[pescetom]

Last slam of the year.

Do you have methods to fix trumps in hearts below game in this situation (assuming you think the diamonds are worthy of mention)?

MP

---

[mike777]

Fix hearts as trumps below game? Probably not
Expect to end in 6D

[mw64ahw]

Happy New Year to you all

Without showing ♦ both partners have enough to explore slam in ♥

1♥ - 2♣ GI
2♦ min - 2♥ GF <Shape?>
2N 6♥ UB - 3♥ mild SI
3♠ SI ctrl - 4♦ ctrl, ♥ honour
4♠ even KCs, ♣ ctrl - 5♠ all KCs
6♥

West can enquire after 2N and find East with x65x
2N - 3♣ <Shape?>
3♦ 4+m - 3♥ <minor?>
4♣ 5+♦ (3♠ is 4+♣, 3N is 4♦) - 5♦ sets ♥ odd KCs, ♦ ctrl
6♥

[jillybean]

---

I'm not sure if this isn't double dummy and I wouldn't show 2 card heart support over 2♦.

I'd like to be using 2♣* any game force but haven't found a willing partner yet.

[jdiana]

We routinely bypassed a 4-card spade suit with a GF hand, so our auction would probably start

1♥ - 2♣ (GF)
2♦ - 2NT
3♥ (promising 6) - 3♠ (agreeing hearts - since the 2NT bid promised two hearts - and showing a spade control)

We had no way for the opener to unilaterally set trumps other than a jump rebid to 3M with a solid suit.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-December-31, 14:47, said:

---

I'm not sure if this isn't double dummy and I wouldn't show 2 card heart support over 2♦.

I'd like to be using 2♣* any game force but haven't found a willing partner yet.

We'd duplicate your auction, the issue is that we'd find out Partner had x, AQ(J/x)xx(x), J10xxx, A(x) and could be bidding a bad slam if partner is 1552.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all so far, keep it coming.
Happy New Year!

[mikeh]

I’m not a big fan of posters showing how well their pet methods work when both hands are presented. Most such idiosyncratic treatments are unlikely to appeal to many readers and, imo, the ones I see often strike me as dubious. However, the OP specifically asks for methods so:

In my main partnership we play intermediate 2M bids, 10-13, 6 card suits, but throughout our system we play (and our WBF convention card states that we play) frequent upgrades into and out of announced ranges.

6=5 hands usually play better than the hcp count, unless there is a big misfit. So the opener’s hand is, imo, right on the borderline between a conservative 2H and an aggressive 1H. I’m pretty sure my partner would open 1H….I’m a little more conservative so I’m not sure what I’d do at the table….seeing both hands makes it impossible to be objective.

If I opened 1H, the bidding is fairly easy up to 3H.

1H 2C 2H 3H

With 4=4 blacks and gf values we can respond 1S or 2C. Generally, we tend to bid 2C with extras or with 3 hearts and 1S with a minimum and no heart fit.

Over 2C, we play that 2D denies 6 hearts, 4 spades (2S), or a 5332 with scattered side values (2N)…so this is an easy 2H, ostensibly showing 13+ hcp and 6+ hearts. 3H sets trump and suggests a willingness to cooperate in slam exploration….or better.

Over that…well, again, I can’t be objective but, despite having already upgraded into 1H, this hand isn’t awful so I’d like to think opener would cooperate. We’d bid 3S as our cheapest control…we don’t mind our first cue being shortness when it’s not partner’s main suit (on the bidding). Responder bids 3N, denying a club control but evincing ongoing interest. Opener bids 4C and I expect responder will drive to slam

Say we’d opened 2H. Now responder bids 2N, establishing a gf

We play reverse ogust so opener rebids 3C, showing a good suit and a good hand. Cue bidding ensues and in this auction, opener will go nuts, since his hand is so good in context

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2024-December-31, 15:57, said:

With 4=4 blacks and gf values we can respond 1S or 2C. Generally, we tend to bid 2C with extras or with 3 hearts and 1S with a minimum and no heart fit.

