxx, Ax, KJ9x by showing both minors

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-22, 09:10, said:

We would bid it differently and actually get less info than you had, but would get to the right slam opposite say Axx, Qxxx, Ax, KJ9x by showing both minors

I could have shown the second suit by bidding 4♣ over 3♦. But since we had a nine-card fit, I was hoping that it would be more useful to show the shortage.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-22, 09:32, said:

I could have shown the second suit by bidding 4♣ over 3♦. But since we had a nine-card fit, I was hoping that it would be more useful to show the shortage.

Is why I said I would know less, I have to take that decision before I know partner has the fit whether I start with 3♦ (good with diamonds) or 2♠ (bad wth a minor or good with both).

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-22, 07:56, said:

IMPs
System Weak NT

We play 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, 3♦ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and if we followed up with a new suit it would be natural (at least 6-4) (Stayman followed by 3♦ would show 4M/5♦).

A few questions arise:
(1) An alternative response to 1NT would have been 3♦ - natural, setting diamonds as trumps and suggesting slam potential. Do you prefer that?
(2) Given our methods and auction, Should we be in slam? If so, who should have bid six. (We haven't found out about the crucial ♣K)
(3) Most seem to play that a new suit after the transfer shows a shortage and we are discussing whether we should tweak our system (it would save a round of bidding here). We are open to tweaking the system, but not fundamentally changing it.

We play that 3♣ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and 3♦ denies, but I guess that is swings and roundabouts.
But we also play that a new suit after the transfer is a splinter (3♥ in this case) and as you say it saves a round of bidding, allowing South to show ♠ control at 3-level. It seems a simple tweak to your system. The only problem I see is that you can't splinter clubs at 3-level, we just use 4♣ instead.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2018-February-22, 09:47, said:

We play that 3♣ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and 3♦ denies, but I guess that is swings and roundabouts.
But we also play that a new suit after the transfer is a splinter (3♥ in this case) and as you say it saves a round of bidding, allowing South to show ♠ control at 3-level. It seems a simple tweak to your system. The only problem I see is that you can't splinter clubs at 3-level, we just use 4♣ instead.

If you do this then you can play 4♥ voidwood and if partner shows 3, top it off with 6♣ saying bid 7 with the club king.

[ggwhiz]

1♥ - 2♦ if 2/1 gf then 3♦ would do the trick but I don't hate 1nt at all.

Over 5♣ in the actual auction south has a 5 1/2♦ bid (more like 5 3/4?) and a pure guess but slam should be 50-50 at worst.

[0deary]

Regard North as the captain on this voyage and treat South as dutiful passenger:

Very much like the evening meal as: 3D as 3+ in the suit plus one top honour

Why not top off drinks by implying the 3D by breaking the transfer and straight to 3S, showing first round control

Throw overboard the next bid as natural: once you have agreed the D we haven’t got time to explore other fits, so 3N is just a neutral stop off for provisions allowing the 4 level second round controls:

Souths 4C bid now shows North that has King clubs

North checks the Ace Spades with Black and can now show off the Northern lights by moving South from 5D to 6D, a splashing contract!

[Cyberyeti]

0deary, on 2018-February-23, 03:08, said:

Regard North as the captain on this voyage and treat South as dutiful passenger:

Very much like the evening meal as: 3D as 3+ in the suit plus one top honour

Why not top off drinks by implying the 3D by breaking the transfer and straight to 3S, showing first round control

Throw overboard the next bid as natural: once you have agreed the D we haven’t got time to explore other fits, so 3N is just a neutral stop off for provisions allowing the 4 level second round controls:

Souths 4C bid now shows North that has King clubs

North checks the Ace Spades with Black and can now show off the Northern lights by moving South from 5D to 6D, a splashing contract!

You might not want to break this transfer as partner might a) not have very much or b) depending on arrangements have intended to show a heart suit next.

[nekthen]

After 4H 4S I play 4N as exclusion rkcb. So when south bids 5H we are committed to 6d but we know that South has not counted the ace of hearts.

