[jillybean]

You are a firm believer of the "keep out of the way of the strong hand" approach.
No steps, no positive response other than 2♦

---

4♦ seems perfect? like our only way forward

[DavidKok]

I play Systems here. 2NT is the slam killer, and it helps to have discussed this.
Without agreements, sure, 4♦. However, it's a bit of a stay of execution - what do partner's rebids mean?

[mycroft]

meta-agreement when partner shows a balanced hand: 4♠ agrees spades. Anything else is a cue-bid agreeing diamonds (even if eventually you're going to correct to spades :-). Yeah, what's 4NT? (I assume "no fit, you choose", but again, agreements).

Downside is "I want to keycard in spades, now that I know we have a diamond fit as well"; but partner is very limited (even if strong); partner has shown slam interest (else why not 3NT showing 5 spades and a K?), and with enough slam interest they might keycard.

Having said that, we're 11 opposite 22-23; I assume we're in decent shape if we just play 6-of-our-fit (maybe 6NT if diamonds, maybe fool around trying to convince partner to 7 with exactly the right cards; but I'll be happy with 6NT at pairs at least.

[jillybean]

Very basic agreements here, 2nt 21-22
over 4♦ we can only hope for a ♥ cue

---

Now I'm ruing not making a positive response in spades.

[mike777]

Let's back up a second

2NT- 3H
3S-?

How do you ask RKC in spades?
How do you invite in NT?

Answer
4H is RKC in spades
4NT is quantitative

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-March-21, 18:49, said:

Let's back up a second

2NT- 3H
3S-?

How do you ask RKC in spades?
How do you invite in NT?

Answer
4H is RKC in spades
4NT is quantitative

Yes, if you were North I can use Kickback

[smerriman]

mike777, on 2025-March-21, 18:49, said:

Let's back up a second

2NT- 3H
3S-?

How do you ask RKC in spades?
How do you invite in NT?

If I wanted to RKC in spades I'd bid 4♥ as Texas, followed by 4NT, instead of 3♥.

[jdiana]

I'm probably missing something but I'm not sure why we're so keen to start keycarding in spades. We don't know that we have a spade fit, do we? Plus, our five spades are not exactly awesome (certainly not good enough for a positive response in spades IMHO). I would need six spades to start with a Texas transfer.

Do we think South's hand is invitational or slam-forcing? If the former, then I think - - - 2NT-3♥-3♠-4NT shows 5 spades and a quantitative invitation to slam; if the latter, then I think - - - 2NT-3♥-3♠-5NT is pick-a-slam (6♠ or 6NT).

I think 4♦ is probably the best description of our hand but, as David says, I wouldn't be sure where we were going from there. Control bidding might be the way to go if you have clear agreements. We didn't.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-March-21, 13:55, said:

You are a firm believer of the "keep out of the way of the strong hand" approach.
No steps, no positive response other than 2♦

---

4♦ seems perfect? like our only way forward

I personally would have pretended the spades were 4-card and bid 3♣. Once you know there are 4+ spades opposite, you have a comfortable auction.

As to missing a 5-3 spade fit with no ruffs in the short hand, if you don't have slam you probably have 11 tricks in notrump.

[jillybean]

---

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2025-March-21, 17:55, said:

over 4♦ we can only hope for a ♥ cue

I would have assumed 4♥ was a cue agreeing diamonds as trumps (as per mycroft). Seems in the actual hand North would have superaccepted the transfer to spades.

[mw64ahw]

jdiana, on 2025-March-21, 20:00, said:

I'm probably missing something but I'm not sure why we're so keen to start keycarding in spades. We don't know that we have a spade fit, do we? Plus, our five spades are not exactly awesome (certainly not good enough for a positive response in spades IMHO). I would need six spades to start with a Texas transfer.

Do we think South's hand is invitational or slam-forcing? If the former, then I think - - - 2NT-3♥-3♠-4NT shows 5 spades and a quantitative invitation to slam; if the latter, then I think - - - 2NT-3♥-3♠-5NT is pick-a-slam (6♠ or 6NT).

I think 4♦ is probably the best description of our hand but, as David says, I wouldn't be sure where we were going from there. Control bidding might be the way to go if you have clear agreements. We didn't.

Makes total sense.
Personally I feel no need to throw in the ♦ bid with the semi-balanced hand and honours n the doubletons opposite 22-23/4

[DavidKok]

There were multiple mistakes on this deal, and a few extra suggested in the discussion. Of course the omnipresent caveat applies that everything is subject to partnership agreements, but I still feel that there are things undiscussed.

• 2NT is the slam killer. Even with good agreements, you can struggle to find your slams. Without good agreements (meaning either no clear agreements of any kind, or clear but ineffective agreements) it will be that much worse. In that situation there isn't much you can do except gamble this board, then discuss the deal after the fact. In particular: I expect you will continue to struggle here unless you sit down with partner and discuss your 2NT system. Thankfully slam tries after a 2NT opening (with or without 2♣) are rare, so the impact is minor.
  
• 4♥ confirms diamonds for me, without agreements to the contrary.
  
• North should have superaccepted the spade transfer. Having failed to do this, North should bid 4♠ over 4♦.
  
• I dislike the suggestion of bidding 2♠ over 2♣, and prefer to leave room for partner here by bidding 2♦.
  
• Mike's suggestion of 4♥ as RKC for spades, and your comment on using Kickback, strike me as being both bad agreements and out of place. We need ways to find our optimal strain and playing strength, not ask about key cards. Besides, if we wanted to ask for key cards in a specific suit, the normal route is a 4-level transfer (Texas or SA Texas) followed by 4NT or Kickback.

