4 Suit Transfers & Minor Suit Stayman

[ArcLight]

Basic Stayman (2C to ask for a major) is quite useful.

 

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

 

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

 

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

 

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

[han]

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

Roughly 73.390, using a liberal definition of the term expert.

 

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

Maybe 11.703, give or take a few.

 

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

There are many good notrump structures around, not all using transfers, so it depends on what you compare it with. A good notrump structure will have lots of different auctions defined, so that there are (perhaps more than one) options available for all hand-types.

 

Compared to stayman+ all natural, Jacoby transfers are a big improvement. 4-way transfers are another improvement over stayman+Jacoby transfers+all natural. You will have many more possible auctions, and if you take care in defining all of these then you can have a good structure.

 

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand

 

This can be damaging. Not only do you give away extra information, the opponents may also be able to make a lead directing double or enter the bidding to show a good suit.

 

Is this a big problem?

 

I don't think so. You should avoid having this balanced invite anyway.

 

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

 

I strongly prefer transfer to a specific minor, i.e. 2S -> clubs, 2NT -> diamonds. This allows you much better slam bidding with minor suited hands (where you transfer to the minor and then show shortness or a fragment, depending on your taste).

 

But to answer your question, I don't think that having to go through Stayman to invite is a big problem (because I almost never use it), so I don't think that this cuts down on the benefits of 1NT-2NT.

[paulg]

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

 

Paul

[foo]

I have no idea where Hannie is getting his accurate-to-5-decimals statistics. I'd suggest taking them as being firmly tongue-in-cheek unless verified...

 

Playing Strong NT's, the goal is to be able to describe as many of the important shapely responding hands of differing strengths below game as possible since the expectation is that Responder will have invitational values opposite a 1N opening.

 

The big issue here is not accurate game bidding but rather accurate slam bidding, so the potential effect on your score is significant even if the hands where it matters come up rarely.

 

IMHO invitational hands exist so we should have invitations. I also firmly agree with Grant Baze and others who say that using Stayman w/o a 4cM as an invite makes things far easier for the Defense.

 

IME, I have found minor suit stayman to be more useful than minor suit xfers since for

a= very weak hands with 6+m I prefer to just blast 1N-3m

(let Them try and find Their fit at the three level.)

b= weak hands with 6+m I can do as above or just pass 1N

c= invitational hands with 6+m I just bid 2N

d= GF hands with 6+m and slam interest I use the sequence 1N-2C;any-3m

 

There are many 1N structures out there and lot's of debate as to what is optimal. Don't worry about it. Make sure you and partner are playing something reasonably standard and comfortable for the two of you.

 

Unless you want to put a =lot= of work and ATT memory effort in. Anything close to "optimal" is going to have to be complicated and have (un)reasonably high memory overhead.

[rbforster]

I recently learned "Polish MSS" from a friend who was watching some of the Polish experts. It puts all the minor hands into 2♠ pretty effectively, leaving 2NT as a natural invite without revealing opener's hand unnecessarily via Stayman. This is the structure:

 

After 1NT-2♠, opener shows his minor suit preference:

2NT - opener has ♦>♣ (or better ♦ if equal)

3♣ - opener has ♣>♦ (or better ♣ if equal)

 

If responder now bids 3♣ or 3♦ it is to play, either with a weak hand long in that minor, or a weak hand with both minors. I don't know what the experts play as followups, but other bids are various slam tries (3M probably shows shortness, etc). The tradeoff here is that there is still some ambiguity in which minor(s) responder has and also in opener length his preferred minor (3 vs 4+), but these can probably be managed (i.e. maybe Walsh relays for single minor suit slam tries and MSS for both minor slam tries).

 

Certainly the stayman invite with no 4 card major and the various weak minors hands come up a lot more than the various minor slam tries after a strong NT opener, so I think this is likely a good treatment on a probability basis.

[mike777]

I recently learned "Polish MSS" from a friend who was watching some of the Polish experts.  It puts all the minor hands into 2♠ pretty effectively, leaving 2NT as a natural invite without revealing opener's hand unnecessarily via Stayman.  This is the structure:

 

After 1NT-2♠, opener shows his minor suit preference:

2NT - opener has ♦>♣ (or better ♦ if equal)

3♣ - opener has ♣>♦ (or better ♣ if equal)

 

If responder now bids 3♣ or 3♦ it is to play, either with a weak hand long in that minor, or a weak hand with both minors.  I don't know what the experts play as followups, but other bids are various slam tries (3M probably shows shortness, etc).  The tradeoff here is that there is still some ambiguity in which minor(s) responder has and also in opener length his preferred minor (3 vs 4+), but these can probably be managed (i.e. maybe Walsh relays for single minor suit slam tries and MSS for both minor slam tries). 

