[Zelandakh]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-20, 01:26, said:

To the rest I want to ask the following question: when partner opens 1♣, do you have a minimum game force, a slam try or a slam force in your hand? And, conditional on finding a 4-4 spade fit as well as conditional on not finding one, which final contract(s) do you wish to explore? What information do you need to make that decision?

If you are not at least considering the possibility of a slam after a 1♣ or 1NT opening then you are not playing bridge. But you are only forcing to slam after finding out additional factors about the hand. As I have previously pointed out, uncovering the 9th card in the club fit (to go with the spade fit that everyone will surely find) is a quite important step in the investigative process here. The type of scoring has not come up so far but I do think it can also be a factor. In some of the auctions, and particularly in mine, their is a commitment to playing at least 5♣ with a 6-3 club fit, which is clearly going to be a big issue at MP if slam is not available. I think it is probably still worth it but I would definitely think about it a little before committing. After a 1♣ opening, I thought the auction 1♣ - 1♥/1♠; 2♠ - 3♣ was obvious and dislike all of the proposed alternatives. Thereafter though, I think methods diverge too much to give any sort of definitive auction but I cannot really see how you bid the slam with high confidence without uncovering that 9th club, for which I suspect few club/social-level pairs would have the required agreements.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2024-December-20, 12:58, said:

If you are not at least considering the possibility of a slam after a 1♣ or 1NT opening then you are not playing bridge. But you are only forcing to slam after finding out additional factors about the hand. As I have previously pointed out, uncovering the 9th card in the club fit (to go with the spade fit that everyone will surely find) is a quite important step in the investigative process here. The type of scoring has not come up so far but I do think it can also be a factor. In some of the auctions, and particularly in mine, their is a commitment to playing at least 5♣ with a 6-3 club fit, which is clearly going to be a big issue at MP if slam is not available. I think it is probably still worth it but I would definitely think about it a little before committing. After a 1♣ opening, I thought the auction 1♣ - 1♥/1♠; 2♠ - 3♣ was obvious and dislike all of the proposed alternatives. Thereafter though, I think methods diverge too much to give any sort of definitive auction but I cannot really see how you bid the slam with high confidence without uncovering that 9th club, for which I suspect few club/social-level pairs would have the required agreements.

fwiw I doubt club players ever worry if there is NOT a ninth club....
I never gave it a thought...
smile

[DavidKok]

Zelandakh, on 2024-December-20, 12:58, said:

After a 1♣ opening, I thought the auction 1♣ - 1♥/1♠; 2♠ - 3♣ was obvious and dislike all of the proposed alternatives.

I think this is already assuming way too much. How often is 2♠ on a three card suit in your system? Does 3♣ promise a fifth spade (well, clearly not if the bid is obvious to you, but which of opener's rebids then confirm a 4-4 spade fit and which ones show that we only have a 4-3 fit)?


I'm a bit disappointed that people are so committed to the same plan. I was hoping to raise some discussion. In my opinion, when partner opens 1♣ (even if it can be 2), we should evaluate our hand as a slam try. Too strong for a simple game force, not strong enough for a slam force. I think 6♣ will regularly play better than 6♠, even if we have a 4-4 fit. Normally you want to be in the 4-4 fit to produce red suit ruffs in the short hand. Here we are planning on establishing the clubs regardless, so that plan does not nearly matter as much. What matters more is knowing about partner's number of clubs, general hand strength and slam suitability. We need to tell partner that spade values are worth their weight in gold, extra clubs are really welcome, quick tricks in the red suits are pulling their weight and slow values in the red suits do not. My bidding plan is to show a GF slam try two-suiter with long clubs and shorter spades.
Having evaluated the hand, we can turn to the bidding system. Since I intend to probe in clubs some systems are better off starting with 2♣ rather than 1♠ (or a transfer 1♥, or the likes). Especially at IMP scoring, where 5♣ rather than 4♠ (if we even have a spade fit, which is the case here but a priori unlikely). Especially if this inverted minor raise is immediately forcing to game, we could well have a smoother auction on that start. But even without that, there are very clean inverted minor structures that are better.
Conversely, if we do bid 1♠, if partner doesn't raise we are fine (we likely have some XYNT gadget over 1NT, and the chance that partner shows an unbalanced hand with clubs isn't that high but if that happens we definitely have the tools to set clubs and explore slam). If partner does raise, especially 2♠, I have a rebid problem. My own continuations here focus on 3NT vs 4♠, and also on finding the 5-3 or 4-4 fits. It is very difficult to now pivot to clubs, especially if we do happen to have the 4-4 spade fit.
This part is highly system dependent. I was hoping to generate discussion on the relative merits of introducing the spade suit on the first round, especially if we're playing IMPs so 5♣ need not be a disaster. I think it is common to leap to the major suits - they are more important, after all - but recognising when it's not the best move is interesting.

