[phoenixmj]

Partner opens 1N and you have this hand. What "goes through your mind" and how do you respond?

Suppose you do NOT have a 4 way minor transfer at your fingertips?

Thanks in advance.

---

Pairs - MP

[Cyberyeti]

Assuming a strong NT opposite, I have essentially 3 options: (Pairs or teams ?)

3♦ Nat forcing

Gerber and bid 6♦ if not 2 keys missing

Punt 6♦ or 6N (6N being better if partner has something like AQx, J10xx, Kxx, AQx)

I probably take the Gerber route and if partner bids 4♠ and RHO doubles, I'll put partner into 4NT at pairs, not sure what I do at teams.

[Tramticket]

phoenixmj, on 2019-May-30, 10:54, said:

Suppose you do NOT have a 4 way minor transfer at your fingertips?

Your system must have some method of showing a forcing hand with diamonds.

For us, 3D is forcing and a slam invite.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2019-May-30, 13:20, said:

Your system must have some method of showing a forcing hand with diamonds.

For us, 3D is forcing and a slam invite.

For us, 3D is both minors and game force.
But 2NT is transfer to diamonds, and we can do that from with Stayman too.
As you say, there must be some method in the system.

[mikeh]

Gerber is a silly bid. What do you bid if you are missing one Ace? Slam?

Then they cash the AK of a side suit, and on a good day you lose a trick to the diamond King. I mean, give partner QJxx AJx xx AKQx, a full 17 count and you bid slam? Nice auction.

Of course, if you stop out of slam when off an Ace, he holds AKxx xxx Kx AKxx, and slam is laydown. Nice auction.

Using Ace-asking bids when predictable answers leave you with a blind guess, equally likely to look foolish no matter which guess you make, is simply bad...abysmally bad...bridge.

Now, Cyber always seems to be able answer bidding problems using his system, which seemingly ALWAYS has a good bid for the problem, which begs the question why the top players in the world don't play it. Using 1N 3D as slamming seems like a very poor choice....I expect one can play for many sessions without ever having a minor suit slam hand when partner opens 1N. Yes, they do arise, but most (all?) expert pairs stopped using that method at least two generations ago, on the basis of frequency/reward.

Obviously transfers offer the best approach. In my partnerships, we would bid 2N, showing diamonds and then, over either 3C or 3D (the latter showing a better hand than the former) we would bid 3N. This shows doubt about 3N, while also confirming long diamonds and denying a major suit shortness (3M over 3m shows shortness). With a balanced hand and no slam interest, especially at mps, we'd bid 3N over 1N rather than tip our hand, so this sequence implies slam interest. We can now cuebid at the 4-level if opener likes his hand in context, retaining the ability to play 4N.

Without that or similar tools, the traditional way to show a minor with a good hand is to use stayman and then bid 3D. This is ambiguous, because it is how one would bid with a 4 card major and 5+ diamonds, and doubt about strain. However, it is standard for this sequence to include either a major and longer diamonds or simply long diamonds. It's not a great method, but the OP stipulates that we can't choose to play transfers...maybe next time?

When one lacks the tools needed to describe the hand more precisely (aka transfers) this is probably as good as one can hope for. One could, if one felt sufficiently optimistic, bid 2C then 3D then pull 3N to 4D to show the extra diamonds and strongly suggest slam.

Personally, I would not do so, if I respected partner. This is not as good a hand as I think the OP feels it is (although maybe partner's hand meshes well, and OP and his partner missed an easy slam). As noted above, while 5D is usually reasonable, it isn't necessarily making and at mps refusing to play 3N on 15-17 opposite 13 isn't clear. At imps, I would be more insistent on diamonds, with that start, and would bid 4D over 3N, since not only is 5D likely to be ok, but it would not be impossible for 5D to make and 3N to fail! Indeed, 3N could fail when 6D is making, although that would be very unlucky...picture Ax AJx xxx AKxxx on a spade lead.

[PhilG007]

phoenixmj, on 2019-May-30, 10:54, said:

Partner opens 1N and you have this hand. What "goes through your mind" and how do you respond?

Suppose you do NOT have a 4 way minor transfer at your fingertips?

Thanks in advance.

---

Pairs - MP

I would bid 3NT and hope the diamond suit pulls its weight..

[Tramticket]

mikeh, on 2019-May-30, 15:18, said:

Using 1N 3D as slamming seems like a very poor choice....I expect one can play for many sessions without ever having a minor suit slam hand when partner opens 1N. Yes, they do arise, but most (all?) expert pairs stopped using that method at least two generations ago, on the basis of frequency/reward.

Obviously transfers offer the best approach.

I agree that transfers are a desirable method. My argument is that the system played by OP must have some method of showing a forcing diamond hand. If it isn't transfers then an alternative is needed - which could be Stayman followed by 3D, it could be a 3D response, it could even (I suppose) be a 4D response.

Personally I have both a transfer and a forcing 3D available. The forcing 3D has always been part of standard Acol, but most Acol players have moved to include 4-way transfers. It may seem silly to have two bids to describe similar hands but, in contrast to MikeH, I find the alternative uses for 3D to be low frequency and don't choose to deviate from a method that is standard at club level in the UK.

The advantage of having multiple ways of showing diamonds is that we can distinguish different types of holding (and also choose who to place as declarer). On this hand, I would respond 3D rather than a transfer - a strong suggestion that we should investigate slam.

Like MikeH, I would not contemplate Gerber. We don't have this bid on our convention card.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2019-May-30, 15:18, said:

Gerber is a silly bid. What do you bid if you are missing one Ace? Slam?

