A challenge

[gnasher]

This is directed at anyone who thinks that you should play standardish methods opposite a 15-17 notrump, but something else opposite 12-14. (And Mike, I promise to pay attention.)

 

Can you construct a pair of hands where:

- Opener has a balanced 12-14, but we could move a king from responder's hand to opener's hand (making it 15-17), without affecting what the best contract is or why it's the best.

- Opposite the 12-14 opening, your favourite non-transfer methods would get you to the right contract, but Stayman and transfers would not.

- Opposite the 15-17 opening, Stayman and transfers would get you to the right contract, but the non-transfer methods would not.

[awm]

Perhaps this is an example:

 

Opener: ♠xxx ♥Kx ♦xxx ♣AKQxx

Partner: ♠Axxx ♥Axxxx ♦KQ ♣Jx

 

Opener: ♠xxx ♥Kx ♦Kxx ♣AKQxx

Partner: ♠Axxx ♥Axxxx ♦Qx ♣Jx

 

In both cases the best contract is 3NT, which can only be beaten with a 5-1 or 6-0 break in one of the black suits. Note that while 4♥ might have some small amount of play, it will likely fail on a spade lead or any time hearts are 4-2.

 

If you play fairly standard methods with stayman and transfers, both auctions are likely to start via smolen, something like 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♠. Now the problem is that on the first pair of hands, opener has three tiny diamonds opposite a partner who has shown at least 4-5 in the majors. It will be very tempting for opener to try four of a major (likely hearts) hoping that partner has strength in his suits, rather than to gamble 3NT hoping that partner has a diamond control. On the second pair of hands opener (with both minors stopped, a likely source of tricks in clubs, and no major suit fit) will bid 3NT without thinking too hard.

 

On the other hand, it's not hard to see that some sort of relay method would reach 3NT on the first pair of hands, since responder will determine that opener has 3-2-3-5 shape, and since responder himself has diamonds stopped with the KQ-tight it seems easy to sign off in 3NT. The same relay method on the second pair of hands will leave responder with a guess based on opener's location of values which he might get right... but it is a guess.

[han]

Agree with Andy.

[Finch]

I'm not going to try.

 

My understanding is that part of the reason for wanting to play different methods is the belief that the competitive position is different. For example, those who want to play weak take-outs in response to a mini NT do so not because they believe that will help constructive bidding, but because it gives 4th seat only one chance to act rather than two.

 

In that context, we currently play the same methods in response to a mini as to a strong NT, but mainly for ease of memory. Although following on from a discussion in a different thread, we're thinking of changing our 3H response (currently a heart pre-empt) to be a pre-empt in either major.

[Finch]

All right, in fact I can do this fairly easily, as long as the definition of the 'best' contract doesn't include the positional factor...

 

Kxx

Axx

AJ9x

Axx

 

 

xxx

KQJxxx

K10x

x

 

Playing strong NT: 1NT - 4D - 4H

 

Move the SK from the strong hand to the week hand and play weak NT:

1NT - 4H

 

(This is a bit contrived because I don't actually play Texas transfers, but I think they are North American 'standard methods')

 

Note the carefully constructed diamond suit allowing you to safety play it in either direction.

[mikeh]

I'm not going to try, because, with all respect, the challenge misses the main point about weak v strong nt.

 

If we are dealt 16 hcp in a balanced hand, partner will on average hold 8 hcp, which means that we have a high frequency of game contracts and a significant number of slam opportunities.

 

If we are dealt a 13 count, partner will on average hold 9 hcp, which means that most boards will be partscore battles... especially since our possessing a balanced hand slightly increases the likelihood that partner does as well, and balanced hands do not usually afford the extra playing strength of unbalanced hands, so we tend to require more hcp to take the same number of tricks, when compared to shapely hands.

 

Furthermore, the same approach makes it apparent that the opps will, on average, opposite a weak notrump, hold 2 more hcp than after we open a strong notrump.. which increases the chances that they have a high-level making contract.. a very rare situation over a strong notrump.

 

This means, as far as I am concerned, that our priorities will be different after a weak notrump than after a strong. After a weak, we want to get to our contract as soon as possible, when game is not in the picture. The frequency of having difficult to bid but strong hands (such as a gf (13)(54)) is lesser opposite a weak notrump, and the number of hands on which we may want to preempt to the 3 level is higher. Thus one could argue that 1N 3♥ can be 3=1=(54) gf opposite a strong nt but 'to play' opposite a weak one (I do not in fact play the latter except over 10-12, where the arguments are even more powerful).

