All News

A “May-be Slam”

Approaching a “maybe” slam is what today’s article is about. Your partner opens a weak no trump and you have a 16-count, a reasonable but not great suit and no shortage. Two flattish hands, therefore, and a maximum 30hcp. On some days, slam is there: on others, you might even be struggling to make game!

 

 

 

Your partner opens a 12-14 1NT.

You elect to transfer to spades (2). What now when:

a.    Your partner bids 2.

b.    Your partner super-accepts with 3. (maximum points, 4 spades)

We took this in three stages with the Panel. Firstly, were they happy to transfer as opposed to say bidding 3 which many play as a slam try in spades? There were mixed responses, the first two having their own approaches:

 

Bruce Anderson “I am transferring to spades; the only alternative, an old fashioned 3, game force, slam interest, takes up too much bidding space. This kind of hand is why a system like Symmetric Relay was invented; responder can find out opener’s exact shape and the whereabouts of his/her honour cards, and then know, not guess, whether to bid the spade slam or play game.”

Michael Cornell “No- because I do not have a suitable bid when partner simply bids 2. My initial bid would have been 4, a mild slam try with 6+ spades.”

Peter Newell “It depends a bit on options. I would rather bid 3 forcing if available. The main reason is that it looks like spade contracts will play better from my side with the lead coming up to my minor suit queens. The other reason for 3 forcing is the lack of a good rebid once partner accepts the transfer of 2. Over a super-accept I have an easy 4 cue bid. If I can't bid 3 forcing then yes happy to transfer. 

Kris Wooles “4: I think mostly we are looking at game so a practical bid of 4 would mean the lead would be up to the minor suit queens rather than through them. Downside is we may miss a slam.”

The problem with a transfer is what to bid when partner replies with 2. Kris continues:

“If I went with the transfer then after 2, I would bid 4.” 

Meanwhile, Andy was happy to transfer and his continuation over 2 would be:

Andy Braithwaite “4 which is a mild slam try- with a game hand only, I bid 4 transfer to spades.” (presumably over 1NT)

Bring on the 3 bidders:

Bruce Anderson “3: to find out more about partner’s hand. Their next bid will tell me whether they have spade support; if so, a slam can be investigated.”

Stephen Blackstock “3: Slam is still possible opposite a perfect minimum for example Kxxx,KQx,Jxx,Axx. Even Kxx,KQxx,xx,Axxx makes slam excellent. Let’s see what partner has to say.”

Peter Newell “3: This will help uncover whether partner has 3+ spades in which case I'm interested in slam. Over 3, if partner bids 3NT, I'll pass.”

Nigel Kearney “3: Bidding 3 looks like the normal approach after the 2 response to the transfer though it's not ideal with a one suiter. If partner continues with 3 we can cue bid, otherwise we can bid 4 next.”

So, bidding a natural forcing 3 seems to be the popular approach. However, on the actual deal, our partner may indeed have bid 3, a “super-accept”, maximum hand with 4 spades. What then? Back to Nigel:

“Over a 3 super accept, I would cue bid 4 and try one more time with 5 if partner signs off in 4.” Partner could have KJxx, KQx, Jx , Axxx so let’s stay optimistic. There are a lot of hands where slam could make.”

Bruce Anderson “4: which shows slam interest and denies a control in clubs. Slam could still be reached if partner does not sign off over my 4 bid.”

 

Stephen Blackstock “4: We still need further description from South. It will be very hard to bid some good grand slams, since KJxx,Kx,Kxxx,Axx say is not quite good enough for 7, but Kxxx,Kx,KJxx Axx loses only to 3-0 trumps. Clearly, a Blackwood sequence will not be adequate here. However, there is no hurry or need to prejudge what South may hold. I am always bidding 6 now and have no concerns about two quick club losers: as I see it any South hand with no first- round controls is too soft for a super-accept. If we don’t have that agreement now, we soon will!

Note that I don’t expect South to have a good side suit like AKJx. I would expect a 3 super-accept with that holding. All the space between 2 and 3 may as well be put to use when opener wants to show a good maximum opposite a 2 transfer.

 

Peter Newell “4: cue bid. I would expect partner to bid 4 with no club control otherwise 4 (in which case I'll key card) or bid 5. 

 

Here is an alternative way of cue-bidding and will help focus on that club suit, where we need partner to have at least one control for slam to be an option:

Andy Braithwaite “3NT: asking partner for a control in clubs. This cannot be to play with at least a 5-4 spade fit.”

Michael Cornell “3NT: serious slam try and over 4 continue with 4. If partner bids 4 now I will pass, having already made 2 tries.”

So, after a super-accept, our Panel are heading off to slam. However, there were mixed opinions on how we approach the above hand after partner’s 1NT opening. These are well summed up here:

Nigel Kearney “You could play that a 3 response to 1NT is a slam try in spades. You could also use four level transfers and respond 4 if you just want to play 4 but use 2 then 4 over 2 as a mild slam try. Either of those would work here.”

Let’s see the 4 hands:

 

 

In the above, 3NT was a waiting bid and was followed by three cue-bids. 5 showed one key card. With 10 trumps between the two hands, North did not ask for trump queen and just bid the slam.

Most players made all 13 tricks but should they? There is a 100% safety play to avoid losing two trump tricks with the above holding (even where West holds KJ4) but it involves leading a small spade from the North hand. You can only do that, in 6, if the diamond finesse works. So, maybe win the opening lead and take this finesse. When it works, take the 100% safety play in trumps. If it fails, hope the king is singleton.

So, an interesting maybe-slam to bid and then to play.

Any Thoughts?

 

A straightforward Stayman auction. 1NT was 15-17. Your partner leads A. Any thoughts?

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items