That is our general rule too. I would not get into a 1S auction here.

mikeh, on 2024-December-31, 15:57, said:

Over 2C, we play that 2D denies 6 hearts, 4 spades (2S), or a 5332 with scattered side values (2N)…so this is an easy 2H, ostensibly showing 13+ hcp and 6+ hearts. 3H sets trump and suggests a willingness to cooperate in slam exploration….or better.

I like that a lot - more than both our natural-ish system and the relays that some other pairs here are playing over 2C.
Unfortunately although it fixes the root cause of my problem it is a bit too artificial and forget-prone to force on my current set of partners, I will note it for future use thanks.

What happens after a 2D rebid over 2C?

[jdiana]

pescetom, on 2025-January-01, 11:07, said:

That is our general rule too. I would not get into a 1S auction here.


I like that a lot - more than both our natural-ish system and the relays that some other pairs here are playing over 2C.
Unfortunately although it fixes the root cause of my problem it is a bit too artificial and forget-prone to force on my current set of partners, I will note it for future use thanks.

What happens after a 2D rebid over 2C?

I defer to mikeh's expertise, but we had a different set of priorities. 2♦ would deny holding four spades, but could still have six hearts. I'll have to revisit that if I ever get back to playing again.

[pescetom]

jdiana, on 2024-December-31, 15:04, said:

We routinely bypassed a 4-card spade suit with a GF hand, so our auction would probably start

1♥ - 2♣ (GF)
2♦ - 2NT
3♥ (promising 6) - 3♠ (agreeing hearts - since the 2NT bid promised two hearts - and showing a spade control)

We had no way for the opener to unilaterally set trumps other than a jump rebid to 3M with a solid suit.

Thanks, this is exactly the sequence I was thinking about (but I didn't want to force it on the discussion).
We would probably bid the same way up to 3♥, with almost the same meaning but one crucial difference: 2NT for us does not promise two hearts. The system says explicitly that 2NT shows willingness to play NT from our side and asks opener to continue to describe his hand, but neither promises nor denies a balanced hand.
Developments beyond 3♥ are not spelt out and we are left in a bit of a stalemate, because on the one hand the system emphasises control-bidding the entire level below game when possible but on the other hand it is strict about explicitly agreeing suit fits.
As I see it, 3♠ has no real use here in terms of stops for 3NT, so it might as well be about hearts, which is fine if partners know and agree.
I can't say the same for 4♣ however, as that would be useful natural (although probably not as useful as a control-bid fixing hearts).
And 4♦ is out of the question as that really is needed natural.

So far I have ducked the question with slam interest, jumping to 4NT with less trusted partners and bidding 3♠ undiscussed with more trusted.
But we really should have a clear agreement that allows us to fix trumps.
I figure this could be either:
(A) 3♠ fixes trumps in hearts and suggests but does not promised spades control; 4♣/4♦ are natural
(B) 3♠ and 4♣ are control-bids fixing trumps in hearts; 4♦ is natural.

Of course there is also the related problem of what happens in the analogous auction where opener has spades instead of hearts.
Here this could be either:
© 4♥ fixes trumps in spades and shows slam interest, does not promise or deny any control; 4♣/4♦ natural
(D) 4♣/4♦ are control-bids fixing trumps in spades; 4♥ is RKCB fixing trumps in diamonds.

A and C are probably more mainstream, but B and D closer to our style.

[mike777]

A whole lot of judgement decisions to make on that auction.
start with 2 clubs on ratty 4 card club rather than that excellent 4 card spade suit
rebidding 2nt rather than 2s, west never bid their best 4 card suit, for that matter west never bid their best 3 card suit..
rebid 3h rather than 3d.
Have the K of H rather than K of D

As others have said, a bit of unconscious bias may creep in seeing both hands, but.....

