1174 is a fun shape

[mikegill]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sxhxdkjtxxxxck9xx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1N - 2♦* - ?

 

* = one major[/hv]

 

your agreements are that 2♥, 2♠ are to play, 2NT is lebensohl and 3-level bids are xfers, X is values and/or interest in penalizing

[jtfanclub]

I likes my chances.

 

3NT.

[pclayton]

(edited)

 

Start with 3♣.

 

What do your 3M bid mean after the transfer? What does it mean if pard accepts the transfer (does it show a minimum? A fit?)

 

Last, is a delayed call over their 2M meaningful or is it just a balance?

 

I realize you don't have the answers for all this, but I pose these to the others posting.

[pbleighton]

3C, transfer to diamonds, followed by 5D. Yeah, I know it's matchpoints B)

 

Peter

[jdonn]

Is there any agreement on what bids mean if I pass first?

[mikeh]

I choose 3♣ then I force to 5♦, usually by bidding it, but see below.

 

My instinctive reaction was 5♦, on the theory that the less the opps bid, the happier I am, and it is probably not critical to have partner as declarer: it may well be equally, or more, important to conceal my hand during the play.

 

But I'm going to 5♦ anyway (I expect) and I might be able to reach a slam by bidding slowly. At this heat, partner will never bump me to slam over an immediate 5♦ because I might be 1=1=8=3 without the ♣K, as an example.

 

So the slower route might, but probably won't, get me to slam.

 

This could happen several ways. If LHO stays out, partner may take the bump over 3♦ 5♦ with all the Aces and 3+ trump (reasoning that the odds are extremely high that 5♦ will be average minus, and/or that if I can expect 11 tricks opposite an average 1N, the 4 aces warrant the push). If LHO comes in, showing both majors, and partner bids 4♦, that should show a good fit, and I'd make a try....4♥, in all likelihood.

[neilkaz]

I transfer to ♦ and proceed slowly as we can have a slam if PD has the right cards... ie aces

[jtfanclub]

May as well bid 6 diamonds now. I seriously doubt that 5 diamonds will be an average.

 

Why is everybody so eager for slam? Your partner could have a flat hand with all four aces and the odds of slam working is still slim.

[han]

I will also force to 5D.

 

If I was interested in 3NT (that would mean quite a different hand) then I would start with a double.

[mikeh]

May as well bid 6 diamonds now. I seriously doubt that 5 diamonds will be an average.

 

Why is everybody so eager for slam? Your partner could have a flat hand with all four aces and the odds of slam working is still slim.

I am not 'eager' for slam. I am just not giving up on it :rolleyes: There is a huge difference.

[neilkaz]

May as well bid 6 diamonds now. I seriously doubt that 5 diamonds will be an average.

 

Why is everybody so eager for slam? Your partner could have a flat hand with all four aces and the odds of slam working is still slim.

Opposite four aces and 3 card support slam should be easy unless you lose 2♣ tricks or can't bring in a 3-0 split in ♦.

 

Maybe slam is too odds against, but I don't want to give up on it just yet.

[skjaeran]

3♣ transfer first.

If I get the opportunity I'll rebid 4♣ and then 5♦.

[Guest Jlall]

I would just jump to 5D. The risk of letting LHO bid 3M or whatever is too high for me, and I don't want partner to tip off the winning lead via some slow auction where he's cooperating for slam.

[jikl]

As a matter of interest, what does 4♦ mean? Transfer to ♥ or is it ♦ with possible slam interest?

 

Sean

[Fluffy]

this is MP, I will double and if partner doubles their suit I'll bid 3NT, if he doesn't I'll try 5♦

[the hog]

I disagree with most posters here. I will bid an immediate 5D. Why? My 4 card C suit is concealed; I don't think its crucial for pd to be declarer here; I don't want the opps bidding a Major if at all possible.

 

3NT is an awful bid imo. The chances of haveing fast stoppers in both Ms AND of bringing in the Ds is rather remote.

[mikegill]

For those who have inquired about the methods, I will do what I can.

 

No specific agreements about passing first then bidding. Double will in general be takeout and not penalty through the 3-level at least.

 

No agreement about 3M after pard accepts, presumably he would take this as showing values in the suit.

 

A direct 4d would be a xfer.

