[kenrexford]

I'm not so sure that the arguments about deciding immediately make sense.

There is a strange reality in slam aspirational bidding. The 4-4 fit offers a trick better expectation than the 6-3 fit, as a general rule. Thus, with 6-4, the best slam probe is often to find if the 4-4 fit exists (or 5-4), and to resign at game if not. If 3NT must be bypassed to ensure showing both, and if the long suit is a minor, resolving to Stayman seems like the best option. Of course, if you decide to commit to 4♠ or 5♦, that is different.

This hand, however, is a tweener. You need about five covers for 6♠, but six covers for 6♦. It is not clear that 10 tricks are available at 4NT, without losing 3, and 11 at 5♦ is equally uncertain.

Thus, you start at 3♣, Puppet, and move later if Partner super-accepts.

I see merits to the suggestion of 4♦ after spades is agreed with a 3♠ call. That approach seems to be as workable as my preference. That being said, how would those who bid 3♠ define a call of 4♣, 4♦, or 4♥?

I also like 3♠ as waiting, with 4♠ as a picture bid. I'm not sure I would elect "three side Aces but poor trumps" as my definition, but it at least resolves one hand type well.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 6 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

OK, so to extend my general desire to make natural calls, I would assume that

2NT - 3C
3D - 3H
3S - 4m

also shows 4 spades and a longer minor: tell opener where his high cards are important. Stick with 4H as a general values slam try.

Without discussion, I would think that 4m here is a cue in support of spades. We've found our fit; why look for another?

[mike777]

No one commented on that fact that Meckwell plays a strong 2nt opening bid in the context of a strong club system. This surprised me considering how much people think 2nt is a slam killer bid.

[bid_em_up]

mike777, on Nov 5 2006, 08:56 PM, said:

Weird, you guys bid Puppet and find the slam or did Meckwell mess up?

Mess up? Not likely. While the slam can certainly be bid, sitting at home looking at both hands, that is entirely different from bidding it at the table. I have doubts as to how many people would actually do so, when faced with the problem at the table. It actually appears (to me) that most feel it is just barely feel that it is biddable or can construct an auction to do so.

Just because they are good.....does not make them perfect, and sometimes this sort of thing will still occur. Other things that cannot be taken into account in a forum are outside factors that may or may not contribute to bidding this particular slam. To name a few:

What day of the Spingold is it? And how many sessions have they played so far? Maybe one or both are tired. (Or sick, not feeling well, didnt sleep good, etc.).

Are they playing a team they expect to beat? If so, bidding this slam probably isnt necessary. It will be difficult (for most pairs) to bid at the other table as well.

What board is it? Maybe they know they are way up in the match and dont need to bid this slam. Maybe it is early in the match (or the first board) where they know it usually pays (imo, anyway) to be a little more conservative in a long match. An early disaster can cause more problems later. (Although, this is probably less true for meckwell than it is for "average" players", they can get over it and move on). Maybe its close to the end of the set and they know they have had a good set and are running behind (or hungry....).

Not knowing their system well....it is entirely possible they have some other slam going/control showing bid over 3S.

[bid_em_up]

awm, on Nov 5 2006, 09:53 PM, said:

As is often the case in standard bidding over 2NT, at some point responder has to take a position that this hand is worth a slam try in order to reach slam.

It's not hard to produce auctions to get there, for example:

2NT - 3♣ (regular stayman)
3♠ - 4♦ (natural, slam try, not specific about major)
4♠ (cue, good hand for diam slam) - 5NT (pick spades or diamonds)
6♠

Seeing both hands this is pretty easy, but again it's not clear whether people would bid this way at the table. Probably some would, but they'd also get overboard more often on hands where slam is bad.

Odd, I would think 4♠ would simply say that I lacked a heart cue.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Nov 6 2006, 11:11 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 6 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

OK, so to extend my general desire to make natural calls, I would assume that

2NT - 3C
3D - 3H
3S - 4m

also shows 4 spades and a longer minor: tell opener where his high cards are important.  Stick with 4H as a general values slam try.

Without discussion, I would think that 4m here is a cue in support of spades. We've found our fit; why look for another?

That depends on your default mindset for slam tries. Unfortunately I agree with you that in standard, a slam try after having found a fit is a cue bid.

However, enlightened minds (who know you also need 12 tricks to make slam, not only avoid 2 quick losers) play that the first slam try after having found a fit is always a natural bid, patterning out shape.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Meckwell somitmes tends to blast contracts to 'deny' the other pair information about the contract(my guess)

I suspect that 'if' Meckwell opens 2NT with 19HCP, this would suggest that slam attempts would be based around that 'bottom' range.

Hi hrothgar

I find 2NT openings 'that are narrowly defined with decent methods after 2NT are not the slam killers that many believe them to be.

My methods use a both transfers and double transfers to both save space and hopefully tell partner the information that he might need.

I hope that I am not 'fixating' on HCP 'point.' I stress controls and how the hands 'fit' in my partscore, game and slam bidding. The value of a hand may change dramatically as the 'fit' or 'nonfit' is shown during an auction.

I found your simulation results extremely interesting, however, I try to build my system methods to follow the same path in as many auctions as possible.
In addition, I strive to place the contract in the strong hand as often as possible.
Your 4H bid showing three Aces, but denying any high trump honor would place the contract in the 'wrong' hand.

Game contracts outnumber slam contracts, so I try to bid my games first and attempt to get to decent(good?) slams only after the game bidding. Your suggested bidding costs me several of my favored methods. I would lose 4H*(Last Train)and I also use both 4C and 4D to show shortness. Double transfer bids permit three shortness showing 'suits' by using the 4m bids as double transfer bids.

The cost of your suggested methods is much to high for my chosen methods. I have discarded many bidding methods because of their cost. I examined garbage Stayman and found that it showed gains over a large number of auctions. I just cannot use garbage Stayman because it costs me other more useful methods.

A great deal of information is exchanged by both the use and non use of bids. My auctions tend to define fairly clearly the goal and values in many auctions.

Aren't you a relay player, these methods would seem to fit very well into a relay type method. I live in ACBL land and so I am banned from bidding a relay system.
We must protect the great unwashed public from a 1C bid that shows hearts.

Again many thanks for your helpful input. Whether I select a method or not, I am a bridge systems collector and I do like to be aware of what is out there.

I am new to Turbo, so I fully expect to have to change my approach as difficult hands show me that my current methods are not working.

Best Regards,
Robert