27 hcp slams with no voids can be tough to bid at times...

[jdiana]

We actually had some other agreements that might have helped here, but I don't think they're standard so I didn't want to muddy the waters. But here it is FWIW:

Responder's jump to 3NT shows about 16-17 HCP and is a mild slam try. (It also promises stoppers in the unbid suit(s).) After that, 4♣ would be Gerber. So it could have gone:

1♥ - 2♣(GF)
2♦ - 3NT (slam interest)
4♣ (Gerber) - 4♠ (2 aces)
6♥ ?

The first part of that is recommended (IIRC) by both Larry Cohen and Robert Todd, but neither of them (again, if memory serves) discussed where to go from there. See, e.g., https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/425 I "made up" the agreement that 4♣ would be Gerber. I know a lot of people hate Gerber and there might be better uses for 4♣ in that situation, but it seemed like a reasonable approach.

(Again, this is probably influenced by seeing both hands. East might very well have simply bid 4♥ after 3NT.)

EDIT: If anyone else includes this version of responder's jump to 3NT and has good continuations, I'd be very interested.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-January-01, 12:12, said:

A whole lot of judgement decisions to make on that auction.
start with 2 clubs on ratty 4 card club rather than that excellent 4 card spade suit
rebidding 2nt rather than 2s, west never bid their best 4 card suit, for that matter west never bid their best 3 card suit..
rebid 3h rather than 3d.
Have the K of H rather than K of D

As others have said, a bit of unconscious bias may creep in seeing both hands, but.....

27 hcp slams with no voids can be tough to bid at times...

Some of those are judgement, some of them style, some of them system.
For us 2♣ rather than 1♠ is near automatic here, a style choice given that 1♠ auctions can be difficult and run out of room in 4SF or whatever. 2♣ does not promise clubs in our system, so no concern about the ratty suit (nor about hiding the excellent spades, we are never going to miss that fit).
Whether to show the weak (but decent texture) diamonds rather than rebid hearts is a tough judgement decision, I agree. Although I tend to show the second suit even when in doubt.
Whether to repeat the diamonds rather than hearts is easier IMO: I would not do it, except maybe with stronger diamonds at IMPs.

Some resulting is inevitable, but bidding to 6♥ after learning about 6 hearts looks likely to me with almost any methods, even poor ones like West blasting 4NT and being forced to slam by 5♠. The issue is doing it better and knowing why we want to be in slam rather than in game or grand.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2025-January-01, 11:07, said:

That is our general rule too. I would not get into a 1S auction here.


I like that a lot - more than both our natural-ish system and the relays that some other pairs here are playing over 2C.
Unfortunately although it fixes the root cause of my problem it is a bit too artificial and forget-prone to force on my current set of partners, I will note it for future use thanks.

What happens after a 2D rebid over 2C?

Responder bids naturally. 2H shows 3+ (could be 4 with good, long clubs but, on a frequency basis is overwhelming 3), 2S is natural, 4=4 blacks or longer clubs. 2N is positional….and allows us some chance of finding diamonds when responder has 4 and opener has a convenient 3D bid over 2N). 3N is likely something close to 3=2=4=4 or 3=2=3=5. 3C is 6+.

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2025-January-01, 14:26, said:

Responder bids naturally. 2H shows 3+ (could be 4 with good, long clubs but, on a frequency basis is overwhelming 3), 2S is natural, 4=4 blacks or longer clubs. 2N is positional….and allows us some chance of finding diamonds when responder has 4 and opener has a convenient 3D bid over 2N). 3N is likely something close to 3=2=4=4 or 3=2=3=5. 3C is 6+.

Thanks. That is similar to what happens over 2D in our local conventions over 2C, but they tend to define 2D as showing any 12-14 opening, with 2M being 15+ and 2N 18-19. I don't see splitting the range as particularly compelling when we are already in a game force, except for the "balanced " 1M opening which could always rebid 3N to show 18-19.

