The Misadventures of Rex and Jay #5650

[microcap]

Rex and I must have been playing better recently as we haven't posted a disaster here for a while.

 

Thankfully, the inevitable has occurred.

 

Partner opens 2NT in a respectable team match. You hold:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sqj876h654dq7654c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Open question: What is your thinking/planning for this auction? We are not playing puppet stayman in case that is relevant.

 

Regards to all...

 

:(

[LukeG]

I like to play that transferring to a major and then showing a minor indicates slam interest. So I would just bid 4♥ Texas, or whatever method you use to sign off in 4♠.

[hotShot]

I would try to transfer to ♠ and if that fails I'll offer ♦.

[andy_h]

Is the question trying to guess what nifty meaning 2NT opening might be? :(

Anyways, this looks like a wtp transfer♠-then-3NT auction to me..or am I missing something due to the 20mins sleep I had last night due to cramming?

To be honest, I haven't tried stayman-ing with these kind of hands and raising 3H to 4H.

[TimG]

There are methods that include transfer followed by 3NT showing a weak major-minor two-suiter. I'm pretty sure that Roth outlines one such response structure in Picture Bidding. Unfortunately, these response structures usually include a conventional direct 3NT (which seems to me to be an easy bid to forget in the heat of battle).

[gnasher]

If you had a disaster on this hand one of you must have tried quite hard. I'd transfer to spades and then bid 3NT.

 

To transfer and bid diamonds would show a slam try that I don't have. Insisting on spades is taking a good thing too far. Trying for a 4-3 heart fit is taking a bad thing too far.

 

I sometimes play that 2NT-3H-3NT shows 2=5 in the majors. That might be useful on this hand.

[microcap]

We were playing the transfer followed by diamonds was slam interest, so that was not an option.

 

On that front, does everything think that is the best method over 2NT?

 

As usual, there will be more details after I get some more responses...

[pclayton]

I would just Texas this. We would be rather unlucky to lose 2 trump tricks while 3N was superior.

[matmat]

transfer, then 3N. I don't see why I want to force us to 4S when p could have a doubleton there and running, or close to running, clubs...

[gnasher]

We were playing the transfer followed by diamonds was slam interest, so that was not an option.

 

On that front, does everything think that is the best method over 2NT?

Yes, unless there's some magic way to show a weak two-suiter without loss of accuracy on slam auctions.

[ArtK78]

If I was 100% confident that partner had at least 2 spades, I would Texas to 4♠.

 

However, I have seen many times when partner has a singleton spade (often an honor) for a 2NT opening. So I am a little leary about transferring to 4♠ on a 5 card suit.

 

On the other hand, I don't like the alternative. So transfer to 4♠ is my choice.

[kenrexford]

We were playing the transfer followed by diamonds was slam interest, so that was not an option.

 

On that front, does everything think that is the best method over 2NT?

 

As usual, there will be more details after I get some more responses...

On the methods issue. This actually brings up a useful idea.

 

With 5-3 in the majors, I'd be concerned that the right strain might actually be in hearts. However, traditional Puppet does not allow this approach well. A better puppet structure solves that problem and has an unexpected gain.

 

The way I like to bid Puppet, 3♣ has different responses. 3NT shows both majors. 3♠ shows five spades. 3♥ shows 4-5 hearts, with 3♥ asking how many; Opener will have 2-3 spades. 3♦ shows 2-4 spades and 2-3 hearts, with 3M asking about the length in the other major (after 3♥, bid 3NT for 2 spades, 3♠ for 3, and 4♣+ for 4 spades).

 

The two patterns for Responder that cause problems are 5♥/4♠ (what to do after 3♦?) and 5♠/3♥ (what to do after 3♥?). With the former, transfer and then bid 3♠.

 

With the latter, which you have, transfer, but partner is expected to bid 3NT with two spades and five hearts. That specific tweaking could be used without all of the other material, if you are willing to not be able to sign off in 3♠ if Opener has 2♠/5♥. I think that this is worthwhile.

