2NT or 2 Clubs

[ArcLight]

Unfavorable, IMPS

pass - pass - what do you open (2♣, 2NT, other)

holding:

 

S: A T

H: A x x

D: K 9 x

C: A K Q J 9

 

=================================

 

For a different hand, how do you respond to pards first seat 2NT bid with:

 

S: x x x x

H: Q J x x

D: J x x x x

C: void

 

3♣, Stayman? (we don't use Puppet Stayman)

What do you do over pards 3♦ response?

[blackshoe]

1. 2NT

2. 3 ♣, Romex Stayman.

2a. If I'm playing simple Stayman, then over 3♦ I bid 3NT and pray. The alternative is to bid 4♦, but if partner has the hand in 1, or many similar hands, we're gonna end up in the wrong contract.

[kenrexford]

I'd open the first 2♣, but I'm not sure what ranges you play. I use 19+ to 21, so this seems a tad rich for the 2NT opening.

 

On the second, playing straight Stayman, the response of 3♦ is just as good as a major call, if you pass.

[Guest movingon]

I would open the first hand 2 clubs, intending to rebid 2nt.

 

I would respond with 3 clubs on the 2nd hand. If we play puppet and partner denies a major, I would pass 2nt.

 

If partner shows a major I would raise it to game if we have an 9 card fit but only raise it to 3 if we have an 8 card fit.

 

If we play straight stayman and partner bids 3 diamonds, i pass.

[manudude03]

2NT-3C-3D-3NT for me and 2nd hand hoping it makes.

 

misread previous post- sorry.

[pclayton]

1. 2♣. Too good for 2N, even though the ♦J is probably wasted.

 

2. 3♣. Just regular stayman. I don't get the problem here.

[jdonn]

I don't get the problem on either hand. If 2NT is 20-21 on the first and you don't think this hand is too good, you need to sign up for point counters anonymous fast and start attending help group meetings. On the second you bid stayman then 3NT if you don't find a fit. Why would you not play for game on the same level when you don't even have assurance 3♦ is a better contract?

[blackshoe]

I agree, Josh, that if the range of 2NT is 20-21, that first hand is too strong. I play it as 21-22, though, and imo this hand fits.

[awm]

On the first hand I would bid 2♣...2NT for sure.

 

On the second hand, I don't see a real problem with 3♣ stayman followed by passing a 3♦ bid by partner. You have 24-25 hcp very unevenly divided with responder holding a queen and two jacks. There is no major suit fit. Why should we be making game on this hand? Given that partner has no 4cM, the odds of a 5-3 or better diamond fit are pretty good (any shape except 3-3-2-5 precisely or some shapes with a 6-card club suit that might not open 2NT). And another point is that those shapes where you have only seven diamonds between you (where 3♦ might not be so great) are also hands where your odds of making 3NT are truly awful (best shot at making 3NT is setting up diamonds when opener has 3-4 of them).

[jdonn]

I agree, Josh, that if the range of 2NT is 20-21, that first hand is too strong. I play it as 21-22, though, and imo this hand fits.

Yes that's fine. I do believe 20-21 is considered the standard range since it's certainly the range used in conjunction with 15-17 for 1NT. I guess it wouldn't have hurt to state it though.

[ArcLight]

For problem 2 - the problem is :

 

Do you pass the 3♦ response, or bid game.

[han]

I would open 1C on the first one, precision.

 

More seriously, such an answer is of course useless. I agree that the hand is too strong for a 20-21 2NT opening.

 

On the second hand I'm glad to see that I don't agree with Josh's argument. 3D is much more likely a make than 3NT, even if we are not 100% guaranteed to have a fit. I would still bid 3NT though because 3D is not a game.

[jdonn]

On the second hand I'm glad to see that I don't agree with Josh's argument. 3D is much more likely a make than 3NT, even if we are not 100% guaranteed to have a fit. I would still bid 3NT though because 3D is not a game.

In what way does that disagree with my argument? I agree 3♦ is more likely to make than 3NT. I said there is no assurance it's a better contract so we might as well play for game on the same level. Glad to see we completely agree.

[rogerclee]

Agree with han and jdonn.

[CSGibson]

problem 1: upgrading to 2 clubs and then 2N.

 

Problem 2: We are vul at imps. 3N. If other conditions (NV or MP) applied, I would pass.

[kenrexford]

So what if 3NT is game and 3♦ is not. You have almost no chance in Hell oif making 3NT, but you have a lot going for 3♦.

 

Gove partner some ridiculously tremendous hand like Axx-AKx-AQxx-Axx, and he'd open 2♣, and that still takes a diamond hook. Move the diamond Queen to clubs and you have a better shot, but Geez!

 

It seems to me that over 10 hands, 3NT with the positives and negatives summed will be less than 3♦ with the positives and negatives summed.

 

I mean, do you convert all 3M bids to 3NT just because 3NT is game?

[jdonn]

So what if 3NT is game and 3♦ is not. You have almost no chance in Hell oif making 3NT, but you have a lot going for 3♦.

 

Gove partner some ridiculously tremendous hand like Axx-AKx-AQxx-Axx, and he'd open 2♣, and that still takes a diamond hook. Move the diamond Queen to clubs and you have a better shot, but Geez!