 

Certainly the stayman invite with no 4 card major and the various weak minors hands come up a lot more than the various minor slam tries after a strong NT opener, so I think this is likely a good treatment on a probability basis.

ya not impressed with this method. Prefer

1nt=2s=

Minor suit stayman either weak with long diamonds, weak with both minors(5-5) or slam try with both minors (at least 4-4 prob more).

2nt=no 4 card minor

3c=4+ clubs

3d=4+ d

 

stayman still does not promise 4 card major but you will have one often.

[mike777]

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

 

Paul

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

[lowerline]

Basic Stayman (2C to ask for a major) is quite useful.

 

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

 

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

 

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

 

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible. There are a lot of variants around. Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

[whereagles]

1.

In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible.

 

2.

Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

1. You know, this stikes me as a funny thing, seeing that the 1NT opener is already a pretty well-defined bid :)

 

2. You mean people are starting to play keri? You must be an aussie :P

[glen]

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

 

Paul

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

There's not much more to this. Without a four card major, with most 8 counts one passes 1NT, and with 9+ (or a long minor) one bids 3NT.

 

If a pick-up expert partnership, would not be surprised to see these methods:

 

2♣: Stayman, can be garbage, promises a 4 card major, or a 5♠s invite. After 2♥, 2♠ is invite with 5♠s and 2NT is invite with 4♠s.

 

2♦/♥: Transfers, but ♠ invites go thru 2♣. These means 1NT-2Red;2M-cheapest bid is forcing.

 

2♠: Transfer to ♣s.

 

2NT: Transfer to ♦s, can be weak both minors. Opener bids 3♣ if does not like ♦s.

 

3♣: Puppet Stayman

 

3♦: Something

 

3♥/♠: 5-4-3-1 with 5-4 either way minors.

 

 

With my wife we use this easy-to-play structure:

 

2♣: Stayman, can be garbage, promises a 4 card major.

 

2♦/♥: Transfers.

 

2♠: Transfer to ♣s or with game invite in ♦s (shown by 3♦ rebid).

 

2NT: Natural.

 

3♣: ♦s, signoff or game going.

 

3♦: Asks for five card major

 

3♥/♠: Natural slam try.

 

On the opposite side of this spectrum, here are the latest ETM methods:

 

http://www.bridgematters.com/etmnt06.pdf

 

The objectives list what I consider important in a notrump structure.

[foo]

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:

1NT - 2C

2X - 2NT

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

 

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

The following pretty much sums up world class expert opinion on the subject.

 

Grant Baze: "I agree with Bobby Goldman that any convention that negates the raise of 1N to 2N as natural is terrible. If responder is forced to go through Stayman to raise 1N to 2N, the defenders have too much information, and will defend much more accurately than after 1N-2N;3N (or pass of 2N). Furthermore these natural NT raises are much more frequent than any hand types that use 1N-2N as artificial. Finally, the natural raises that end in 3N are the bread and butter of winning bridge, while any advantage from using the raise to 2N as any kind of transfer is minimal and extremely infrequent."

[david_c]

The following pretty much sums up worlds class expert opinion on the subject.

No it doesn't - how can you say that when Fred has been quoted in this thread as saying something completely different?

[foo]

The following pretty much sums up worlds class expert opinion on the subject.

No it doesn't - how can you say that when Fred has been quoted in this thread as saying something completely different?

???

 

"How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1N - 2N - p/3N) with the sequence:

1N - 2C

2X - 2N

since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?"

 

"Have to invite" means Responder must use this sequence to invite whether they have 4cM or not.

 

"Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1N or blast to game (bid 3N) with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed."

 

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

 

...and They are doing it this way because they find inviting w/ Stayman w/o a 4cM to be too helpful to the defense.

 

...This is what Grant's quote says about inviting w/o a 4cM...

[david_c]

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 1NT:2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

[foo]

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

It's not a different approach.

 

The point here is that Fred considers inviting using Stayman w/o a 4cM to be so bad (because of the information passed to the defense) that he would rather gamble on the result than invite if a natural 2N is not available!

