[mikl_plkcc]

We have just a hand where we got a poor result because we ended up 3NT where everyone else bid slam.

---

The bidding went 2♣ - 2♠ (7-9 HCP) - 3NT.

The scoring was IMP. I was seriously thinking if I should bid 5♣ over 3NT but didn't do so, and we ended up 3NT+3, while everyone else bid a slam (although one table gone 7♣-1).

If I bid 5♣ the opener would have gone 6.

If the opener first rebid was 2NT I would have gone 3NT because our system doesn't have a mechanism to show a long minor after a 2NT opening.

How would you have bid slam on this hand?

P.S. edited a typo. The step response for 7-9 HCP was 2♠

This post has been edited by mikl_plkcc: Today, 18:14

[smerriman]

I don't like the idea of showing a specific number of points to a 2♣ opening at all; shape and where your values actually lie is far more important information.

2♣ - 3♣ positive - 4♣ seems the simplest, after which you can settle in slam once you've discovered you're missing the ace.

[steve2005]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-10, 18:22, said:

2♥ (7-9 HCP)

Showing hcp ranges rarely gives you useful information. Only when both hands are flat does it help.
If you must show points you should show control points.
So 2♦=0-1, 2♥=2 controls etc

So if responder bids 2♥ showing 2 controls you know either 2 black Kings or A♦

[mw64ahw]

Classically 2♣-3♣
but I play
2♣-2♦
2N 22-23-3♠ puppet to 3N
3N-4♣ SI ♣

[bluenikki]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-10, 18:22, said:

We have just a hand where we got a poor result because we ended up 3NT where everyone else bid slam.

---

The bidding went 2♣ - 2♥ (7-9 HCP) - 3NT.

The scoring was IMP. I was seriously thinking if I should bid 5♣ over 3NT but didn't do so, and we ended up 3NT+3, while everyone else bid a slam (although one table gone 7♣-1).

If I bid 5♣ the opener would have gone 6.

If the opener first rebid was 2NT I would have gone 3NT because our system doesn't have a mechanism to show a long minor after a 2NT opening.

How would you have bid slam on this hand?

Like other commenters, I dislike the pointcount responses to 2♣, but that is not relevant to the hand. And I don't understand opener's 3NT bid; if that was intended as fast arrival, get rid of it.

But the real problem was that responder's hand screams slam. If you lack the mechanisms to express that, get some.

[bluenikki]

steve2005, on 2025-January-10, 21:02, said:

Showing hcp ranges rarely gives you useful information. Only when both hands are flat does it help.

So if you are emotionally attached to hcp responses, maybe you should restrict them to hands with no 6-card suit or 5-5. Find some way to show such hands above the point where your hcp steps leave off.

[pescetom]

I dislike the point count response and the clubs suit doesn't meet our requirements for responder to "interfere" with a minor (2 of top 3 honours), although I have an open mind about that agreement.
So opener would get to bid 2NT, over which responder bids 3S about minors, which opener initially declines with 3NT but responder insists with clubs and we discover the missing Ace.

[mike777]

Unfortunately reading these comments shows just how complicated bidding is without partnership detailed agreements even in the natural bidding forum.

I feel your frustration...

[jdiana]

It also shows why I hate minor suits.

[mw64ahw]

bluenikki, on 2025-January-11, 09:27, said:

Like other commenters, I dislike the pointcount responses to 2♣, but that is not relevant to the hand. And I don't understand opener's 3NT bid; if that was intended as fast arrival, get rid of it.

But the real problem was that responder's hand screams slam. If you lack the mechanisms to express that, get some.

Presumably ♥ are shown via 2N so you have to bid 3N to show the balanced hand?

[jillybean]

Good problem and I don’t have a good follow up for responder holding clubs.

2C 2D (A or K+)
2N 3C
3H 4C?

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-January-11, 15:03, said:

Good problem and I don’t have a good follow up for responder holding clubs.

2C 2D (A or K+)
2N 3C
3H 4C?

Agree, pretty straight forward.

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2025-January-11, 14:37, said:

Presumably ♥ are shown via 2N so you have to bid 3N to show the balanced hand?