[awm]

I'll give a somewhat deeper analysis in case it's helpful.

In my system with Elianna there are three somewhat sensible first bids on this hand:

1. 1♠: shows four-plus spades, could have a longer club suit.
2. 2♣: invitational or better (inverted minors) with clubs; normally denies a 4-card major but exceptions can be made on very slam-oriented hands
3. 3♥: shortness (0-1♥) with a game-forcing club raise

I'd reject 3♥ right away because the singleton is the ace. Partner will not evaluate a hand like ♠xx ♥KQTx ♦AQx ♣Qxxx (which is a very nice 6♣) correctly at all because the heart values appear totally wasted. We also have no way to land in a spade contract if this is best after the 3♥ splinter.

The 2♣ call has the advantage of showing the values and setting the most likely suit right away. The problem is that we have no way back to spades after this start. This would be okay on some hands with a weak spade suit, but here it seems quite likely that if partner has four spades we will be better off there. If partner has a lousy hand like ♠Qxxx ♥KQx ♦Qxx ♣Axx then spades is our best game, and if partner has a perfecto like ♠QTxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣AQJ then spades is the only grand slam with a chance.

Starting with 1♠ will find our fit there if we have it, but we need to worry about whether we can get back to clubs if partner raises (especially on three-card support). There are also partner hands like ♠Qxxx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣AJxx where either black suit slam is good but it needs to be from partner's side. This would be a good hand for transfer responses because we can reach spades from partner's side, but we don't play that (it's also sort of random, you can easily construct hands where spades needs to be played from responder's side but this is not such a hand).

Fortunately in my system the auction 1♣-1♠-2♠-3♣ is natural and game forcing with clubs. This makes it relatively easy to get back into clubs if partner has only three spades, and even to get to 6♣ when we need to right-side. If 3♣ here were a "game try or better" it would lead to more awkward auctions and I could see more of a case for an initial 2♣ inverted response.

So I'd start with 1♣-1♠-2♠-3♣-3♠ on the actual hand. Given the double fit, I'm willing to commit to a slam if we have a diamond control and enough keycards, so I'll go with 3NT "serious" after which partner cuebids 4♣ and I cuebid 4♥, and partner should bid past 4♠ with the missing diamond control. Partner will know if she needs to protect the diamond king (if in fact her diamond control is king-only) and offer 6♣ "choice of slam" in this case. On the actual hand I'd expect to reach 6♠.

[Zelandakh]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-21, 04:46, said:

I think this is already assuming way too much. How often is 2♠ on a three card suit in your system? Does 3♣ promise a fifth spade (well, clearly not if the bid is obvious to you, but which of opener's rebids then confirm a 4-4 spade fit and which ones show that we only have a 4-3 fit)?

My system does not really apply here as 1♣ is 15+ in it and I already posted a possible WNT auction. In fact I do not currently play any SNT methods but I can tell you that the local 5+strong system here raises with 3 cards precisely zero percent of the time.

DavidKok, on 2024-December-21, 04:46, said:

I'm a bit disappointed that people are so committed to the same plan. I was hoping to raise some discussion.

Post a good alternative then! I have not liked those suggested so far but if you have an idea, bring it. My thinking more or less mirrors that of Adam, as it often does.

DavidKok, on 2024-December-21, 04:46, said:

In my opinion, when partner opens 1♣ (even if it can be 2), we should evaluate our hand as a slam try. Too strong for a simple game force, not strong enough for a slam force. I think 6♣ will regularly play better than 6♠, even if we have a 4-4 fit.

Agreed, and I think this was part of my previous post, albeit perhaps in a less concise form.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2024-December-21, 07:09, said:

My system does not really apply here as 1♣ is 15+ in it and I already posted a possible WNT auction. In fact I do not currently play any SNT methods but I can tell you that the local 5+strong system here raises with 3 cards precisely zero percent of the time.