[david_c]

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

It's not a different approach.

 

The point here is that Fred considers inviting using Stayman w/o a 4cM to be so bad (because of the information passed to the defense) that he would rather gamble on the result than invite if a natural 2N is not available!

Well, sorry, but your quote from Grant Baze consisted of four sentences, of which only the second makes this point. The first and fourth sentences are things which many experts (including Fred it seems) would strongly disagree with. This is why I objected to you saying that the quote sums up expert opinion.

[foo]

Grant was specifically comparing the utility of

a= having both Stayman and 2N available as invites.

vs

b= having only Stayman available as an invite.

 

He was not comparing

c= being able to invite in general

vs

d= not being able to invite in general

 

He certainly =implied= that he feels being able to invite in general is valuable, but that was not the question he was asked nor the question he was answering.

 

For my part, I'll be explicit about invites in general. The only place I've seen sacrificing invites as worth it is when playing against weaker opponents. Particularly at matchpoints.

OTOH, there is an old saying "Matchpoints is not Bridge."

Particularly against weaker opponents.

 

Fred & Brad are compromising. They do not have a natural 2N invite, and they have discovered that putting those hands through Stayman is Bad, so...

[mikeh]

I have been playing the method attributed to Fred since 1998: with no 4 card major, responder either passes 1N or bids 3N... almost always the latter...to the point that I cannot recall passing with a hand with which I wanted to invite.

 

Not coincidentally, I began playing this method after we added Fred to our Rosenblum team in 98 :)

 

The advantages include:

 

1) we often get a lead into opener's major: since responder did not stayman, LHO will choose to lead a major with a high frequency.. this often gives us a trick on the go and a tempo

 

2) the defenders have less information, during the play, concerning opener's shape and strength

 

3) in contrast, after a stayman, invitational sequence, the opps can defend far more accurately. You hold Q1073 Q1062 Kxx Jx: you are on lead after 1N 3N. Compare to being on lead after 1N 2♣ 2♠ 2N 3N. In the first case, you might well lead a ♠, but not in the 2nd case.

 

4) Declarer often has an advantage in play simply because he knows, with precision, the extent of the partnership assets, while the defenders have to deduce or infer what is going on.. and to do that they often have to communicate via signals, which, of course, can be interpreted by declarer as well. The more doubt there is, in the defenders' minds, about opener's shape and strength, the greater will be the declarer advantage.

 

BTW, this approach is NOT recommended for matchpoints. While you will steal some games, and pick up big chunks of imps when you do, you will overbid too many hands to make it a matchpoint approach... unless you like playing top-bottom bridge.

[bid_em_up]

For my part, I'll be explicit about invites in general.  The only place I've seen sacrificing invites as worth it is when playing against weaker opponents.  Particularly at matchpoints.

OTOH, there is an old saying "Matchpoints is not Bridge."

Particularly against weaker opponents.

Invites are for people who are afraid to take control of their own destiny. :)

 

Or paraphrased, Invites are for wimps.

 

(Of course....this only applies if both your partner and yourself are competent declarers).

 

In a 15-17 NT structure, I have long found that it is much more successful to bid 3N direct with any reasonable 8+ count, regardless of method of scoring, but it is much more effective at IMP's (instead of matchpoints) and especially against weaker opponents. The 24-25 hcp game rates to make more than 50% of the time, either outright or thru defensive error. These games should always be bid, imo.

 

Spot cards are also a factor. If the hand contains lots of 10,9,8,7's, the bid is clear cut. OTOH, 2,3,4's are a detriment. As a general rule, if the hand contains more than 1/2 of its cards higher than a 6 along with 8+ pts, 3N should be bid. Or if it contains a 5 card suit with working "spots", ie KQ108x, 3N should be bid.

[bid_em_up]

BTW, this approach is NOT recommended for matchpoints. While you will steal some games, and pick up big chunks of imps when you do, you will overbid too many hands to make it a matchpoint approach... unless you like playing top-bottom bridge.

You can win IMP's at MP play now? My oh my oh my!! The best of both worlds!! :)

 

I have found it is equally effective at both forms of scoring. The real keys are how good are you at evaluating your 8 counts, and how good your/partner's declarer play is. This, unfortunately, takes some serious evaluation of player skills, which as we know....aren't always the most accurate evaluations in the world.

[foo]

At IMPs, a >= 5/11 White game is a good game.

