weak NT problem hand

[rbforster]

Playing a 12-14 NT, I had a hand similar to this one:

 

[hv=s=saxxhqjtxxdkjxxcx]133|100|1N(12-14) 2♣ (inv)

2♠-2N

3N[/hv]

Judging this to be invitational (adjust accordingly if not), I bid 2♣ invitational stayman, planning on rebidding 2♥ over 2♦ to show an invitational 5 card suit. Partner failed to cooperate however, and bid 2♠. I was endplayed into bidding 2N and he raised to 3N while suppressing his 3 card heart fit.

 

Is this just a system loss, or are there methods people commonly use to address this type of problem?

 

On a related note, I suppose 2♣-2♥-2♠ is now invitational with 4-5 spades, which wasn't immediately obvious to me at first glance. (2♣-2♦-2♠ would be 5, but it's ambiguous over a 2♥ stayman answer).

[helene_t]

What would a direct 2NT response show? If Stayman followed by 2♠ is invitational with 4-5 spades then Stayman followed by 2NT is presumably invitational without a 4-card major. So you could use a direct 2NT to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts.

[rbforster]

What would a direct 2NT response show? If Stayman followed by 2♠ is invitational with 4-5 spades then Stayman followed by 2NT is presumably invitational without a 4-card major. So you could use a direct 2NT to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts.

Good suggestion. Right now a direct 2N is primarily preemptive with both minors 5/5+ (or strong minors), but both are pretty rare meanings.

[Free]

You can also just play transfers... :rolleyes:

[the hog]

I don't understand any of the first responses apart from Free's. Why not play transfers?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the simplest solution is, that opener bids 3H after 2NT, if he accepts the invite.

His 2S repsonse already denied 4 hearts, so he cant have more than 3.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I assume you play 2C as nonforcing Stayman, 2D as forcing Stayman

and 2H, 2S as sign off bids.

You could of course play a agreement set, which would allow opener to show

his shape.

[whereagles]

I don't understand any of the first responses apart from Free's. Why not play transfers?

Seems like they're playing some variant of Klinger's 5-card major stayman, where 2♣ + 2M = 4 or 5 card M, NF invite.

 

Anyway, RobF how about suggesting pard stick to time-tested methods, like i.e. supporting with support? :rolleyes:

[hanp]

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

[helene_t]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

[jjbrr]

Missing major suits fits with unbalanced hands sucks, imo. I played weak NTs with no transfers for a long time, and it's a headache without ways to untangle something so simple.

 

Plus you lose the ability to pass partner's stayman response. This seems bad.

[Vampyr]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

[rbforster]

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

Well, 2-way stayman is one of the "standard" things to play over a weak NT. I suppose you could ask the same thing about how most strong NTers play a 5S/4H invite (where stayman followed by 2M is weak) - no good bid since most people play GF (not invitational) Smolen.

 

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

Well, normally I'm playing a weaker NT, more like 10-12 or something, so it's important to have 1N-2M (and to a lesser extent 1N-3m) as non-forcing in order to pressure the opponents. Transfers are fine when it's your hand, since it costs little to offer them a direct and delayed double by 4th hand. Over the weaker NTs, this is much more costly since it lets them figure out if they've missed game or not.

[hanp]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

If you think so, fine, but at least play something you know and that makes sense.

[JanM]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

Ditto :).

 

But I do know that some people strongly disagree - Joey Silver & I debate the merits of transfers in response to weak NTs all the time. In support of Stefanie & me, note that a pair playing transfers in response to a weak NT just finished second in the Vanderbilt :) - I don't think playing other methods over their weak NT would have helped them win.

[jjbrr]

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

Well, 2-way stayman is one of the "standard" things to play over a weak NT. I suppose you could ask the same thing about how most strong NTers play a 5S/4H invite (where stayman followed by 2M is weak) - no good bid since most people play GF (not invitational) Smolen.

Many people are playing now that 1NT 2♣ 2♦

 

-2♥ is weak and ambiguous as to which major is longer. With Opener playing in the major in his longest 3-card M and correcting to 2♠ with 3-3 (so yes, sometimes you play a 4-3 instead of a 5-3. oh well)

 

-2♠ is invitational 5♠ (could have 4♥)

 

So that solves your problem, with the downside being slightly less accuracy with less than invitational hands.

[Free]

Over a mini NT I think transfers are a poor choice. But opposite weak NT I'd play transfers all the time! Chances opposite a 12-14 NT is still big you have an invitational hand, so it's definitely important to be able to invite properly.

 

Ok, you can play different methods to show your invite another way (like 2♦ asking opener to bid his doubleton M for example), no problem with that. But not being able to invite with 5♥ whenever opener has 4♠ is just a poor structure.

[campboy]

Well, normally I'm playing a weaker NT, more like 10-12 or something, so it's important to have 1N-2M (and to a lesser extent 1N-3m) as non-forcing in order to pressure the opponents. Transfers are fine when it's your hand, since it costs little to offer them a direct and delayed double by 4th hand. Over the weaker NTs, this is much more costly since it lets them figure out if they've missed game or not.

