[Fluffy]

---

MPs, 3NT ended up in -50 when +920 were available.

[mcphee]

You just gotta love pairs where playing 3N is an easy pass for either hand IMO. Imps would be a different tale I believe as E may well move over 3N ( I would use what ever form of super accept as W),3C for me after which reaching slam becomes much easier. Even if W were not to super accept E may feel that 5D has just as good a play as 3N, maybe better. The facts are even though partner holds S values to play 3N they may well require the A of D for 3N to make while that is not the case for 5D.

[apollo1201]

A bit unlucky but more on E as with 13 HCP, he *could* try more even if it it is pairs, even aceless, even if it ends up in 4NT instead of 3. Then W' with his control-rich hand and 4-trump support would get more excited. Hard to criticize him for going to 3NT at pairs potentially facing x KQx KQxxxx xxx.

[aguahombre]

Let me get this straight. East has shown slam interest with long diamonds; West has four-card support with all primes. West also has been made declarer for his AQT of clubs, and can picture slam in diamonds with 3N possibly down because of his bare bullet in hearts.

Armed with all this information, he signs off in 3NT and we are asked who gets the blame??? Duh. If it turned out he was right, he would get the credit instead of the blame, and extra credit for stupid.

[mikeh]

I blame the methods. I assume that the partnership thinks that there are better uses for 2S and 2N than as transfers (preferably with 2S being either clubs or an invite to 3N). I suggest a rethink.

Were opener to have been able to tell responder, over the transfer, that he has a good hand for diamonds, then there would be some chance that responder would keep going. As it was, all responder knew was that opener had spades well stopped. For all responder knew, opener held something like KQ10x. KJx xx AQxx

Thus the only fault one can find with responder is agreeing to play a poor method.

Opener is a different story, although I don't agree entirely with aguaman. Absent info to the contrary, I see no reason for inferring that responder has shown game interest. Even at mps, avoiding 3N when spades are wide open is a good idea! However, opener does know that responder has game values and opener has an incredible hand. I think opener should make a try over 3S, although in fairness it isn't clear what, given that responder has nothing to cuebid and opener has all the side Aces.

[aguahombre]

Interesting thought about maybe East's initial two bids did not necessarily scream slam-try. But it most certainly showed doubt about whether 3NT would be a good idea.

So, either way, West should not bid 3NT with that powerhouse in support of diamonds. A 4♣
control bid is cheap, free, and a hedge in case slam is not afoot.

1NT-* (whatever shows Diamonds)
3D-3S (shortness)
4C-4D (4D a forcing stall, instead of a jump to 5D denying slam interest)
4H-6D (With the 7th Diamond, and no interest in a Grand, time to stop the torture).

[wank]

4nt by opener can't be rkcb as responder hasn't shown slam values. it should be spades well stopped, all the controls and sufficient keycards and a diamond fit imo.

[mikeh]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-21, 08:34, said:

I blame the methods. I assume that the partnership thinks that there are better uses for 2S and 2N than as transfers (preferably with 2S being either clubs or an invite to 3N). I suggest a rethink.

Were opener to have been able to tell responder, over the transfer, that he has a good hand for diamonds, then there would be some chance that responder would keep going. As it was, all responder knew was that opener had spades well stopped. For all responder knew, opener held something like KQ10x. KJx xx AQxx

Thus the only fault one can find with responder is agreeing to play a poor method.

Opener is a different story, although I don't agree entirely with aguaman. Absent info to the contrary, I see no reason for inferring that responder has shown (edit) slam interest (originally typed ;game' but always meant 'slam'). Even at mps, avoiding 3N when spades are wide open is a good idea! However, opener does know that responder has game values and opener has an incredible hand. I think opener should make a try over 3S, although in fairness it isn't clear what, given that responder has nothing to cuebid and opener has all the side Aces.

[mikeh]

 wank, on 2015-June-21, 09:51, said:

4nt by opener can't be rkcb as responder hasn't shown slam values. it should be spades well stopped, all the controls and sufficient keycards and a diamond fit imo.

I agree and almost wrote that idea in my post, but wanted to limit myself to the ATB aspect of the auction. As is often the case with unusual hands, one needs more than just the initial 'transfer and show shortness' discussion.

[WesleyC]

I'm not sure I understand the methods, but assuming East showed long diamonds and short spades at MPs, then I think West is obligated to make a forward going move.