 

Xfer is inv+ since you can lebesohl and sign off in 3d with no game interest. Probably this should have been mentioned in the original post.

[benlessard]

3nt without stoppers.

 

If partner has stoppers in both majors then 3nt might easily be a better contract then 5♦ (esp in MP). Partner without stoppers in BOTH majors will bid 4c followed by my 5♦.

 

Im not afraid to lets opps bids maj at 4 level since they are R against W.

 

 

If we play fast show (wich is inferior to fast denies) then ill bid 2nt followed by 3nt.

 

(in some version or transfer leb 3♠ show stops and 3nt denies stopp)

[the hog]

"Partner without stoppers in BOTH majors will bid 4c followed by my 5D."

 

And why, pray tell, will your partner bid 4C over your 3NT???? 3NT tells pd that this is where you want to play.

[skjaeran]

"Partner without stoppers in BOTH majors will bid 4c followed by my 5D."

 

And why, pray tell, will your partner bid 4C over your 3NT???? 3NT tells pd that this is where you want to play.

He said:

3nt without stoppers.

So if 3NT conventionally say that he's got no major suit stoppers, obviously partner won't pass without both suits stopped.

[Free]

5♦, quick and easy

[mikeh]

I did a quick simulation, flawed because I did not have the time to do a matchpoint analysis: thus on the hands on which I 'scored' 3N and 5♦ as equivalent, some of them were no overtricks, hence a tie, and the others would have been mp wins for 3N, due to taking 10 or 11 tricks.

 

I did 80 deals, with partner constrained to no 6 card suit, no 5-4 shape, and 15-17 hcp and overcaller with a 6-7 card major, no side 5 card suit, and 7-16 hcp.

 

I also rejected 4 hands on which I felt that an overcall was inappropriate even with loose standards.

 

The result was:

 

Both 3N and 5♦ failed (3N usually did worse than 5♦ when both failed): 19

 

Both 3N and 5♦ worked (see above): 13

 

5♦ made, 3N failed: 24

 

3N made, 5♦ failed: 12

 

6♦ made: 8 times

 

Now, 6♦ was not clearly biddable on all 8 hands, but on 6 of them it seemed to me to be reasonable to reach the slam.

 

And on some of the 3N fails, but 5♦ makes or is less expensive, it would be clear not to play 3N if the 74 hand bid 3N, no stopper, but on the vast majority of those hands, opener would have had no reason to pull: usually hands with a single stopper in overcaller's suit, with the opps holding the ♦A...but one hand with opener AQx J8xx Axx AQ10..... 6♦ made and 3N failed on a low heart to Q9 tight.

 

On the basis of this admittedly imperfect simulation, the slow approach did better than bidding 3N, denying any major stopper for several reasons:

 

1. When opener passed 3N, it was often wrong. It failed 44 times out of 76 hands (one of the failures would make, and probably bid, 6♦) It was only clearly superior to 5♦ about 20 times (12 when it made and 5♦ failed, and some fraction of the time that both made, but 3N scored better).

 

Now this is a little unfair: on some of the 44 failures, opener wouldn't have passed 3N, and on some of them, both contracts failed.. altho 3N usually failed by at least a trick or two more.

 

2. Bidding 3N seems to make it very difficult to reach slam.

 

3. Reaching 5♦ (or 6) assured you of a good score on at least 32 of the boards. It broke even, when both made exactly, a good fraction of the time that both games made, and it gave a good edge when both games failed, which happened 19 times.

[whereagles]

I'm gonna bid 3♣ and see if pard can dbl opps in 4M. If he doesn't do that, I'll bid on over 4M.

[Foxx]

Interesting that people have mentioned 4♣ by partner over our 3NT.

 

How about a direct 4♣, by us, right here? Gerber? Sweet.

[mikegill]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saqjxhktxd98caqxx&w=skxxxxxxhaxxdxcjx&e=sxhqjxxxxdaqxcxxx&s=sxhxdkjtxxxxckxxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

I went with the blast 5♦ theory after a tank. I decided I was very unlikely to find out reliably whether 3n or 6♦ was better, and that it was very likely 5♦ was a reasonable contract. This turned out to be right here, but I thought it was an interesting problem. Also 1n (2d) 5d is a funny auction.