 

Thus, whether with the full Puppet approach or just this one situation-specific tweak, transfering would allow Opener to bid 3NT instead of 3♠ to show 5♥/2♠, gettiong you to the right major strain.

 

The other benefit to the transfer approach is that Opener might actually have a super-acceptance and bid 4♦, which would be amazing. At that point, expecting six covers from Opener, you are actually slammish. The ideal ♠A-K, ♦A-K, ♥A-K may be too much to expect. But, AQJ in hearts works, or Ax if Opener has four spades, etc. Just enough for a LTTC bid after 4♦. Of course, you'd have to discuss whether 4♥ is LTTC and 4♠ natural or 4♥ a re-transfer and 4♠ LTTC, the latter being my preference.

 

An additional benefit is after a 3♠ bid. As you would know that partner does not have five hearts, the chances of a real spade fit are slightly increased. Not much, but every little bit helps.

 

As to the "what if just looking for strain" issue. It seems to me that a black two-suiter should be more flexible, as Opener can strongly accept either clubs OR spades below 4♠ by bidding four of a red suit. It also seems to me that 4♥ should ideally show strong club acceptance and 4♦ strong spade acceptance. That would allow Opener to bid 4♦ on many hands, with Responder signing off to show this type of hand or bidding 4♥ last train if really interested. All other two-suit combinations have too little space to screw around.

[ceeb]

We were playing the transfer followed by diamonds was slam interest, so that was not an option.

 

On that front, does everything think that is the best method over 2NT?

No.

 

Over 1NT, major transfer followed by 3♦, undecided as to whether we have a ♠ fit, is playable because opener can bid 3♠ forcing with ♠'s so cue bid can agree ♦'s. Wonderful.

 

After 2NT, one level higher, of course 4♠ by opener in the in the corresponding auction can't be forcing. Therefore you either have to accept that cue bids over 4♦ are ambiguous -- catering for ♠ or ♦ slam is perhaps already more than we can manage, hence allowing for ♦ game as well is clearly too much -- or change the system.

 

My preference is simply to agree to break the transfer after 2NT - 3♥ (the putative "super-accept") whenever assured of an 8-card fit. Even if thus lowering the bar is sub-optimal for judging ♠ slams (probably) or for bailing in 3♠ (probably not) it is only slightly so. In compensation, it simplifies the bidding in many sequences. In particular it becomes playable to bid 2NT 3♥, 3♠(no fit) 4♦ with this hand.

[microcap]

I was the proximate cause of the disaster as I transferred then bid 4♠. While I knew this to be a mild slam try, i felt it was the best lie as I was loathe to bid 3NT with a void. And since Rex hadn't superaccepted, I wasn't too worried.

 

Then of course, Rex bids 4NT and it became a full fledged disaster.

 

So here are the follow up questions.

 

Playing 21-22 2NT, would you upgrade with Rex's 20 count as follows:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa1092haj3da4cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Second, assuming you open 2NT, would you superaccept with this?

 

Third, it is my contention, which Rex doesn't believe, that there will be many more hands where 4♠ will make and 3NT will go down than the converse. So I was happy to play in the 5-2 fit.

 

Frankly, I agree with the Texas bidders. But I didn't think of it at the time.

 

Comments? ;)

[Winstonm]

Transfer to 3S then bid 3N.

[TimG]

Second, assuming you open 2NT, would you superaccept with this?

 

Third, it is my contention, which Rex doesn't believe, that there will be many more hands where 4♠ will make and 3NT will go down than the converse. So I was happy to play in the 5-2 fit.

Second: I think it is a little odd to hold four trumps, not super-accept and then make a slam try (or accept a mild slam try).

 

Third: I know many people are not fond of double-dummy simulations, but this seems like a time that such a simulation could yield some useful results.

[kenrexford]

...

"I was the proximate cause of the disaster as I transferred then bid 4♠. While I knew this to be a mild slam try, i felt it was the best lie as I was loathe to bid 3NT with a void. And since Rex hadn't superaccepted, I wasn't too worried."