 

So my interest in a system is not limited to how do I bid my games and slams.

 

For example, over weak notrump, I like 2N as both minors, weak or strong, or weak in diamonds. Over strong notrump, I usually play it as a transfer to diamonds, but I have also used it as a complex, multi-purpose bid. Or as part of walsh relays... either clubs to play or gf (4441) hands.

 

Over strong NT, I like relay stayman, beginning with 2♣, but the method doesn't translate well over weak notrump, partly because of frequency concerns.. and partly for technical reasons related to the structure of the responses... we often 'bypass' a step to show a card... and with a weak notrump, we'd be 'stopping' more often, and this consumes bidding space.. always an issue in relay.

 

So my liking for 2-way stayman is not based on a feeling that it is inherently a more powerful game/slam mechanism than stayman/transfers... I think that with decent response structures, the number of hand-types on which there is more than a coincidental difference is very small.. it is based on how 2 way stayman meshes with my overall preferred structure over weak notrump. My posts on the other thread were more defensive in nature... arguing that it is possible to have a very effective 2 way structure more than arguing that transfers are defective.. they lose on some hands and gain on others.. but not often do they do either in game or slam situations.

 

BTW, I read up on heeman, and I am going to see if I can persuade someone to try it with me... does anyone have any experience with how well it works over differing ranges... I haven't spent any time looking at it in that light.

[gnasher]

My understanding is that part of the reason for wanting to play different methods is the belief that the competitive position is different.  For example, those who want to play weak take-outs in response to a mini NT do so not because they believe that will help constructive bidding, but because it gives 4th seat only one chance to act rather than two.

Yes, but I've already explained why they're wrong, here:

 

Thread that I hijacked earlier this week

 

All right, in fact I can do this fairly easily, as long as the definition of the 'best' contract doesn't include the positional factor.

I intended the rules to exclude deals where moving the king means that a different hand should be declarer.

[jdonn]

My understanding is that part of the reason for wanting to play different methods is the belief that the competitive position is different.  For example, those who want to play weak take-outs in response to a mini NT do so not because they believe that will help constructive bidding, but because it gives 4th seat only one chance to act rather than two.

Yes, but I've already explained why they're wrong, here:

 

Thread that I hijacked earlier this week

I don't believe you should take for granted that your argument is correct. For example, you claim it's an advantage for transfers when responder is unbalanced since opener is more likely to have tenaces led into in responder's short suits. I think it's often a bigger advantage that if responder declares on auctions like 1NT - 4♥ then his shape is a total mystery, which is much more important when it's the unbalanced hand hidden than when it's the balanced hand.

 

All right, in fact I can do this fairly easily, as long as the definition of the 'best' contract doesn't include the positional factor.

I intended the rules to exclude deals where moving the king means that a different hand should be declarer.

True, but why? You used the positional advantage in your argument about why you believe transfers are better than not over a weak notrump. Obviously if you allow yourself arguments that you don't allow others, you are more likely to win the debate.

 

I would say Mike made the best point. This game wouldn't prove much of anything since your expected strength and thus your priorities change with your notrump range.

[gnasher]

Yes, but I've already explained why they're wrong, here:

 

Thread that I hijacked earlier this week

I don't believe you should take for granted that your argument is correct.

I don't believe I should either. Has your sense of humour been impaired by seasonal overconsumption?

For example, you claim it's an advantage for transfers when responder is unbalanced since opener is more likely to have tenaces led into in responder's short suits. I think it's often a bigger advantage that if responder declares on auctions like 1NT - 4♥ then his shape is a total mystery, which is much more important when it's the unbalanced hand hidden than when it's the balanced hand.

I think that too. Playing a 12-14 notrump I would always play 1NT-4M as natural. In fact, I prefer to so opposite 15-17 too, for the same reason.

 

However, my question was intended to relate to the two-level structure, and in particular to whether one should play two-level transfers opposite one notrump range and an artificial game-forcing 2♦ opposite another. Whilst the two-level and four-level structures aren't completely independent, I don't believe that playing two-level transfers obliges you to play four-level transfers, or vice versa.

