fromageGB

If the initial pass had not happened, ie dealer = West, then it is definitely more interesting. I take North to be either (a) stops sufficient for NT, but poor club stops, or (b) control for a diamond slam, with long diamonds and almost a 2 over 1, or © extremely long hearts, 8+, and will rebid them over 3NT Opener has to rebid 3NT I think, to cater for these, and responder will clarify. In the given bidding, I can't imagine a hand initially passing that would have enough to want to play in a diamond slam or in 4♥, so the only remaining alternative is (a) stops sufficient for NT, but poor or no club stops.

Thanks for the new simulation result, this does help. Applying matchpoints to your figures, assuming when you go off you go one off, and when making you make 9 or 10 in NT or 10 or 11 in spades, I get the expected not vulnerable matchpoint score of 413 for 3NT and 417 for 4♠. Interesting. If vulnerable, expected 607 for 3NT and 609 for 4♠. Almost identical, and as there are likely to be one or two contracts down 2 in spades, and a few plus 2 in NT, it pushes the preferred contract to be 3NT. As you say, as total hcp goes higher than 27, it will favour NT even more. So you have persuaded me, 3NT is always to be preferred.

I take the point, but "knowledge" of what aces and kings partner has sure beats "judgement" of them. You need judgement (and agreed methods) to decide when a slam might be a good idea, but then knowledge takes over.

I think you will find the equivalent natural bidding sequence 1♥ p 1♠ X 2♠ p 4♠ has declarer's hand equally unknown. And opener's hand equally known.

While I can intuitively see that with a marginal game 3NT is better than 4♠ because NT makes on average 8.7 tricks and spades 9.4, I am not convinced when there are a few more points in the hands. For example, with a 27 count, perhaps the probabilities change to NT=9.3 and ♠=10.1. Now you get 3NT making 9 for 400 and 4♠ making 10 for 430. At IMPs it would be better for the security of the NT contract, but at matchpoints 4♠ is the winner, even if 1 in 3 of the NT contracts makes 10 tricks. I think this means that in MP pairs you should be concerned about this issue only when game is borderline.

As you want to simplify things, you can take advantage of the fact that kickback gives you the same amount of room for responses whatever the suit, and have simple 1,2,3,0 steps in reply for the number of aces. The compression (and confusion) of 3014 or 1430 are not needed...

No, I've been misinterpreting this; since Han's original comment "you should strive to play 3NT when the shapes are 4333 opposite 5332, even when you have a 5-4 fit" I was thinking only of a 5-4 fit. I guess the logic applies to the 5-3 fit as well, maybe more so, but I don't do this. As you say, not easy after a normal 1NT open. In fact for me it is possible, because I play a 2-point NT range and don't have such a need for a 2NT invitational bid after a transfer. 2NT could be a GF 5332. Have to think about this.

I don't play this, but you could perhaps improve it by having a third transfer break. Opener could bid 2M+2 with a 4333. To this responder will retransfer to play part score or higher in the major, or bid 3NT on a 5332 with sufficient strength.

Sorry, Rainer, the original post had a mental typo. When opener has 4 card support in the transferred major, he makes a transfer break in one of two ways. We want to avoid mirrored doubletons, as 4342/5323 will make a marginal game (opener, shorter hand, ruffing) but 4342/5332 will not make the game. To achieve this, opener with 4333 or a doubleton in other than the transfer suit (ie ♦ with hearts as trumps, or ♥ with spades as trumps) bids 2M+1 (ie 1NT 2♦! 2♠ or 1NT 2♥! 2NT). Now responder can show his doubleton if he has a marginal 5332. Otherwise he retransfers to 3M and (or not) bids on accordingly. Knowing responder's doubleton, after eg 1NT 2♥ 2NT 3♦, opener bids 3M if he has the same doubleton, but 4M with a different doubleton. If opener has 4 card support and a doubleton in the transfer suit, he transfer breaks by bidding 3M. Responder can make the game decision. I have edited my original post to try to clarify it.

You misread this. With opener having 3 card support, he just completes the transfer and can play in 2M. With 4 card support we transfer break, so can always play in 3M, but not 2M. 3M usally makes, and by breaking transfer with a minimum 9 card fit you can find games that you would otherwise miss.

