question

[andy_h]

I've read a few times here on the forums that people have advocated:

 

1m - (1M) - 3M

3M = as a transfer to 3NT? (or was it asking for a stopper?)

 

Either I'm not getting the joke or can someone please try to explain this for me? lol

I've always just played this as a splinter.

 

And if it is true, what kind of hands would want to bid that? Just 12-14 bal and let opener do the rest of the work or?

 

I'm guessing the advantage is that you don't want to be stuck on the hands that do not have proper support for opener's minor, not suitable for a negative double and don't want to be pre-empted out of the 3M bid (which LHO may do before me) if my plan was to always bid something then ask for a stopper?

[xcurt]

This enemy auction is dangerous for your side playing 3NT when you have one stopper and can't run 8 more tricks. The opponents have told you they have a 5-card suit with some values in the long hand, so they have an easy path to 5 tricks against your NT contract.

 

If you have something like the hand I posted, you want partner to play NT with Qx or Jxx in their suit. And if he doesn't have anything in their suit, you still have your stopper and all of partner's values are working toward running 8 tricks in the offsuits before they get the lead back.

[rogerclee]

You can play it's a splinter (to be clear, splinter is standard), but this is less useful in my opinion on frequency grounds. There are two huge advantages to playing this is a transfer:

 

1) Positionally it is much much much better to make the overcaller the opening leader. Playing this convention, you will actually bid 3M much more frequently than 3NT.

2) It is usually much harder for the overcaller to determine the best lead than his partner.

 

I am not sure how prevalent this treatment is, but it is a very popular one among established expert partnerships.

[orlam]

You can play it's a splinter (to be clear, splinter is standard), but this is less useful in my opinion on frequency grounds. There are two huge advantages to playing this is a transfer:

 

1) Positionally it is much much much better to make the overcaller the opening leader. Playing this convention, you will actually bid 3M much more frequently than 3NT.

2) It is usually much harder for the overcaller to determine the best lead than his partner.

 

I am not sure how prevalent this treatment is, but it is a very popular one among established expert partnerships.

Sounds like you want to suggest to play 3M as transfer, and 3NT as a splinter?

[OleBerg]

Maybe it should be:

 

1m - (1M) - 3 O-M

 

that was a transfer to 3NT.

 

It is slightly more dangerous to double for advancer. And some may not even have adequate agreements.

 

Only trade-off is, that you loose a WJS, if you play that.

[Codo]

In WJ2005, the polish system it is:

 

1 minor (1 Major) (3same major) shows a hand worth 3 NT but with just one hard stopper.

 

3 NT shows a hand with two full stoppers or another reason to bid 3 NT now.

 

You cannot splinter, but obviously it is sick to splinter after a polish club 1 ♣, because you do not even have a fit established and it is often of more value to place a 3 NT contract into the right hand then to have a Splinter when the fit in in a minor.

[Edmunte1]

I think that playing 3OM as a transfer to 3NT and keeping the splinter option too is a better agreement, losing just an unusual preempt.

[Apollo81]

The point of this treatment is that you want to put overcaller on lead even if responder has the suit stopped. If opener has nothing in the suit it's break-even (to just bidding 3NT), but if opener happens to have Hx or Hxx, overcaller often can't lead his own suit without blowing a trick (but his partner could lead it safely).