Slam try after 2NT

[whereagles]

Matchpoints, V vs NV, intermediate field. You hold:

 

♠ A832

♥ AJ54

♦ A2

♣ KQJ

 

You pard

2NT . 3♣ (dbl)

3♦ ... 4♣

..??

 

2NT = 18 to bad 20

3♣ = puppet stayman

(dbl) = some clubs

3♦ = one or two 4 card majors

4♣ = slammish with 44 majors

 

Your options are:

 

4♦ = heart fit, good hand for slam

4M = fit, bad hand for slam

4NT = spade fit, good hand, RKCB

5x = spade fit, good hand, control in x (meta-agreement, so you're only 95% sure pard will understand it)

 

How do you evaluate your hand and what do you bid?

[cherdanno]

4♦ seems obvious at first sight. It still seems obvious after reflection.

[MarkDean]

4♥ for me (assuming 2NT was 20-21). I think this hand is pretty bad for slam, in the context of the auction. We may be mirror, and if not, partner's ruffing value will be opposite my KQJ. We need partner to have a lot for slam to be good, in which case she will bid again.

[kenrexford]

A good idea is to assess how many covers per expectancy you have.

 

If partner has two suits, your best cover position would be KQKQ in his suits, plus AKA extermally, for seven covers. That's the primo hand.

 

Your worst cover position is perhaps AKQJAKJ extermally and JJ internally, which is the death hand and only three covers.

 

More likely you have 4-6 covers. With only four, you get out. With a full six, you clearly move.

 

Five is tweener. So, you look to see how true blue the five are.

 

This hand has A-A internal and an Ace external, for three clear. Getting KQJ to two covers is possible, but very questionable. Hence, this seems low-end expectancy.

 

So, I'd bid 4♥ also.

[cherdanno]

I guess I am the odd man out, but when the original post says 2NT shows 18 to bad 20, I assume that 2NT showed 18 to bad 20.

[jdonn]

As usual on these problems I think Ken sounds like he is giving the call on the Kentucky Derby. Anyway if my choice was between 4M and something above 4M I would sign off, but I will bid 4♦ since I get to make my try below game.

[Phil]

This hand really isn't that bad in the context of the bidding. Our clubs will provide useful pitches. I'll cooperate with 4♦, but I'm not moving over 4♥.

[MarkDean]

Oh, you mean I am supposed to read all of the post?

 

I would still bid 4♥, but obviously, it is closer.

[MarkDean]

This hand really isn't that bad in the context of the bidding. Our clubs will provide useful pitches. I'll cooperate with 4♦, but I'm not moving over 4♥.

Which suit are we pitching?

 

If partner is 4423 we have zero pitches. If she is 4432 we can either pitch the diamond we could ruff, or a spade where we have a 44 fit. If partner is 4441 or 4450, then yes, pitching two spades could be useful.

 

I think the chances that "our clubs will provide useful pitches," is below 30%.

[Phil]

This hand really isn't that bad in the context of the bidding. Our clubs will provide useful pitches. I'll cooperate with 4♦, but I'm not moving over 4♥.

Which suit are we pitching?

 

If partner is 4423 we have zero pitches. If she is 4432 we can either pitch the diamond we could ruff, or a spade where we have a 44 fit. If partner is 4441 or 4450, then yes, pitching two spades could be useful.

 

I think the chances that "our clubs will provide useful pitches," is below 30%.

If pard is 4423, we have bigger problems than pitches since the club is probably getting ruffed. I doubt thats the case since RHO has advertised length.

[kenrexford]

Oh, you mean I am supposed to read all of the post?

 

I would still bid 4♥, but obviously, it is closer.

I had the same problem.

 

It's one of those things. I had to look a couple of times to see "18 to a bad 20" even after told it was there. My mind must not have wanted to accept that, kind of like one shuts down with a catatonic trance after trauma. That range was just too shocking for my system to accept.

[whereagles]

allright, allright, next time I'll use a

 

bigger font

 

for the 18 to bad 20 range :lol:

 

I'll be out today. Back tomorrow with the "solution" ;)

[whereagles]

Thx all. Hands were

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skqj5hk932dqj95ct&s=sa832haj54da2ckqj]133|200|Scoring: MP

2NT 3♣ (dbl)

3♦ 4♣

??[/hv]

 

North was planning to bid only game but, after the double, he re-evaluated due to the singleton. As it is, if you encourage with 4♦ or 5x, you'll end up in the lousy slam.

 

I'm not too sure of this, but I think South's club holding is a minus-value. It's only good if pard has something like xxx, and even then there's the risk of a ruff.

 

For Ken: what's your problem with the range? In some variants of precision you bid

 

1♣ 1♦

2NT

 

with 19-21. Although that's an hcp higher, the range is slightly bigger and you already know pard is a bit on the weakish side.