One idea (off the top of my head) to refine your scheme further would be to play 2D and 2H as transfers, with 2S as the "none of these" bid. That would wrongside a contract in the second major, but allow Responder to nuance his replies and to obtain a third descriptive bid while still being able to raise a major at 3 level.
So here it might start:
1H - 2C
2D(6+ H) - 2H(tell me more)
3D(4+ D) - 3H

Does that make sense?

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2025-January-02, 07:00, said:

Thanks. That is similar to what happens over 2D in our local conventions over 2C, but they tend to define 2D as showing any 12-14 opening, with 2M being 15+ and 2N 18-19. I don't see splitting the range as particularly compelling when we are already in a game force, except for the "balanced " 1M opening which could always rebid 3N to show 18-19.

One idea (off the top of my head) to refine your scheme further would be to play 2D and 2H as transfers, with 2S as the "none of these" bid. That would wrongside a contract in the second major, but allow Responder to nuance his replies and to obtain a third descriptive bid while still being able to raise a major at 3 level.
So here it might start:
1H - 2C
2D(6+ H) - 2H(tell me more)
3D(4+ D) - 3H

Does that make sense?

We probably play as many transfers as any pair, certainly in NA, but I doubt we’d adopt them here. One issue that springs to mind immediately is that, in your scheme, opener has to bid 1H 2C 2S to show the 5 card heart suit (and no spade suit, I assume). Now responder has to bid 3H to set trump. Our methods have 1H 2C 2D 2H…we’ve saved an entire level of bidding space which is an important factor when slam is possible.

You do save space when opener has 6+ hearts….we bid 1H 2C 2H 3H to set trump while you’d be a level lower. However 6 card suits are less common than are 5 card suits, so you’re losing bidding space more often than we are.

I don’t see any advantage that offsets that bidding space issue.

One reason transfers are so powerful is that they can allow one to bid with far wider ranges of strength than would standard bidding, at least in many situations. Thus 1H (x) 2C shows diamonds for us. In standard, 1S (x) 2D has to be defined as one of (a) non forcing or (b) forcing at least one round. One cannot play it both ways…if one plays it non forcing, how does one bid with a good hand and long diamonds? One really can’t, not efficiently, so one has to redouble, and now the opps may jam you in spades, making it difficult to find diamonds. And if one plays it as forcing, one can’t bid with, say, KQ109xx and a side queen or so.

We do play transfers in other situations but we do so only when we perceive either increased flexibility or bidding space savings. As an example, our T-Walsh structure has 1C 1R 1N showing 17-19 balanced. This often leads to a gain when responder is weak, since standard bidders are having to rebid 2N after the response (there are gains on big hands as well since we have saved a level of bidding space, plus we can employ a modified version of our complex strong notrump response structure over 1N but our experience is that the most common gain is on weak hands).

I don’t see any overall benefit from your idea…I think it’s playable, but not quite as effective as what we currently play.

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2025-January-02, 10:21, said:

We probably play as many transfers as any pair, certainly in NA, but I doubt we’d adopt them here. One issue that springs to mind immediately is that, in your scheme, opener has to bid 1H 2C 2S to show the 5 card heart suit (and no spade suit, I assume). Now responder has to bid 3H to set trump. Our methods have 1H 2C 2D 2H…we’ve saved an entire level of bidding space which is an important factor when slam is possible.

You do save space when opener has 6+ hearts….we bid 1H 2C 2H 3H to set trump while you’d be a level lower. However 6 card suits are less common than are 5 card suits, so you’re losing bidding space more often than we are.

.....

I don’t see any overall benefit from your idea…I think it’s playable, but not quite as effective as what we currently play.

Yes, I was focused on the current 6 card hand and hadn't thought through how 5 card hands would be handled.
When I do get round to adopting a similar scheme I'll let you know if I still want to tweak anything. Thanks.