 

True, but why? You used the positional advantage in your argument about why you believe transfers are better than not over a weak notrump. Obviously if you allow yourself arguments that you don't allow others, you are more likely to win the debate.

My purpose in this thread was to consider only one of several arguments I have heard for using different two-level methods opposite 12-14 than opposite 15-17. It has been suggested, as I understand it, that opposite 12-14 an asking approach works better constructively than a transfer approach, but that opposite 15-17 a transfer approach works better constructively than an asking approach. If this is true, it should be possible to demonstrate it.

 

If no one produces a convincing example, I'm not going to claim that my case is proven. That would, at best, refute only one of the several arguments in favour of varying your two-level methods according to the notrump range.

 

In fact, I was expecting someone to meet this challenge quite easily, and I'm surprised not to have been presented with a stream of examples already. If no examples are forthcoming I might have a go myself.

[effervesce]

For simplicity, let me make an extreme example. Instead of having a 12-14 balanced or 15-17 balanced hand, lets have a 2-4 HCP balanced hand, and make the partner of the balanced hand have most of the points.

 

So say we have Kxxx xx xxx xxxx, and responder has the gigantic AQJxx AKx AKQJ x hand. Now, on this hand it is obvious who should be asking who-the strong unbalanced hand asking the balanced hand what he/she has-after a shape relay finding responder is 4234, and finding out he has a spade honor, there is no problem reaching 6S.

 

If we make opener stronger, say KQxx Ax AQJ xxxx, and responder AJxxx Kxx Kxxx x, then we want to play transfers, as then opener can upgrade spade, heart and diamond honors while downgrading club honors. Finding out opener's shape is alot less useful, since the placement of the honors is critical-the more opener has, the more difficult they are to identify using denial cuebidding methods.

 

By simple extrapolation, if relays work better on a 2-4 balanced hand and transfers on a 15-17, then similarly transfers work better on a 15-17 than a 12-14; if relays work better on a 2-4 then relays will work better opposite a 12-14 than 15-17.

 

Now, it is obvious that relays are best opposite a 2-4; but whether they are better for a 12-14 than transfers is another question (I don't think relays are optimal-transfers are better opposite 12-14 to reach the best contract-but the competitive arguments may mean that non-transfer methods are better opposite a 12-14 NT).

[benlessard]

I greatly believe in transfers, forcing bids vs non-forcing bids will give twice the amount of overall sequences, and it allow the unbalanced hand to describe wich is way more effective then relaying the balanced hand.

 

So if I open 1Nt and i know that partner got Gf values i would like to play transfers, no doubt about it.

 

But playing weak nt you expect to win imps on the 18-22 zone with stupid straightfoward auction.

 

Anyone who says that

 

1Nt----2H transfer

 

is similar to 1Nt------2S know nothing about competitive bridge vs a weak nt setup. This is where the non transfers approach will win most of their imps.

 

The 2nd reason is that many that play weak nt today play a wider range like 11-14, for them stopping in 2M instead of 3M is important.

 

So

1Nt----2C

2M(minimum)---- pass.

 

Instead of

 

1Nt------2C

2M-------3M (inv)

pass.

 

Playing a weak NT you dont really care about garbage stayman so you can gear your system for allowing you to stop in 2M as much as you can.

 

If you like transfer than play transfers and dont worry about it the advantage of one method vs the other is too small to lose sleep over it.

 

IMO you should aim for trnasfers if you 1Nt may be offshape because a 5422 vs a 5422 is a hard thing to do without transfers because both side would want to describe their hands.

 

You should play non transfers with a wider NT range & VS stronger opps, stronger opps will take full advantage of the 2nd round of bidding while beginners wont get much use out of it.

[jdonn]

Yes, but I've already explained why they're wrong, here:

 

Thread that I hijacked earlier this week

I don't believe you should take for granted that your argument is correct.

I don't believe I should either. Has your sense of humour been impaired by seasonal overconsumption?

Not at all. Subtle British understatement would go right over my head at the best of times.

[PrecisionL]

Playing Matchpoints with weak NT consider playing Keri over the 1NT opening.

 

2♣ is a puppet to 2♦. Now 2M is G.I. with 4 or 5-card suit.

 

You still get to play transfers, somewhat modified.

 

Larry