If my only choices were 3NT and 6D, then I'd take the high road.

[neilkaz]

Was 3♣ a transfer to ♦? If so, isn't the main purpose of transferring to a minor and then splinter to look for slam? Assuming that is true, West really can't hold a much better hand and he is brain dead for not making a move towards slam.

[fourdad]

I blame E 100%.

W has fully described the value of his hand with the first bid.

E NEVER DOES!!! Only E knows there is a minimum 9 card fit. Only E can revalue his hand after the 3NT to 16 playing points.

Over 3NT, after showing shortness in ♠'s. He has an EASY 5♦ bid!!

W, with the extra values in ♦ and 3 aces, should then bid 6♦ because he can upgrade the value of his hand due to the excellent trump support and controls.

These things happen often, imntbho, due to the tendency to crap on the minors, opting for NT.

[gszes]

That is one of the most interesting ways to make a case for the ==above thought bears repeating== I have ever seen:))))))))))

[Trump Echo]

 fourdad, on 2015-June-22, 04:24, said:

I blame E 100%.

...

Yes.

[rhm]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-21, 08:34, said:

I blame the methods. I assume that the partnership thinks that there are better uses for 2S and 2N than as transfers (preferably with 2S being either clubs or an invite to 3N). I suggest a rethink.

Were opener to have been able to tell responder, over the transfer, that he has a good hand for diamonds, then there would be some chance that responder would keep going. As it was, all responder knew was that opener had spades well stopped. For all responder knew, opener held something like KQ10x. KJx xx AQxx

Thus the only fault one can find with responder is agreeing to play a poor method.

Opener is a different story, although I don't agree entirely with aguaman. Absent info to the contrary, I see no reason for inferring that responder has shown game interest. Even at mps, avoiding 3N when spades are wide open is a good idea! However, opener does know that responder has game values and opener has an incredible hand. I think opener should make a try over 3S, although in fairness it isn't clear what, given that responder has nothing to cuebid and opener has all the side Aces.

I do not get this. Are you really claiming 3♠ is not forcing to game and you want to stop on a dime?
I consider this unplayable and I can well understand in this context why you prefer different methods.
But for the rest of the world playing this method 3♠ does not show game interest but is a game force. It therefore has to show at least slam potential.

With regard to the West hand:

Many claim to play 15-17 but will often upgrade 14 HCP hands having been burnt, but very rarely 17 HCP hands.
What they end up playing is a sort of 14-18 NT.
I consider the West hand closer to 19 than to 17.
But I am not surprised that somebody who opens the hand with 1NT will rebid 3NT in the above sequence.

Hand evaluation is still poorly understood. Look at all those HCP counters, who put blame on East.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-21, 08:34, said:

Absent info to the contrary, I see no reason for inferring that responder has shown game interest.

 rhm, on 2015-June-22, 05:24, said:

I do not get this. Are you really claiming 3♠ is not forcing to game and you want to stop on a dime?

Come on. It is obvious from context that Mike meant to write about slam interest, not game interest from responder.

But other than that, I agree with Rainer. This is not a 15-17 1NT opener.

I mean, let's say we told West that his partner has a long suit and shortness. Then when we told him next that these are in diamonds and spades, respectively, that would be the absolute worst combination to hear (after the initial news was admittedly great for this hand). And still people are suggesting to make a very unusual 4N bid!

[cherdano]

I also think the blame on East is misguided. He needs absolutely perfect cards for slam. Meanwhile, I know who would get 100% of the blame on BBF for 4NT-1 if he raised 3N to 4N and the West hand turned out to have ♠KTxx and no diamond ace.

[cherdano]

One more thought: having opened 1NT, I think West should superaccept the transfer with 3NT. Give Partner ♦Axxxxx and we are a favourite to make 3N (no, they don't always find a heart lead).

[billw55]

I admit I would open 1NT, not upgrading because of the 3343 shape.

But then, already on the edge of an upgrade out of 1NT, west's hand gets much better on east's bidding. And he never shows it.

[fourdad]

 cherdano, on 2015-June-22, 05:42, said:

I also think the blame on East is misguided. He needs absolutely perfect cards for slam. Meanwhile, I know who would get 100% of the blame on BBF for 4NT-1 if he raised 3N to 4N and the West hand turned out to have ♠KTxx and no diamond ace.

E is at fault for not bidding 5♦, not for not bidding 6!