[jillybean]

---

[DavidKok]

3NT. I'd like to explore more as our hand is quite suitable for 6♦ or 6♣, but there's no room left. 4NT is tempting but what I really need to know is degree of fit. Opener may have anything ranging from a double minor suit fit to a 4=4=2=3, and we're not making 6NT on power with our longest suit this anemic. So 3NT it is.

[mike777]

Very well explained.

There is also an old version of the Baron convention which handles these more complicated hands but may not be worth the memorization..

[Cyberyeti]

I'm a passed hand, would have started with 2♣ inverted, if the diamonds were better, would have started with a passed hand fit jump.

In fact, our auction would be weirdly specific opposite a passed hand:

1♣-2♣ (10+ with 4♣, 9+ with 5)
2♦(art ask inv+)-3♦

This pretty much has to be a bad 5 card diamond suit with 4 clubs and a maximum pass due to the other bids I didn't make

[DavidKok]

 mike777, on 2024-November-04, 09:22, said:

Very well explained.

There is always an old version of the Baron convention which handles these more complicated hands but may not be worth the memorization..

The version I know - 3♣ asks for four card suits up the line (with a direct 3NT response showing 3=3=3=4) - fails to find a 5-3 diamond fit and is potentially ambiguous about the club fit. E.g. on 1♣-1♦; 2NT-3♣; 3♥ the 3♠ rebid would show a four card suit, so we have to bid or bypass 3NT without knowing about opener's club length.

More generally, instead of fixing communication problems with advanced gadgets down the line, I think it is more profitable to save space on earlier rounds of the bidding. This comes up more often and gains more when it does, since all that extra space can be put to multiple uses. However, that does require overhauling the NT ladder and rebid system, and possibly the response system to match (e.g T-Walsh or Dutch Doubleton). So instead I think it is very reasonable to not change any of this, and accept that this is a system gap. But if you do want to make changes that is where I'd look.

[mikeh]

While this may be beyond the scope of intermediate players, it shouldn’t be beyond advanced players: use transfers after 1x 1y 2N


Using this scheme, bid 3S over 2N. This shows clubs….3C shows diamonds, 3D hearts, etc.


Importantly 3S doesn’t say ‘bid clubs’. It shows a hand with interest in a club contract, within the context of the auction to date. Given that we passed originally and responded 1D, this is actually a perfect hand…maximum pass, 4+ clubs, some shape.

By an unpassed hand, 3S is unlimited but opener assumes something like this, knowing that with a strong hand, responder won’t pass 3N. So either way, opener looks at his hand and considers whether he has slam ambitions. Kxx AKx Ax KQxxx would be delighted to bid beyond 3N. QJx AQx KQx KQxx would sign off in 3N.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2024-November-04, 11:09, said:

By an unpassed hand, 3S is unlimited but opener assumes something like this, knowing that with a strong hand, responder won’t pass 3N. So either way, opener looks at his hand and considers whether he has slam ambitions. Kxx AKx Ax KQxxx would be delighted to bid beyond 3N. QJx AQx KQx KQxx would sign off in 3N.

For us, the first hand is not possible, we open 2N with a good 19 which I consider that.

I quite like the scheme over 2N you proposed, but we don't play 2N as the type of hand most people do.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-04, 11:42, said:

For us, the first hand is not possible, we open 2N with a good 19 which I consider that.

I quite like the scheme over 2N you proposed, but we don't play 2N as the type of hand most people do.

I’m sitting in an airport lounge so not spending a lot of time crafting hands. I’d also open my first example 2N but some wouldn’t, and I was just illustrating a point, not defining hands

[mw64ahw]

I see two options, both of which require some detailed agreements to shape out, but can leverage off structures if you have them over 1NT/2NT so memory load can be minimised

• The first assumes 1♦ denies a 4-card Major and you don't play some sort of Wolff-type sign-off. You can then use bids to find the mnor suit fit in a similar way to looking for any Major suit fit over a 2N opener which are resolvable by 3N. I have this available over 1NT as a minor suit slam try via 1N-2♣-2♦-3♣
• Use a structure for minor suit slam tries over 2N starting at 3♠ and upwards to shape out up to 4N.