 

It seems to me that over 10 hands, 3NT with the positives and negatives summed will be less than 3♦ with the positives and negatives summed.

 

I mean, do you convert all 3M bids to 3NT just because 3NT is game?

You SEVERELY underestimate the chances of 3NT making. There isn't much else to say about it.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with 2C...2N and stayman then 3N.

[mikeh]

I don't get the problem on either hand. If 2NT is 20-21 on the first and you don't think this hand is too good, you need to sign up for point counters anonymous fast and start attending help group meetings. On the second you bid stayman then 3NT if you don't find a fit. Why would you not play for game on the same level when you don't even have assurance 3♦ is a better contract?

agree

[andy_h]

2c-2nt

and stayman-3nt

[kenrexford]

Where's all the deal generators out there? It's about time for a scientific analysis we can all pounce on a ridicule. :rolleyes:

[awm]

I randomly generated hands with 20-21 hcp, 2-3 cards in each major, 2-6 in each minor. This probably weights hands a bit on the "heavy" side since people upgrade some 19s (I have generated no 19s) and might upgrade some of the 21s I generate to open 2♣. Anyway, here are the hands:

 

1.

♠KQ

♥K5

♦AKT7

♣AQ843

 

2.

♠K97

♥A4

♦AKQ98

♣AJ9

 

3.

♠AJ6

♥K8

♦AK7

♣KQ843

 

4.

♠KT8

♥K84

♦AK7

♣AKJ3

 

5.

♠QT

♥AK6

♦AKT

♣KQT73

 

6.

♠A6

♥AT8

♦K86

♣AKQT4

 

7.

♠AKQ

♥KT6

♦AKQ

♣9542

 

8.

♠QT6

♥AK7

♦AKQ87

♣Q6

 

9.

♠A9

♥A95

♦AQ986

♣AKT

 

10.

♠A9

♥K54

♦AQ98

♣AKJ6

 

11.

♠AJ7

♥K9

♦AKQT8

♣AT5

 

12.

♠QJ7

♥A9

♦AK9

♣KQJ87

 

13.

♠KQJ

♥A84

♦AQ9

♣KQT6

 

14.

♠AKJ

♥A8

♦A976

♣KJT8

 

15.

♠K87

♥AT

♦K6

♣AKQJ52

 

16.

♠KJ

♥KT

♦AKQT9

♣A852

 

17.

♠KJ8

♥AT

♦AQ9

♣AQ643

 

18.

♠T6

♥A6

♦AKQ

♣AQJ975

 

19.

♠K7

♥A6

♦AQ7

♣AKT542

 

20.

♠AK8

♥A8

♦KQ86

♣AJ42

 

I will leave it to others to analyze these.

[Mbodell]

Where's all the deal generators out there?  It's about time for a scientific analysis we can all pounce on a ridicule.  :rolleyes:

Alright, ask and get an answer. Assumptions:

 

1. The x's in OP could include Ts. (I think this biases pro-NT as the T will carry more weight in NT).

 

2. The 2NT bidding is on the range HCP=20-21 semibalanced (no void, no stiff, no 6 card major, no 7 card minor) and has <4 cards in each major. So no upgrades, no stiffs, etc. which again will slightly bias pro-NT I think.

 

3. The analysis is DD. I think in this case with the strength so unbalanced and the opening lead being extra important in NT this is a possible bias anti-NT. Since I don't think declarer is getting to make lots of choices of which finesses to take when.

 

4. Nobody ever doubles. This is obviously a pro-NT bias.

 

Ok, so I dealt 1000 hands with us V and then, for fun, compared the scores when we were NV (on a different run of 1000 hands since I thought of this during the first run). Note when we don't make in NT we are not uncommonly down 2 or 3 tricks (which is why I wanted to try the NV numbers too, as if it was always = or -3 then it would score better NV than V since it is down nearly twice as often as it makes) and 3♦ nearly always makes. Basically if the scoring was MP or the vulnerability was NV then we should pass 3♦ for sure. But vulnerable at IMPs the results very slightly favor 3nt over my simulation.

 

We make 3♦ 91.6% of the time for an average score of 113.82

We make 3nt 36.7% of the time for an average score of 129.59

Diamonds is better than nt 58.9% while nt is better than diamonds 37.2% and 3.9% they are the same

 

 

We make 3♦ 91.9% of the time for an average score of 118.72

We make 3nt 38.7% of the time for an average score of 74.73

Diamonds is better than nt 56.8% while nt is better than diamonds 39.7% and 3.5% they are the same

 

I'll try and run a larger sample tomorrow while I'm at work as my program isn't optimized for speed (partially because I let the x's from the OP weak hand change rather than setting the hand as 1 fixed hand and partially because of the 2 DD solver runs per matching hand) and can only do <10 matching hands/minute.

[kenrexford]

Mbodell:

 

I would imagine that this sample has one other pro-NT bias, illustrated by this actual two-part problem.

 

When Opener has no four-card major, the chances of one five-card minor increase, or six-card for that matter. Because of the re-evaluation going on here, your numbers would need to include a few 19's and eliminate a few 21's.

 

Almost half of your sample 20 may be upgrades, some clearly.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 2NT, as far as I know, 2C is forcing to

game, and i am not going to force to

game with the given hand

 

#2 Stayman

 

With kind regards

Marlowe