That's a different kettle of fish, of course. I've seen more people playing mini NT without transfers than I've seen playing weak NT without transfers, despite the fact that I encounter at least ten times as many weak-NT pairs as mini-NT pairs.

[helene_t]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

If you think so, fine, but at least play something you know and that makes sense.

Well if Rob already knew his follow-ups he wouldn't need to start this thread.

 

If someone says:

"I play Stayman and transfers, and Stayman followed by 4NT is quanti while Stayman followed by 2M-4♣ would be a splinter, I wonder if it's possible to invite slam and ask keycards for opener's 4-card major?"

 

then I could have answered:

"If you don't know how to handle such a simple thing then you shouldn't play transfers but just use 2♦ as a GF relay"

 

but that wouldn't be very helpful either.

[ArtK78]

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 or 5 hearts, then opener MUST bid 3♥ if he is accepting the invite and has 3 card support.

 

That would seem to solve the problem.

 

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational hand with 4 hearts exactly, then the 2NT bid is wrong.

 

What would 2♣ followed by 3♥ show? If 2♣ was invitational Stayman, then 3♥ would show this hand.

[rbforster]

I have been playing two-way stayman for a long time, but only recently switched between having the 2C-2D-2M sequences show 5 card invites instead of 5 card signoffs. I've been convinced by some of the regulars here that this is a winning approach, esp over a very weak NT, but hadn't fully appreciated all the implications.

 

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 or 5 hearts, then opener MUST bid 3♥ if he is accepting the invite and has 3 card support.

 

That would seem to solve the problem.

Indeed. Having not thought of this problem hand before, I (and my partner) didn't realize we might need to do this. Likewise, one might rebid 3S over a 2N invite if accepting with 5S (assuming 5cM is possible).

 

What would 2♣ followed by 3♥ show?  If 2♣ was invitational Stayman, then 3♥ would show this hand.

Originally I played that these bids showed 5+ majors, where ideally you'd have 6 but might have only 5 with an invite. This was noteably one of the poor sequences in my weak NT structure, which was why I was happy to think that I might reserve this for purely 6cM invites, barring this issue with certain troublesome 5cM invites.

[rbforster]

Perhaps I can ask more generally, when accepting over a 2N bid that might conceal a major fit, do you tend to

 

1. "bid out your hand" to find the major fit, or

2. bid 3N and hope to make up for any losses with worse average defense

 

For example, in standard strong NT where 2C-2D-2N might have 5S/4H (in many people's methods), do you really bid 3S when accepting just in case responder had 5? It seems that if 2N doesn't even promise a 4cM (a standard treatment, say with 4 suit transfers), you're giving away a lot of free info to the defense on hands where it doesn't matter.

 

In the weak NT example I gave, 2C-2S-2N, you might bid 3H with 3 when accepting. Over this, responder would then bid 3S with 3, catering to a possible 5 card spade suit. Or after 2C-2H-2N, opener would bid 3H when accepting with 5 card.

 

It seems like disclosing these 5 card majors in declarer's hand will make the defense much more accurate, since that's often an unexpected source of tricks. While I can see methods that find all the major fits, at least when accepting game, I'm less sure whether it's worth giving away that information. Perhaps lower-information versions of standard conventions could be designed to make this process less useful to the defense.

[Rodney26]

Hi,

 

the simplest solution is, that opener bids 3H after 2NT, if he accepts the invite.

His 2S repsonse already denied  4 hearts, so he cant have more than 3.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I assume you play 2C as nonforcing Stayman, 2D as forcing Stayman

and 2H, 2S as sign off bids.

You could of course play a agreement set, which would allow opener to show

his shape.

I agree wholeheartedly with Marlowe. I hate bidding 3H over 2S with this type of hand as responder (agree with your comments that I want 6 or a very good 5 for the 3 level major suit invites) so I agree with 2NT and partner protecting with 3H when he has 3 hearts.

 

Yes you give away some information to the defense, but you've already done so with the invitational Stayman start. NT engines tend to do that. You might as well go all in in terms of strain on hands like this where you have a stiff.

 

One more thought -- if 1NT-2NT is simply invitational (I know my partners and I play that way), then you've already shown the defense you have 4+ hearts and interest in a major by bidding this way. There isn't much left to conceal.

[jdonn]

Opener bidding 3♥ with three of them on the way to 3NT does not solve the problem of missing hearts if opener is minimum (in which case responder with a hand like this might want to force to game anyway opposite the fit). Still, it's an improvement over not bidding 3♥ there at all.

[peachy]

It seems that in your systems you lose transfers as well as ability to apply Garbage Stayman. And cannot find 5-3 heart fit. Some system discussion probably needed, you didn't have necessary tools.

[whereagles]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

Double!