I would only use gerber if I was intending to blast the slam unless we were missing 2 aces, it's basically an alternative to putting something starting with a 6 on the table immediately.

If you have a transfer available, clearly you use it, but the OP doesn't.

Normally if you don't have a transfer available, either 1N-3♦ or 1N-2♣-2any-3♦ shows this, there has to be some way of showing a diamond GF.

If partner has the 17 count you list, I'd expect to make 13 tricks in 6♦/N around 1/3 of the time as long as there is not too much info leak, so it's not a disastrous outcome, been in far worse.

[FelicityR]

phoenixmj, on 2019-May-30, 10:54, said:

Partner opens 1N and you have this hand. What "goes through your mind" and how do you respond?

17 (max) + 13 = 30 = less than 32-33 needed for slam except if partner turns up with the right cards. Obviously, the diamond suit compensates for the lack of points but there's too many holes where the opponents could have the top honour cards.

I'll start with 3D (that I hope partner would take as a GF as opposed a stringy minor) in the absence of transfers. But where we go next after this is anyone's guess.

Partner is more likely to have 15 or 16 than 17 so maybe there are more 'holes' in the suits where the opponents can cash two top tricks.

On a night where I needed a top I'd bid 6NT; on one where our other results were satisfactory I'll bid 3NT.

[gszes]

w/o sophisticated understandings some hands must be relegated to guesswork (ugh). If we carefully look at this hand we realize that even if p has 3 aces and the dia K we are limited to 11 tricks if they also hold a doubleton heart. Once we realize that and also our shortcomings in the investigative arts is there any logical course of action? It seems to me a simple 4n bid should suffice. Assuming your p will accept with a control laden hand (not just any old 17 count) there is probably little downside and the extra level will probably not be damaging vs 3n if the opps were to run spades or clubs. If an opp could not resist x (especially if they are on lead) over 4n I would run flee scurry to 5d.

[gszes]

mikeh, on 2019-May-30, 15:18, said:

Now, Cyber always seems to be able answer bidding problems using his system, which seemingly ALWAYS has a good bid for the problem, which begs the question why the top players in the world don't play it.

An odd time to post this statement when the target gave zero information on how miraculous their bidding system is. I will now go back and read the rest of your ideas since I respect the information you provide sorry about getting sidetracked over something that appeared to be petty and useless.

[Winstonm]

My thinking on these slam-consideration hands has always been this: is there a minimum hand consistent with my partner's previous bidding that makes the slam lay down? If so, the hand is worth a slam try.

This hand is laydown opposite 3 bare aces and the diamond king, so it qualifies; however, it is also laydown with spade AK, Club AK, and diamond K, the top of the range. The point of this is that asking for aces won't tell us what we need to know.

I would bid 3D as a forcing slam try; also to hear partner's input about potential slam.

[nige1]

phoenixmj writes 'Pairs - MP. Partner opens 1N and you have this hand. What "goes through your mind" and how do you respond? Suppose you do NOT have a 4 way minor transfer at your fingertips?'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If partner holds...
-- ♠ A x x ♥ A J x x ♦ K x x ♣ A x x, then 7N is cold.
-- ♠ Q x x ♥ A J ♦ K x x x x ♣ K Q T, then game is unlikely.

At MPs, I rank...
1. 3N = S/O. Take the (likely) money.
2. 4N = S/T. Quantitative. Partner should appreciate his As and Ks.
3. 4♣ = ART. Gerber. Check on A's before bidding Slam
4. 3♦ = NAT G/F
5. 6N = (Landy) S/T. A bit of a punt.

---

[mikeh]

gszes, on 2019-May-31, 10:11, said:

An odd time to post this statement when the target gave zero information on how miraculous their bidding system is. I will now go back and read the rest of your ideas since I respect the information you provide sorry about getting sidetracked over something that appeared to be petty and useless.

You are correct: I misread the post, and I apologize to all, including cyberyeti

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2019-May-31, 16:34, said:

You are correct: I misread the post, and I apologize to all, including cyberyeti

Thanks. your posts are usually some of the most informative around, and I take your point, my system has plenty of issues, BUT it handles the hands where the common US systems have issues quite well in a few areas which is why it may appear as you suggested. Hands are quite often posted where:

Opener bids a potentially short club with a real suit and a club fit is missed
Responder doesn't quite have a GF 2/1
Opener has the death hand

All of these my system handles well, it has gaps in other places, but those 3 cover a lot of the hands posted here.

[TheoKole]

phoenixmj, on 2019-May-30, 10:54, said:

Partner opens 1N and you have this hand. What "goes through your mind" and how do you respond?

Suppose you do NOT have a 4 way minor transfer at your fingertips?

Thanks in advance.

---

Pairs - MP

In order to bid this hand without 4 suit transfers you MUST have an agreement beforehand to bid this type of hand. There are 2 methods for this type of hand. One is 3 ♦ directly which is strong and game forcing and at least hinting at slam, partner is encouraged to cue bid. Another method is to go through STAYMAN and then bid ♦. You can use these methods if your suit is clubs also. It is important to note that if you agree on a method then the other bid for the minor must be weak sometimes very very weak where you are simply trying to escape NT. An example would be Kxxxxx or longer and out. I am assuming if you choose one of these methods then your NT biding structure would include 1 NT - 2 ♠ to be minor suit Stayman for both minors.

Either of these methods has its advantages and drawbacks in making the NT hand the declarer, in order to protect and tenancies for strong hands so choose your poison. I can't emphasize enough that you must have a previous agreement for strong hands with 1 minor and as a result have by default the other method for weak hands. If you mess up the hands you are headed for a very bad board.


Good luck, T