[0deary]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-23, 04:26, said:

You might not want to break this transfer as partner might a) not have very much or b) depending on arrangements have intended to show a heart suit next.

Good points Cyber:

Your 1) for mystique 1N-2C-2x-3C/D weak to play; a prosaic 1N-3C/D invitational (reversing the conventional modern acol) and for the more exotic 1N-2S/2N=3C/3D showing a cracker at match points but can just be invitational at imps

And your 2): The 4 major plus a longer minor is always a headache. That doesn’t need torpedo my ship though: after 1N-2N (“hows your diamonds?”) 3C= “sorry not at home” but there is still scope for a sequence of “puppet” like bids you could use: 3H= “no D but I did have 3H/S showing 4+ there” that might be the lifeboat for the major fit after all? (but ditching the 3 level control bid and Questioner has a better solution there anyway...

[nige1]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-22, 07:56, said:

IMPs System Weak NT
We play 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, 3♦ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and if we followed up with a new suit it would be natural (at least 6-4) (Stayman followed by 3♦ would show 4M/5♦).
A few questions arise:
(1) An alternative response to 1NT would have been 3♦ - natural, setting diamonds as trumps and suggesting slam potential. Do you prefer that?
(2) Given our methods and auction, Should we be in slam? If so, who should have bid six. (We haven't found out about the crucial ♣K)
(3) Most seem to play that a new suit after the transfer shows a shortage and we are discussing whether we should tweak our system (it would save a round of bidding here). We are open to tweaking the system, but not fundamentally changing it.
The good news: we gained on the board as our team-mates defeated 3NT!

---

IMO

• After 1N, I prefer a 2N reply -- IMO there are better uses for the 3♦ reply than a ♦ slam-try.
• It's a matter of judgement, Either partner could have taken the plunge. It is not the end of the world to contract for a slam that might depend on a finesse.
• It's a common and effective treatment to use 3M to show a shortage after a transfer-break.

[pescetom]

0deary, on 2018-February-23, 07:58, said:

...The 4 major plus a longer minor is always a headache. That doesn’t need torpedo my ship though: after 1N-2N (“hows your diamonds?”) 3C= “sorry not at home” but there is still scope for a sequence of “puppet” like bids you could use: 3H= “no D but I did have 3H/S showing 4+ there” that might be the lifeboat for the major fit after all? (but ditching the 3 level control bid and Questioner has a better solution there anyway...

We can show 4 major and a 5+ minor with slam interest from within our Stayman, in case of misfit in the major. Of course you either go that way or the minor transfer, not always an easy decision. But I think it's worth giving up showing a suit after the transfer to gain a level of bidding. In this case for instance we can bid safely to slam, having more than enough information to decide within game level:

---

[0deary]

Yes Tom, and something similar might run....

I suppose Tram you could try this sort of sequence (and adjusting for 2S=3C etc)

1N-2N now
3N= not at home in diamonds and neither 4 major
3C= not at home in diamonds but at least a 4 major somewhere
3D= at home in diamonds but no first round control in a major
3H/S= at home in diamonds and first round control in this suit bid

But I’d advice against it. This isn’t going to crop up very often and risks misunderstandings

Bon voyage!

[miamijd]

5/4 as opposed to 6/4 isn't that big a deal. Wasting an entire level of bidding and going past 3nt to show a splinter is a huge deal -- and not a good one. The 3M showing shortness treatment is much, much better, and I would suggest you adopt it.

Here that leads to 6d easily.

1nt 2nt
3d 3h
3s 4c
4d 4s
5c 6d

There are only four cards responder needs to know about: Ad, Kd, As, and Kc. Once opener shows three of them it's an easy 6d. If you want to ask about trumps with 5nt instead of 6d you can (shouldn't be pick a slam here as we have agreed diamonds). Then you'll hit the grand if partner happens to have all four key cards (not likely with a 12-14 NT but just barely possible).

Cheers,
Mike