two-part poll

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=skxhakxxdkxxxxckx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1N-2N*,

3♣*-3♥*,

?[/hv]

 

Playing strong NT, 2N is a relay to 3C, either to play it there or to show a 4-4-4-1 hand with game forcing values. 3H shows a singleton heart.

 

Do you agree with opening 1NT on this hand, and what would you bid now? (partner can pass 4 of a minor with a minimum, but in practice rarely does)

[655321]

Difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with 1NT.

 

Now, I bid 4♦. (OK, I would have bid 4♦ until I read the part about 4♦ being non-forcing... then I have to bid something else instead I suppose... odd methods - I really dislike the idea of 4♦ being non-forcing)

 

The hand is very good for slam, if partner has any slam interest. Could partner just be showing some bad 4144 9 count, hoping to avoid 3NT off the heart suit? Anyway(s), 5♦ will often have play, and if partner has a good hand, 6 should be a good spot.

Edited May 19, 2008 by 655321

[pclayton]

Easier if you can show transfer to the splinter (like Keri does). Opener can show a good hand, and then continue a force. I like this hand and I'm moving toward 5 or 6♦'s.

[CSGibson]

I really dislike the idea of 4♦ being non-forcing...

 

Could partner just be showing some bad 4144 9 count, hoping to avoid 3NT off the heart suit?

If partner has done as you said, upgrading a 9 count because we have a bid to show the shape, that's the same instance where partner will pass 4 of a minor. As I said, it happens rarely, but it does happen.

[gnasher]

4♦. If partner is passing that, we probably weren't making 3NT anyway - eg QJ10x x QJxx QJxx.

 

These methods would cause a problem if I had a similar hand with ♥J in addition. Now I'd expect to make 3NT, but would still be interested in slam opposite a suitable responding hand.

[rogerclee]

I will bid 4♦, since this is the only way we will ever get to a diamond slam, which I think is likely on.

 

I think playing 4♦ NF is awful. We have deprived ourselves of a lot of room to show this hand type with "GF values", but now we want to try to accommodate hands where 3N doesn't make and 4m is the limit when we have around 26 HCP? Even if this is true, how would we determine it with sufficient accuracy?

[CSGibson]

4♦. If partner is passing that, we probably weren't making 3NT anyway - eg QJ10x x QJxx QJxx.

 

These methods would cause a problem if I had a similar hand with ♥J in addition. Now I'd expect to make 3NT, but would still be interested in slam opposite a suitable responding hand.

If you added a J of hearts then I think this crosses the line into acceptable reverse territory, and thus would not open 1N.

[jdonn]

If 4♦ is nf now then I choose 4♥, the other option being a simple 5♦ but that sure doesn't seem like enough.

[gnasher]

If you added a J of hearts then I think this crosses the line into acceptable reverse territory, and thus would not open 1N.

Then make it Kxx AKJ Kxxxx Kx, where slam is cold opposite AQxx x QJxx Qxxx.

[andy_h]

4D

[whereagles]

Bidding is fine. 3NT now.

[effervesce]

5♦ should be perfectly safe - thus I'm rejecting 3NT. 4♦. If NF then otherwise 4♥ then 5♦.

[Guest Jlall]

4D NF seems ridiculous, I guess I am forced to bid 4H then change my system..

[Edmunte1]

4♦, forcing. I can't imagine playing this sequence as NF having benefits

[inquiry]

1NT is a must as you have no reasonable rebid over a 1♠ response to 1♦. On the other hand, if you are allowed to open four card majors, then a 1♥ opening bid would be acceptable.

[mikeh]

I have played the 2N puppet to 3♣, either to play or some 4441: it is part of Walsh Relays... but we played it as game force, and I join with the others who strongly criticize allowing responder to pass 4♦. It is a very, very bad approach.

 

You have to balance the costs and benefits of, on the one hand, being able to stop in precisely 4 minor, and, on the other, being able to set trump below game and thereby announce slam interest.

 

It is clearly right to opt for the latter, whether at mps or imps.

 

At mps, aiming for precisely 130 with a strong notrump opposite a 9 count or better is pessimistic, to put it mildly. At imps, we want to reach all games that are close to 50% even white, and the payoff for reaching a slam when the opps are in game is huge. While the payoff from +130 when the opps are +120 or -100 is slim to none.

[OleBerg]

Unless partner is simply checking whether I have remembered the system, he has a hand where the minor-suits are potential trumph suits. (If not he should use a normal Stayman or Stayman-like sequence.)