 

Whereas a transfer and then a jump to game is a slam try encouraging further action after a 1NT auction, the appropriateness of more aggressive super-accepting after a 2NT opening suggests to me that Opener cannot have an acceptance of the slam try but not a superacceptance of the transfer. His chance to accept a slak try came and passed.

 

"Then of course, Rex bids 4NT and it became a full fledged disaster."

 

Yep. Shoulda super'ed.

 

"So here are the follow up questions."

 

Playing 21-22 2NT, would you upgrade with Rex's 20 count as follows:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa1092haj3da4cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Yes.

 

1. 2+2+2+3=7. 7(3.33)=23.33. 23.33-20=3.33. 4>3.33>2. So, 20+1=21.

2. My 109/9 are well-placed in a 4432 pattern.

 

 

Second, assuming you open 2NT, would you superaccept with this?

 

Yes. 5 assured covers, good fourth trump, and a doubleton. 4♣ looks right.

 

Third, it is my contention, which Rex doesn't believe, that there will be many more hands where 4♠ will make and 3NT will go down than the converse. So I was happy to play in the 5-2 fit.

 

Not sure.

 

"Frankly, I agree with the Texas bidders. But I didn't think of it at the time."

 

"Comments?"

 

What if Opener had held the slightly different:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa1092haj3da4cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Now, 6♠ is on a hook. Sure, he may decline Last Train (4♠ rather than the re-transfer of 4♥, presumably). But, what about...

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa1092haj3da4cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Now, he has more covers and may well accept (should cue 5♥, IMO).

 

Do, the transfer is not all bad. Texas may be more practical, but I like the transfer. Might as well leave that remote chance open.

[nige1]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ QJ876 ♥ 654 ♦ Q7654 ♣ [space]

Rex and I must have been playing better recently as we haven't posted a disaster here for a while. Thankfully, the inevitable has occurred.   Partner opens 2NT in a respectable team match.  Open question:  What is your thinking/planning for this auction?  We are not playing puppet stayman in case that is relevant.

Agree with PClayton ...

• Over 2N, Texas =10. Jacoby then 3N = 5.
  
• Partner should super-accept with his shapely control rich hand.
  

[gnasher]

So here are the follow up questions.

Yes, I'd upgrade and yes I'd superaccept (both obvious, IMO).

 

I wouldn't insist on spades, but a slight improvement in the pips would change my mind. I'd like to not have a fourth-round trump loser opposite Hx, so QJ10xx would be fine, and perhaps also QJ9xx.

[gnasher]

Whereas a transfer and then a jump to game is a slam try encouraging further action after a 1NT auction, the appropriateness of more aggressive super-accepting after a 2NT opening suggests to me that Opener cannot have an acceptance of the slam try but not a superacceptance of the transfer.  His chance to accept a slak try came and passed.

Are you saying that opener can't ever have a move after 2NT-3♥; 3♠-4♠, or are you talking only about hands where he has primary spade support?

[Guest Jlall]

Another thing on the methods front, I learned this from Hamman:

 

2N 3H

3S 3N = balanced, partner can pass with 3 trumps if it looks right.

 

2N 3C

3D 3H = 5 spades unbalanced choice of games, or 5S+4H game+

 

2N 3C

3H 3S = Slam try in hearts or 5S unbalanced.

 

Personally I think you give up on too much in order to be able to get to 3N when its right with a 5-3 spade fit, but there you have it.