At IMPs, a >= 3/8 Red Game is a good game.

Both of the above assume you are never being X'ed.

At IMPS, assuming you make or go -1 you have to make >= 2/5 of your X'ed games.

 

At MP's or BAM, you want to always be bidding par or absolute par.

 

You can't always bid this accurately, and there is always "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" where you ignore the odds because you have contempt for the opponents ability or you are desperate, but the above is what we should be striving for if we are trying to play bridge as well as possible.

 

NOTE: Let me be clear that I do =not= consider such "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" to be good bridge.

 

Now let's look at this issue of never inviting but always playing either 1N or 3N when that is the game we have to decide on.

 

Let's say 1N= 15-17 and Opener is good enough to make sure that they are opening neither exceptionally poor 15's nor exceptionally good 17's 1N= 15-17. They "have their bid" when they open 1N= 15-17

 

Let's assume Responder has one of:

a= the minimum invite: an average 8 HCP w/ a 5cm

b= the average 9 HCP w/o a 5cm

c= the average 9 HCP w/ a 5cm

Since We have ways of inviting w/ 8-10 HCP when we have Major suit length, we will ignore responding hands with Major suit length. (We will also ignore for now the possibility of 4M333 and a Responder that does not use Stayman with this shape.)

 

When GOP opens 1N=15-17 odds of what they have are approximately

15 HCP 44%

16 HCP 33%

17 HCP 23%

These odds are =not= accurate, but the ratio between them is close enough for this discussion.

 

A "good" game is one based on 26 combined HCP w/o a fit or 25 HCP w/ a fit.

 

This means that

1= If you are ResponderA, you should always pass 1N since the odds of having 25 HCP =and= a fit are considerably less than 23%. You will be wrong ~12% of the time.

2= If you are ResponderB, you basically have darn close to a 50% guess. At Imps, you bid 3N. At MP's or BAM, you flip a coin. Good Luck.

EDIT: 4333 9 counts should usually be downgraded. Odds of fit are less.

3= If you are ResponderC, you have ~40% chance that you belong in Game, and so should always bid 3N Red at IMPs, flip a coin White at IMPs, and pass 1N at matchpoints or BAM. You will be wrong ~60% of the time.

 

If your opponents are equally skillful as you are and play a structure where they have to guess less in this situation than you do, They have a clear advantage.

 

In short, this method of not having invites boils down to a form of "contempt bridge" or "desperation bridge" since you are basically gambling then hoping for a lucky lie of the cards and/or for the opponents to make mistakes when you are in the wrong spot.

[mikeh]

foo: your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You are completely ignoring the basic reality that the defence is far more difficult after 1N 3N than after 1N 2♣ 2M 2N 3N.

 

And it is nonsense to claim that the 1N 3N school relies upon poor defence for its gains: the best defenders in the world will make more 'leads that do not work out' after the direct auction than after the slower, informative auction. As (I think it was) Reese once wrote: 'there is no such thing as a blind lead, only a deaf leader'. The more info you give a good defender, the more accurately he will defend.

 

Thus the truth is that a 'poor' game will make more often after a blast to game than after an invite...while my belief is that this edge is not large enough to warrant this blast approach at mps, it is definitely a benefit at imps... and I am far from alone and a heck of a long way from being the best player to espouse this approach

 

BTW, I also reject your notion that one needs 26 hcp to make for a 'good' game contract. I have not done the research myself but I read some years ago of a study of hands played in 3N in world championships and the conclusion was that a balanced 12 opposite a balanced 12 gave approximately a 50% chance for game. Meckwell have made a (very good) living out of 23 point 3N contracts. Yes, at that level, declarers are better than average :) , but so are the defenders.

 

I think that for a moderately skilled declarer, a combined 25 is more than enough, without the need for a long suit source of tricks.

[foo]

24 HCP split exactly 12+12 is an odds on game.

 

24 HCP split 15+9 is not and it gets progressively worse as the disparity increases to 16+8 or 17+7.

 

25 HCP =and a fit= is an odds on game as long as the HCP disparity between the two hands is not too extreme.

 

W/o a fit, 26 HCP are the minimum for an odds on game as long as the HCP disparity between the two hands is not too extreme.

 

The studies on this go back to at least Bobby Goldman's computer sims when he was on the Dallas Aces.

 

EDIT: At IMPs, especially Red, we should bid Game more aggressively and there are plenty of 24+ HCP games that should be bid under these circumstances.