 

As i have five-card-support, two doubletons, and no queens or jacks, 3nt is simply an atrocity. Some might see the ♥K as wasted, but it really isnt; it's a sure trick.

 

This hand has the a better trick-taking potential than:

 

♠ KQx

♥ Exx

♦ Kxxx

♣ KQx

 

a 17 count with no wasted values.

The immidiate tricks are the same, as the two black-queen-tricks, are substituted by a ruff and the ♥K.

 

Furthermore the fifth diamond gives some protection of troubles in the trumph suit, and may provide a further trick if thrumphs are 2-2.

 

 

So I voted:

 

"Disagree with 1N, now another unlisted forward going move"

 

then found out there was no other forward-going move.

 

 

4nt is quite silly, as partner may have a hand where 5♦ is the limit, but also one where 7♦ is laydown.

 

I simply have to involve partner in the decision. My choice would be 4♦ rather than 4♥, taking my chances, that partner doesnt pass.

 

4♥ would have to be some king of general slam-invite, and will sometimes get me to the right spot , but we will have no way of checking aces, and grand-slam exploration will be almost impossible.

 

So this leads to another conclusion:

 

4♦ as non-forcing is as silly as 3nt is an atrocity.

 

 

On a final note, I disagree with 1nt, only if I can bid 2♥ on a 1♠ response.

 

As I play 16 reasonable points is ok for this, but I am aware that many will find this a bit rich. Anyway, as my profile says: I am an overbidder.

[CSGibson]

Ok, it seems reasonable to not upgrade every 4-4-4-1 9 count and to just make 4 of a minor/3 of a major forcing over the treatment. Thanks for the feedback. As it turns out, partner had:

 

[hv=s=sqjtxhxdaxxxcqjtx]133|100|[/hv]

 

and the first three tricks were ace of spades, spade ruff, ace of clubs in 5 diamonds (I made a 4♥ call because of the slam potential), losing to 3NT in the other room, which came home on the natural spade lead from Axxxxx.

[neilkaz]

4D NF seems ridiculous, I guess I am forced to bid 4H then change my system..

1N 100% now 4♦ 100% support with support !!!!!! and if this is NF...I will be a step behind (can't out run youthful talent at my age) changing the sys.

[neilkaz]

Ok, it seems reasonable to not upgrade every 4-4-4-1 9 count and to just make 4 of a minor/3 of a major forcing over the treatment. Thanks for the feedback. As it turns out, partner had:

 

[hv=s=sqjtxhxdaxxxcqjtx]133|100|[/hv]

 

and the first three tricks were ace of spades, spade ruff, ace of clubs in 5 diamonds (I made a 4♥ call because of the slam potential), losing to 3NT in the other room, which came home on the natural spade lead from Axxxxx.

I would Stayman here and save fancy conventions for more slam oriented hands to be honest and hoping to not result the times you find a making 5♦ when 3NT is off.

 

I have to admit that your sequence can work magic but if I shown (as played with some PD's) a jump to 3M shows a splinter it denies 4 card in OM !!

 

The responding hand, inspite of two sexy QJTx's lacks controlling honors and may justify a touch of caution.

 

Close call.. IMHO .. but I Stayman and splinter after 2♠ and can still decide to muck around with 3m (GF for me not bailout) otherwise,

 

.. neilkaz ..

[benlessard]

Our hand is a monster despite the wasted K of H. I think the 4441 gadget is only useful is partner really think that 5m is possible. (with a so-so hand he should just stayman and bid 3Nt.)

 

Finding weakness to stop in 4m is a losing approach in imps. Play 3Nt or make sure you have enough strenght to give 5m a fair shot. Only when opps overcall and we dont have stopper that im willing to stop in 4m.

[rogerclee]

Ok, it seems reasonable to not upgrade every 4-4-4-1 9 count and to just make 4 of a minor/3 of a major forcing over the treatment.  Thanks for the feedback.  As it turns out, partner had:

 

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ QJTx ♥ x ♦ Axxx ♣ QJTx

 

and the first three tricks were ace of spades, spade ruff, ace of clubs in 5 diamonds (I made a 4♥ call because of the slam potential), losing to 3NT in the other room, which came home on the natural spade lead from Axxxxx.

I play that 2♣ asks opener to bid a 4 card major to deal with problem hands like this.

[skjaeran]

I'm bidding 4♦. If partner passes that I shoot him in the foot and find a new partner who doesn't insist on stupid things like 4m being NF here. :P

[Free]

1NT is clear, now 4♦ forcing is clear unless I need to change the system :P