[WrecksVee]

OK, WrecksVee weighs in. Re the superaccept, I have already upgraded my hand 20 HCP for its excess of aces and kings to open a 21-22 NT. I chose not to superaccept as given the HCP range I did not think 5.5 cover cards that out of line and I expected to be cue bidding over 3NT. In retrospect I should have superaccepted. But it never occured to me that the reason to superaccept was that it would be my last chance to play 4♠. :)

 

Re cue bidding and not superaccepting, this hand with values in all suits and excess controls should superaccept. It was a lazy bid by me not to do so. But not all good hands with four card support are best shown by superaccepting. Change the ♣AK to the ♦K and ♥K plus some J and I make the same upgrade to open 2NT 21-22. But then cue bidding seems better. On this layout over a 3NT rebid a 4♦ cue gives partner the knowledge that no ♣A or K is wasted opposite the void or at least highlights the lack of ♣ control. Even if the ♣QJ are wasted in the 2NT opener, that is still 18+5=23 out of 30 working HCP from Responder's POV, so 6♠ would be worth a shot even if it is only a 5-3 fit.

 

When partner shows 6+ spades and slam interest I "know" I have the right hand. Sadly mistaken; as 4NT is down we lost a game swing on the first board of a 10 board match and are unable to recover.

 

I think the best comments here were those who suggested bidding a Texas transfer to sign off. As Jay felt that was where the hand belonged, then Texas gets to the desired spot without promising extras. But neither of us thought of that in the follow up discussion.

[kenrexford]

Whereas a transfer and then a jump to game is a slam try encouraging further action after a 1NT auction, the appropriateness of more aggressive super-accepting after a 2NT opening suggests to me that Opener cannot have an acceptance of the slam try but not a superacceptance of the transfer.  His chance to accept a slak try came and passed.

Are you saying that opener can't ever have a move after 2NT-3♥; 3♠-4♠, or are you talking only about hands where he has primary spade support?

Yes, IMO. Opener should super-accept with hands that would move. With tweener hands, he does not hang partner who might have a hand like this, where a well-placed superaccept might make it interesting but where even the four-level might be unsafe with the wrong "almost super-accept" hand.

 

Perhaps inconsistently, I think that Opener can "super-accept," in a sense, after 2NT-transfer-nonsuper-3NT, but the super-accept in that auction should be more about a potential trick source than pure cover card. Of course, this begs the question of why no super-accept because of the trick source, and why no movement over transfer...4M because of the trick source. But, my opinion is based on avoiding the five-level when it is unsafe but a willingness to seek that unlikely, perfect fit slam if I can do so below 4M.

[kenrexford]

I just re-thought this through and have an idea.

 

Most 2NT super-accepts feature something that looks like 6 covers. The six covers seem to group together for utility into either some sort of 2-1-2-1, where the key is if the side 2 hits a critical second suit for Responder, or 1-2-2-1, where two suits could do this, or possibly a 2-2-2-0, where the 0 might fit shortness.

 

My usual technique has Opener cue the first 2 that he reaches (first suit with two of the top three honors). 3NT can show the 5♥/2♠ holding after the transfer to spades; after a transfer to hearts the one-under cue (diamonds) to save the re-transfer.

 

If neither of these is your cup of tea, then another approach might make sense.

 

After a transfer to spades, 4♣, 4♦, and 4♠ show supers with clubs, diamonds, and hearts two top honors. 3NT shows a 2-2-2-0 combination (undisclosed empathetic splinter) and invites a splinter bid if Responder has one (or, alternatively, 4♣ could ask the location of the 0 suit). Over hearts, 3NT shows a spade cue, 3♠ the 2-2-2-0, and 3NT asking for the stiff over 3♠ or showing the stiff spade depending on preference).

 

The one-under could then show something else, whatever makes sense. Perhaps the min/max of the stiff in the one-under suit (one-under is a full six, 4M is one-under with questionable 6, to solve the no LTTC problem).

 

I like this, except for the loss of the 5♥/2♠ bid. But, maybe this is better.

[gnasher]

Are you saying that opener can't ever have a move after 2NT-3♥; 3♠-4♠, or are you talking only about hands where he has primary spade support?

Yes, IMO. Opener should super-accept with hands that would move. With tweener hands, he does not hang partner who might have a hand like this

 

What would opener do over 3♥ with a slam-suitable hand containing a doubleton spade, such as Ax AQx Axx AK109x?