There is space after a 1NT open. With 4 card support after responder's major transfer, we play transfer breaks that show doubletons. The idea is essentially to enable the marginal 23 count 9 card fit games when you can each ruff the other's doubleton, but to avoid marginal games with mirrored doubletons. I think this is more important than enabling a 4333/5332 3NT game, but it has that as a consequence. Opener bids 3M to show a doubleton in the transfer suit (eg 4243 shape), otherwise bids 2M+1 and responder, if he has at least enough strength to look for game, bids his doubleton if he has a 5332 shape (1NT 2♦ 2♠ 2NT shows doubleton spade). (Otherwise responder retransfers to 3M.) Now opener can bid 3M with a 4333 or mirrored doubleton, but 4M without. Over opener's 3M, responder can pass or bid 3NT according to strength. We have so far found benefit in finding or avoiding marginal games but haven't yet seen the 3NT impact. edit - correction&clarification : opener transfer breaks to 3M with doubleton in the transfer suit. Otherwise you could just have a simple always 2M+1 transfer break and let responder show a doubleton in a 5332, but if this was the transfer suit it does not distinguish between looking for game if no mirrored doubletons, and just retransferring to play in 3M. So opener needs to bid 3M with the transfer doubleton to allow responder to decide. If opener's doubleton was some other suit, responder with a weak hand retransfers to 3M.

If this was supposed to be a comment on the non-serious 3NT, then 3NT is normally to play. There is no point in bidding "non-serious" when partner has made a limit bid. My reply was in generalities, not a hand such as Fluffy's. For example, After 1♠ 2♥ 3♥, 3NT would be non-serious as partner is unlimited. 1♥ 2♥ 3NT is natural.

Good question! I can't recall having had an 8 card suit in this situation, but would not play 4♥ as ace asking. A hand that can take control of the auction when it has bid an initial 1NT must be a beast so rare as to be impossible. It would need 3 top tricks in the other suits, as well as stuffing in diamonds - no, I don't think so. If such a hand exists, it can advance cue 3♥. So I guess the answer is 3♥ then 4♥ over 3NT, if very weak, or 4♥ over 3♦ with a stronger hand fancying game. So when I said "3♥ should not be a long suit", it should really be "3♥ should not be a long suit unless it is a REALLY long suit". :)

I prefer a 1♠ open because it looks more like a spade hand than a NT hand, even if you play 1NT can include a 5 card major. 1♠ - 2♣ (game force playing 2 over 1, not necessarily long clubs) 2♦ (waiting bid, so that responder can clarify his hand a little) - 2♥ (useful 4 card suit) 2NT (suggests playing in NT) - 3NT (nothing else to say) 4NT (slam suggestion) - pass Think of the 4NT as being like a quantitative NT raise, with responder passing on a minimum 13-15 hcp hand, but going 6NT on a 16 count. Or maybe trying 5NT on a 15 count, but here the spade shortage is not going to help opener's hand.

What would influence me to play in 3NT? B- Extra values and the others to a far lesser extent in the priority : C- Soft values I - Both hands are balanced A- 4333 shape F- bad trumps G- rightsiding H- Concealing your hand E- wasted values in partner shortness D- 53 or 62 fit rather than 4-4 Having said that, once there is explicit heart agreement I can't play in 3NT as it is a slam-seeking control in spades. (3♠ is "non-serious 3NT"). I think this is more useful than the ability to play 3NT.

3♥ should not be a long suit, as opener has already shown a 5x5x. 3♥ is either (a) stops sufficient for NT, but poor club stops, or (b) control for a diamond slam, with long diamonds. We assume the first, and bid 3NT. If he has the second, he will bid 4♦ and I will ace ask with 4♥. I am not worried about a spade loser.

Stick with 1430, as it is the best simple option, and you are already used to it. When you feel like moving on to something better, look together at minorwood and kickback.

To me, overcalling 1♠ on J8765 3 AJ8 QT54 is a step too far, as partner will expect a stronger hand, so may bid too high, and will happily underlead a K in defence. Make the J into a Q and then yes. Without the Q, it gains slightly from the obstruction point of view, but loses too much. The hand would make me consider overcalling 2♠ more than 1♠. It is a question of partner's expectation and style, I suppose.

Glad to see you made it back safely, Ken. Some of us were worried.

No, this is an example of the motto "gibberish in" (the thread) and "gibberish out" (Ken's contribution).

Did you mean to add "Am I making any sense here?" ?

Why? I play natural with forcing NT with one partner, and if she bids 1NT she denies 4 spades, so you have missed nothing other than the possibility of playing 1NT, which you have decided to forgo when you decided to go with the benefits of a forcing NT. I think you will find that people with this hand who play Flannery can also not play in 1NT. Just bid whatever your normal style is after a forcing NT. For me it is 2♦ to deny the strength a 2♣ bid shows, and partner will not pass without 6 of them, if she has 2 hearts.

Sorry, you are saying the doubleton would be a minor for you to open 1NT. Certainly a minor transfer is less likely, but with that hand, a 3 card major would not deter me at all.

Really? If I have a 3532 shape it would not occur to me to not transfer to hearts. OK, I always open a 5 card major that has a top-3 honour, but even so. What would I be supposed to bid with this shape? Stayman?

Like others, I seem to have no trouble without Flannery. In two main partnerships I play 2♦ as natural weak, or 4+4+ majors weak, and much prefer either of those. Flannery seems designed for a problem you can overcome in other ways, whatever the problem was.