[Phil]

Thx all. Hands were

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skqj5hk932dqj95ct&s=sa832haj54da2ckqj]133|200|Scoring: MP

2NT 3♣ (dbl)

3♦ 4♣

??[/hv]

 

North was planning to bid only game but, after the double, he re-evaluated due to the singleton. As it is, if you encourage with 4♦ or 5x, you'll end up in the lousy slam.

 

I'm not too sure of this, but I think South's club holding is a minus-value. It's only good if pard has something like xxx, and even then there's the risk of a ruff.

 

For Ken: what's your problem with the range? In some variants of precision you bid

 

1♣ 1♦

2NT

 

with 19-21. Although that's an hcp higher, the range is slightly bigger and you already know pard is a bit on the weakish side.

Oh, we can't bid key card and find out about the missing ♥Q and ♣A?

 

What a shame.

[gnasher]

For Ken: what's your problem with the range? In some variants of precision you bid

 

1♣ 1♦

2NT

There are three bad things about auctions that start with a natural 2NT:

- We might be too high already (or might belong in a 3-level partscore that we can't reach)

- We have limited space for investigating game contracts

- We have limited space for investigating slam contracts

In the Precision auction you probably can't have a slam on, so you have only two of these three disadvantages.

 

with 19-21. Although that's an hcp higher, the range is slightly bigger and you already know pard is a bit on the weakish side.

18-bad 20 is more common than 19-any 21. Using the figures from here:

  HCP Probability

  21  0.38

  20  0.64

  19  1.04

  18  1.61

19-21 = 1.04 + 0.64 + 0.38 = 2.06

18-bad 20 = 1.61 + 1.04 + P(bad 20) > 2.65

 

Those figures are for any hands, not just balanced, but I can't see it affecting the ratios significantly.

[kenrexford]

I routinely open 19-counts (good ones) 2NT.

 

I also have contemplated 18-20 as a reasoned range when holding a 5-card major (maybe even some 17's) because of problems after 1M-P-1NT when 2NT is artificial.

 

So, I can easily imagine people having a need for an 18-20 2NT opening.

 

I was just having fun.

[hanp]

I think a 18-20 2NT opening is bad. It's too high too often and the range is wide.

[TylerE]

Actually, I would expect balanced hands to be a bit higher, perhaps signifigantly. After all, a 13-0-0-0 can only contain 10 HCP, whereas a 4-3-3-3 could be as much as 37.

[Cascade]

Actually, I would expect balanced hands to be a bit higher, perhaps signifigantly. After all, a 13-0-0-0 can only contain 10 HCP, whereas a 4-3-3-3 could be as much as 37.

I am not 100% sure what you mean but here are the numbers for probabilities of HCP in general and in a balanced hand:

 

HCP Overall Balanced

0 0.00363896 0.00416452

1 0.00788442 0.00844079

2 0.01356119 0.01452011

3 0.02462364 0.02555190

4 0.03845438 0.03972463

5 0.05186193 0.05261603

6 0.06554096 0.06573727

7 0.08028087 0.07971910

8 0.08892189 0.08806771

9 0.09356228 0.09194543

10 0.09405115 0.09198398

11 0.08944680 0.08778422

12 0.08026865 0.07888831

13 0.06914332 0.06810480

14 0.05693323 0.05644521

15 0.04423679 0.04442587

16 0.03310919 0.03352847

17 0.02361695 0.02425520

18 0.01605084 0.01679307

19 0.01036173 0.01105687

20 0.00643536 0.00700382

21 0.00377867 0.00422106

22 0.00210043 0.00241625

23 0.00111904 0.00132238

24 0.00055903 0.00068450

25 0.00026428 0.00033537

26 0.00011668 0.00015388

27 0.00004907 0.00006745

28 0.00001857 0.00002680

29 0.00000667 0.00001007

30 0.00000220 0.00000350

31 0.00000061 0.00000103

32 0.00000017 0.00000031

33 0.00000004 0.00000007

34 0.00000001 0.00000001

35 0.00000000 0.00000000

36 0.00000000 0.00000000

37 0.00000000 0.00000000

[whereagles]

I think a 18-20 2NT opening is bad. It's too high too often and the range is wide.

Actually, I only play it to keep pard happy.. lol. I was a bit weary when we started playing this range but, as of now, we never had any major problems because of it.

[se12sam]

Isn't there an Italian 2♦ opening for all 18-20 balanced hands? And I think even Cascade has a 2♦ opening for such hands.

 

Do these work better in the long run?

 

I'm not a fan of 2NT with 18-20 but my reason is somewhat different. I'm not confident of my declarer skills!

[whereagles]

I hate 2♦ as balanced for 2 reasons:

 

1. I think it sucks :)

2. This is the main reason: I can't play 2♦ as weak then. Major problem for me :P

[jdonn]

It's actually a good point that if partner is short in clubs our slam try may cause him to evaluate his hand badly. Maybe that means I should just sign off.

[jonottawa]

Didn't Zia play 2N showing 12-14 balanced in the Cavendish?

 

Oops ... discussed already.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=31973