2NT isn't as common as weaker balanced hands (surprise surprise), but I still find value in knowing our NT system. I play a 2NT system that is similar to Mats Nilsland's Scanian approach, though different on some key details.

[Cyberyeti]

I would have treated my hand as 4242 with an extra card in one of the short suits.

We would bid 2♣-2N-3♣(stayman)-3♠ and on to 6♠ the minimum for 2N is such that it is F4N and invitational+ opposite 22-23.

Playing what you play, 2♣-2♦-2N-3♥- we would break the transfer to 4♠ (4♠ max, suit breaks are HHxxx in the suit and ♠ Hxx H=AKQ, and get to 6♠)

[jillybean]

Thanks, this is unfortunately, not a hand I played.
Club K was onside too

[jdiana]

North's hand is (obviously) very strong so as long as South knows to show slam interest in some way, they should end up in 6♠ one way or another.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the differences in super accepting after 2NT openings (or "openings" ) vs 1NT though it was part of our system. It seems like, after 2NT, it removes the space that we would normally like to use for control bidding (i.e., between 3M and 4M) but it could also facilitate slam bidding by setting trump and showing opener's strength.

[awm]

Elianna and my agreement over 2NT is that opener is supposed to super-accept the transfer with 3+ trumps and a "good hand for slam in the major." To super-accept, opener cuebids the lowest control (after which we are control bidding for the major). Thus the simple accept of a transfer is either doubleton support or a bad hand for slam. After the transfer is accepted, a new suit (such as 4♦, here) is natural. Opener's bids are:

Four of the original major is a preference, always a bad hand for slam in the major (else would've super-accepted).
New suit is a cuebid for partner's second suit.
4NT shows no fit and strong holdings in the suits responder didn't show (basically to play).

With the actual hand jillybean gave, opener should super-accept the transfer with 4♣, over which responder can just bid keycard.

[jdiana]

awm, on 2025-March-22, 09:02, said:

Elianna and my agreement over 2NT is that opener is supposed to super-accept the transfer with 3+ trumps and a "good hand for slam in the major." To super-accept, opener cuebids the lowest control (after which we are control bidding for the major). Thus the simple accept of a transfer is either doubleton support or a bad hand for slam. After the transfer is accepted, a new suit (such as 4♦, here) is natural. Opener's bids are:

Four of the original major is a preference, always a bad hand for slam in the major (else would've super-accepted).
New suit is a cuebid for partner's second suit.
4NT shows no fit and strong holdings in the suits responder didn't show (basically to play).

With the actual hand jillybean gave, opener should super-accept the transfer with 4♣, over which responder can just bid keycard.

Nice. I'm copying this and saving it to my digital bridge library for possible future plagiarism. I'm making some assumptions - is this restatement correct?

Opener should super-accept the transfer with 3+ trumps and a "good hand for slam in the major." To super-accept, opener cuebids the lowest control (after which we are control bidding for the major).

Thus, the simple accept of a transfer is either doubleton support or a bad hand for slam. After a simple accept, a new suit by responder is natural and shows slam interest (?). After responder’s new suit bid, opener's bids are:

Four of the original major is a preference, always a bad hand for slam in the major (else would've super-accepted).
A new suit is a cuebid for responder’s second suit.
4NT shows no fit and strong holdings in the suits responder didn't show, but no slam interest (?) (basically to play).

TIA

[awm]

jdiana, on 2025-March-22, 10:19, said:

Nice. I'm copying this and saving it to my digital bridge library for possible future plagiarism. I'm making some assumptions - is this restatement correct?

Opener should super-accept the transfer with 3+ trumps and a "good hand for slam in the major." To super-accept, opener cuebids the lowest control (after which we are control bidding for the major).

Thus, the simple accept of a transfer is either doubleton support or a bad hand for slam. After a simple accept, a new suit by responder is natural and shows slam interest (?). After responder’s new suit bid, opener's bids are:

Four of the original major is a preference, always a bad hand for slam in the major (else would've super-accepted).
A new suit is a cuebid for responder’s second suit.
4NT shows no fit and strong holdings in the suits responder didn't show, but no slam interest (?) (basically to play).

TIA

Yes, your restatement is correct.

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2025-March-22, 09:02, said:

Elianna and my agreement over 2NT is that opener is supposed to super-accept the transfer with 3+ trumps and a "good hand for slam in the major." To super-accept, opener cuebids the lowest control (after which we are control bidding for the major). Thus the simple accept of a transfer is either doubleton support or a bad hand for slam. After the transfer is accepted, a new suit (such as 4♦, here) is natural. Opener's bids are:

Four of the original major is a preference, always a bad hand for slam in the major (else would've super-accepted).
New suit is a cuebid for partner's second suit.
4NT shows no fit and strong holdings in the suits responder didn't show (basically to play).

With the actual hand jillybean gave, opener should super-accept the transfer with 4♣, over which responder can just bid keycard.

I played this for a while and like it - demanding 4-card support to super-accept is not using the bidding space optimally, and super-accepting with a slam-positive with known fit is great. I ended up inverting some of the bids, giving up the ability to play in 3M but gaining more space with 3-card support. Over 2NT I prefer to play Jacoby transfers as forcing to game, and the transfer completion to be 3-card support. We still bid a control with a super-accept with four cards support, but the doubleton hand now rejects with 3NT (and an exception can be made if you wish for the sequence 2NT-3♦; 3♠). The difference isn't that big compared to regularly super-accepting with 3-card support, but I'm happy with the change.