Alternatively just bid 6N

[pescetom]

I like the idea of transfers here too, but I would not be uncomfortable bidding our systemic 3♣ game force DSI here: if she bids diamonds then we raise knowing we have a double 9 card fit, if she bids a major then we bid 3NT, if she bids 3NT then we consider pulling to 4♣.

[jillybean]

---

This was a hand from our 'unsanctioned' game last week.
Not surprisingly. most played in 5C or 3nt. 2 pairs found the club slam.
2 pairs, including me, played in 2 or 3 clubs and one pair insisted on playing in their 8 card diamond fit.

I like David's explanation of while you want to explore, there is no room unless you have the advanced methods which Mike describes.

[DavidKok]

My Christmas wish for this year is that people bid balanced hands with their NT ladder and semibalanced and unbalanced hands with the rest of their system.

In addition to the above, the South hand is way too strong to represent as 18-19. I think 22 HCP is closer to the mark, though I'd forgive people for only upgrading into 20-21.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-November-04, 13:40, said:

I like David's explanation of while you want to explore, there is no room unless you have the advanced methods which Mike describes.

With all due respect for advanced methods, I think that even our simple method of 3♣ art GF with natural continuations will suffice, as often turns out.

I doubt am the only one who would open 2NT (at least) here, after which reaching at least 7♣ should be trivial.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-November-04, 13:49, said:

I doubt am the only one who would open 2NT here, after which reaching at least 7♣ should be trivial.

Easy for you to say

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-November-04, 13:51, said:

Easy for you to say

Which of the two affirmations do you doubt?

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-November-04, 13:53, said:

Which of the two affirmations do you doubt?

after which reaching at least 7♣ should be trivial.

[smerriman]

I assume a typo for 6♣, though getting even there doesn't seem trivial to me either (and as it happens, it's likely to go down).

 DavidKok, on 2024-November-04, 13:45, said:

My Christmas wish for this year is that people bid balanced hands with their NT ladder and semibalanced and unbalanced hands with the rest of their system.

For completeness' sake, if this isn't a 2NT opener, is there a reasonable "standard" rebid after 1♣? I remember having a similar hand in the past, where I was planning to reverse into diamonds, and was flummoxed when my partner responded 1♦.

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2024-November-04, 14:51, said:

I assume a typo for 6♣, though getting even there doesn't seem trivial to me either (and as it happens, it's likely to go down).

No typo although I may have exaggerated while rushing to a tournament... mikeh is always forgiven for hyperbole
But I do imagine most pairs have some agreement for seeking a minor fit after 2NT and I find it hard to imagine them stopping before 6♣ at least.
For better or worse I do think we would have bid the grand in clubs:
_____ P
2NT - 3♠ (minors)
4♣ (5+) - 4♦ (RKCB)
4♠ (03) - 5♦ (K?)
5♠ (♠K, !♥K) - 5NT (♦K?)
7♣ (yes) - P

Why do you see 7♣ or even 6♣ going down as it happens?

[smerriman]

 pescetom, on 2024-November-04, 16:12, said:

Why do you see 7♣ or even 6♣ going down as it happens?

The opponents lead a heart, and you have a heart and diamond loser. Unless I'm missing something, the only chance for more tricks is the queen luckily dropping doubleton as it did here.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2024-November-04, 13:49, said:

With all due respect for advanced methods, I think that even our simple method of 3♣ art GF with natural continuations will suffice, as often turns out.

I doubt am the only one who would open 2NT (at least) here, after which reaching at least 7♣ should be trivial.

You really want to reach a VERY poor 7♣ on a heart lead (2/5 of a 3-2 break + 1/5 of a 4-1 so just over 30% on a heart lead), admittedly 6♣ is as bad if they lead a heart, but nearly cold if they don't.

Would expect to be in 6♣, if I'm showing this as balanced, I'm bidding it as 21 and opening 2N, partner shows 5♦/4♣ SI, blackwood in diamonds to look for the Q, then sign off in 6♣.

If I don't show it as balanced we have the sequence I posted above and again can ask for ♦Q before signing off in 6♣