As I said, get rid of it.

Easy way (but maybe not natural enough): with a long suit in an unbalanced hand, opener bids 2 under at the 3-level. With tolerance, responder bids 1 under.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-January-11, 15:13, said:

Agree, pretty straight forward.

If you think that showing a 4 card major at 3 level when you could have 5 and are not sure if partner has 4 is a good idea, then yes.

[bluenikki]

mike777, on 2025-January-11, 11:50, said:

Unfortunately reading these comments shows just how complicated bidding is without partnership detailed agreements even in the natural bidding forum.

I feel your frustration...

But aren't you forced into complications by step responses of any kind?

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2025-January-11, 15:24, said:

If you think that showing a 4 card major at 3 level when you could have 5 and are not sure if partner has 4 is a good idea, then yes.

Don't play puppet, never care
This auction is almost always slam try in clubs.
However on this auction over 4C
4D-rkc for clubs
4h- natural 5h,can't remember this ever happened
4S- natural 4s
4nt- natural to play.

[mike777]

 bluenikki, on 2025-January-11, 15:29, said:

But aren't you forced into complications by step responses of any kind?

What?

[mikeh]

Sounds like the OP is playing something like a method invented by the legendary Oswald Jacoby, who invented jacoby transfers and jacoby 2N forcing raises. I actually played them for a short while…I think before I got to 10 masterpoints, lol.

Methods count. For all my partnerships, including friends with whom I play infrequently, it’s actually trivial

2C 2D

2D is our default bid for all complicated hands..indeed in my main partnership we don’t have a way of showing the traditional positive suit response based on 2/3 top honours and a 5 card suit.

So 2C 2D 2N, showing 22-24 hcp.

3S puppets to 3N, to play (we use 2C 2D 2N 3N for something) or to show either a single suited minor slam try or a slam try with both minors

Responder bids 4C, showing slam interest with 6+ clubs.

We actually play more weird stuff (optional keycard responses by opener…4D says I like clubs but am minimum, 4N denies liking clubs and bids starting at 4H, continuing to 5D show liking clubs and a response to keycard)

So (a) we’d bid slam and (b) responder knows we’re off a keycard.

You don’t need all that weird science. Using 3S as a puppet to 3N for minor hands isn’t complicated. Over 3N, 4C or 4D shows a one suited hand with mild slam interest or better while 4M shows 5-5 minors or better and short in the major.

When one plays bad methods, one gets bad results….that’s why they’re called bad methods. The solution is to find better ones. Hopefully this thread helps.

As for control showing responses, I’ve played them with an expert friend who liked them. I think they’re not very good. Shape rules. Your best contract is often due to distributional factors and is sometimes in a secondary fit…each partner not fitting the other’s primary suit. Control responses can take away a lot of bidding space, making it difficult to judge how well the hands mesh because the second suit sometimes can’t be shown below 3N (often a possible landing spot on strong misfits) and while opener knows partner’s controls, it may prove difficult to identify key lower honours even if a fit can be found.

[johnu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-10, 18:22, said:

The bidding went 2♣ - 2♠ (7-9 HCP) - 3NT.

Where is 3NT defined??? Why would a flat, 23 HCP hand jump to 3NT, taking up an entire round of bidding for absolutely not reason?

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-10, 18:22, said:

If the opener first rebid was 2NT I would have gone 3NT because our system doesn't have a mechanism to show a long minor after a 2NT opening.

Sounds like your "system" has a lot of holes that need to be fixed.

[mikl_plkcc]

bluenikki, on 2025-January-11, 09:27, said:

Like other commenters, I dislike the pointcount responses to 2♣, but that is not relevant to the hand. And I don't understand opener's 3NT bid; if that was intended as fast arrival, get rid of it.

But the real problem was that responder's hand screams slam. If you lack the mechanisms to express that, get some.

The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.

Then I decided not to bid 5♣ over 3NT because 3NT is almost always better than a 5 of a minor.

Both 6♣ and 6NT were makeable on other tables.

Do you think that, in general, traditional response to 2♣ (where anything other than 2♦ shows at least a good 5-card suit) is better than step responses?