Post a good alternative then! I have not liked those suggested so far but if you have an idea, bring it. My thinking more or less mirrors that of Adam, as it often does.


Agreed, and I think this was part of my previous post, albeit perhaps in a less concise form.

I agree almost entirely, except for the part where you implicitly disliked my suggested start of auction in our system I think it would have led to an informed choice, as often.
It's a pity that this thread risks petering out inconclusively... so far I took away for thought only your suggestion of playing a secondary transfer after a minor transfer.
I too am still waiting for Davidkok's auction after all that trumpet blowing.

As far as scoring is concerned, I imagine that jillybean's tournament was MP. I was obliged by system to fix trumps in spades, but ever after reading the thread I think I would have chosen to do so anyway if possible, even at IMPs although less comfortable then. I am far from convinced that spades will score worse than clubs, even after seeing the actual hands.

[mikeh]

David didn’t like my methods. So I thought I’d look at how our bidding would go if we were vulnerable, when our 1N is 14-16

We open 1C on all balanced hands outside of our notrump ranges, except for hands with a five card major…..we open 1C with, as an extreme example, 3=3=5=2.


1C 1H. T-Walsh. I see no rational alternative in our methods. We don’t play inverted minors (they really don’t help much with 2+ clubs) and, while we have a gf raise of clubs available, we can’t back into spades after that start.

So

1C 1H
2S. 2S shows a minimum range opening hand with 4 spades. Usually balanced, but only because balanced hands are the most common type after this start

Now responder can bid 3C. This sounds like and will be treated as a game try, not a suggestion of strain. It is F1.

Opener has a maximum. He’d open 1N with 14. He has sterile shape but is always accepting…..we open virtually all balanced 11 counts even vulnerable so this is a good hand. As such, 3D seems clear….not as of yet accepting the try but showing a good ish hand with something in diamonds…..it might be a cue but that won’t be disclosed until later.

So 1C 1H 2S 3C 3D

Responder now bids 3H….still an ambiguous auction since in theory opener’s 3S could be passed.

But opener isn’t signing off..he was heading for game after 3C and the auction has timed out magnificently. He has an easy 4C cuebid….which now discloses that 3D was not a game try but in fact a cuebid ‘on the way to game’, catering to the fact that responder’s 3C was only ostensibly a game try but might have been a try for slam.


1C 1H 2S 3C 3D 3H 4C.

Responder now knows that opener has 12-13 hcp, and a decent 12 if only that. He’s now shown 4 spades and the diamond and club aces.

Unfortunately responder can’t find out about the club length. Ax would strongly suggest playing in spades. Axx(x) could play better in clubs…picture xxxx KQx Ax Axxx. Both black suit slams are good but clubs is slightly better, since Q10xx offside, in spades, dooms that slam but, in clubs, declarer can pitch both a diamond and a spade on the hearts (both slams assume clubs behave reasonably)

I think responder can’t do much more than keycard, and the 5S response commits us to 6S.

I don’t think we can get to clubs in our methods….at least not without going through all kinds of contortions that we’d never even try in real life. But I’m pretty sure we’d get to slam

If there’s a takeaway for non-experts here, it’s in the use of bids that are either game tries or slam tries. Partner ALWAYS assumes, and bids, on the basis that, they are looking for game. A very important aphorism in such auctions is ‘game before slam’. But both players need to bear in mind that partner might actually have higher ambitions, which is why opener has to cuebid along to way if he is accepting a ‘game try’. Such a cuebid might be below 3 of the major, in which case both players understand that it’s like responder’s ‘try’….it may just be trying for game but it might be a cuebid. Sometimes opener’s cuebid is beyond 3M, n which case it’s unambiguously a cue bid, catering to responder having slam, rather than game, interest.

I suspect this seems complicated to a lot of readers. It’s not an approach I’ve seen written up anywhere…it’s the sort of thing one used to learn by going to the bar, after the game, and listening to the better players discuss all the hands. That’s definitely how I learned a lot of the nuances. While we still go for a beer after the game, we don’t have half a dozen or more young up and comers looking to learn. Now just about everyone is set in their ways. The average players just want to discuss their good boards, rather than learn 🙁