 

Eric Rodwell is probably the best ATT player in the world today. The vast majority of us are not going to do well in events if we make a habit of bidding 23 HCP games that are not based on "something special" going on...

 

"something special" includes all the stuff we talk about as grounds for bidding light games: big fits, double fits, control richness, exceptionally well fitting hands, exceptionally pure hands, etc, etc.

 

Obviously, the Opening Lead is the most difficult and most likely to be wrong choice in bridge. But Reese's comment is accurate here as well. If you are playing such methods vs competent defenders, they should interrogate you as thoroughly as possible about your systemic agreements and discussions regarding what is allowed to open 1N and what the expectations of Responder are in these situations.

 

If They hear 1N-allpass or 1N-3N;allpass when you are playing such methods and they just put a card on the table, They have not used all the information available to them in making their decision.

 

I may not get it right, but by the time I lead against such methods it will be as =UN= blind as I can manage.

[awm]

Nonetheless, if you hear 1NT-3NT, and are told:

 

1NT shows 15-17 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, could contain a five card major.

 

3NT shows either 9-13 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, which could contain a four or even five card major with any pattern, or less than 9 hcp with a six card suit (could even be a major) that potentially might run.

 

How much does this help you on lead? Either opponent could have four or even five cards in any major you choose to lead. They could be bidding on sheer power, or on a hopefully-running suit, or pushing to a borderline game on two balanced hands. They could be in the field contract, or they could have a nine (or even ten) card major fit that they missed because they don't bid stayman on balanced game force hands without slam interest.

 

I submit that no matter how good a player you are, making the best lead against this auction is hard. It would be much easier if you saw an auction like:

 

1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2NT; 3NT with the explanation:

 

Opener has shown a good 16-17 balanced including four hearts. Responder has a balanced or semi-balanced good 8 to a bad 10 with no four-card major. Now you know that opponents both have balanced hands, are in the borderline game zone (maybe pushing). You know that opener has four or more hearts (probably heart lead is not the best idea) and that responder doesn't have as many as four spades. Of course, a bad player may not make good use of this information, but I think a strong player is much better positioned to succeed on opening lead here than on the first auction, don't you?

 

Of course there are tradeoffs -- the less informative path is more likely to get you to a bad spot (either because you missed a major fit, or because you really don't have the strength for the game you bid, or because some suit is wide open and you didn't diagnose it, etc). But even the best player in the world is going to be hard-pressed to make the best lead against the less informative auction. So you have to weigh the gains and losses. Sometimes blasting is best.

 

Recently my opponents produced the auction 1♥ - 2NT - 4♥ - 6♥. The explanations were that 1♥ was natural (five-card majors, 11-20 or so hcp), 2NT was a game-forcing heart raise, 4♥ showed a bad hand with no singleton or void, and 6♥ was to play. I held:

 

Jxx xx xxxx Txxx

 

What do I lead? How do I know? This is pretty much a pure guess, and I doubt that Meckstroth, Garrozzo, Hamman, Helgemo, Fantoni, or whoever else you want to name has a much better chance of going right here than I did. Turns out opponents are off a cashing AK in one of the suits, but if I don't lead it they have 12 top tricks. Sometimes blasting just works. Of course, if I had been on lead with the cashing AK they would have felt silly for not bidding more "scientifically..." but certainly if they had a cuebidding auction to the same 6♥ my chances of finding the right lead would improve dramatically. :)

[jdonn]

There is another issue in favor of overbidding to game instead of inviting. 1NT p 2NT p 3NT p p and you hold QJT9x Ax x JTxxx. It is 100% clear to double, especially if that asks for the lead of partner's shorter major. The opponents are getting terrible breaks, and even more importantly you know they have nothing to spare. However if the auction went 1NT p 3NT you couldn't risk it since they could easily have extra values.

 

This concept needn't even be as extreme. In the mold of what Adam was talking about, 1NT p 2NT p 3NT, and you have xx KT8xx xx QJT9. You better believe I'm leading a club. The opponents probably will have to work for every trick and I intend to give nothing away. However 1NT p 3NT and I may well lead a heart that is riskier but has more upside, because of the likelihood that the opponents will otherwise have nine tricks too soon. If the opponents were overbidding 3NT on an 'invitational' hand, then you are likely to regret your risky lead. Keeping information away from opponents in close games is to your advantage.