weak NT problem hand

[the hog]

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? :)

Don't think so nuno, because then opener is forced to rebid 2D. Besides you still transfer in Keri.

[the hog]

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

According to whom?

[Mbodell]

I'll point out keri works on this hand where the auction would go 1nt-2♣-2♦-2♥ (invite with 4+ hearts)-3♣(max with 3 card support)-4♥(lets play here). It doesn't let you do other things (like garbage stayman), but does solve these.

 

I'm not so concerned about transfers over weak and mini-nt. I think you've "won" enough already by shutting them out at the low levels.

[1eyedjack]

I don't mind transfers opposite a weak 1N. I will say that in my neck of the woods (1) weak 1N is virtually universal, and (2) transfer responses are virtually universal, BUT (3) they are mostly a load of sheep who don't have the greatest system imagination.

 

I am pretty averse to 2-way Stayman. It just seems instinctively inefficient to start off with two of the most space-affording responses both of which say very little about responder's hand and both of which simply require opener to start to describe his hand. Can't be that bad a system and still have such a large empirical following. For that matter, all of these methods only gain on a very small population of hands.

 

On the hand in the original thread, in my methods, responder would start with 2C to show 5+ Hearts or a balanced hand. Opener would rebid 2S+ with 4+ Hearts, but presumably not in this case as he appears to lack 4 Hearts. Opener would rebid 2H with a minimum and fewer than 4 Hearts, which responder would then pass (and possibly play in a 5-2 fit). But on the OP hand opener has a max with fewer than 4 Hearts so rebids 2D to show this. Responder then treats his hand as GF and patterns out. Opener with 3 card Heart support, or even with some hands without a fit but lack of values opposite the singleton chooses 4M over 3N, usually preferring a 4-3 Spade fit over a 5-2 Heart fit.

 

This method does not get around all possible problems. There is no method that does. In particular, you might take the vew that responder is worth pushing to game opposite 3 card H support and minimum values, but not worth pushing to game opposite 2 card H support and minimum values. Much will probably depend on the extent of wasted values opposite the singleton, with no room to enquire. Anyway, my methods commit you to stopping in 2H opposite the minimum unless opener has 4 card support. Well, at least we gain in the long term over those who play in 3H or 2N (not always making), and the opponents have less information when deciding whether to balance: responder could be v weak in a 9 card fit, or responder could have a full-blown game try with a misfit.

[pirate22]

ask yourself this question---------if opps plying strong n/t what action if any now ?

ok against weak n/t you used 2cl,was it alerted by your pard? i assume u used it as stayman? without knowing the responders hand to the 1n/t and assume non alert by the 2cl---------we can only surmise-----to bid 2spades i would pass the bid.

I think the 2cl bid was a misleading bid.

[1eyedjack]

I think I might ask myself these questions ...

... if only I would discern their relevance to the OP question.

[Mbodell]

Also, while transfers give the opponents 3 opportunities to act (to only 2 against natural 2M bids) they only give 1 "informed" opportunity to act (to 2 "informed" against natural 2M bids).

 

So if the auction goes 1nt - (P) - 2♥ (tx) - (P_1) - 2♠ - (P_2) - P - (P_3) there are the 3 different opponent calls but only P_3 is made with knowledge that you wanted to play 2♠. At the time of P_2 you might have been at the start of a game invite or game forcing sequence so it isn't clear that it is safe to step in.

 

If the auction goes 1nt - (P) - 2♠ (to play) - (P_1) - P - (P_2) you only have the 2 opponent calls after your action but both of them are fully informed that you plan on stopping at the 2 level to play. That means your LHO and your RHO might both be able to come in on more marginal hands as opposed to above.

 

So I'm not convinced, in terms of preemption, that transfers over mini/weak are a big loss.

[the hog]

So I'm not convinced, in terms of preemption, that transfers over mini/weak are a big loss.

You are correct of course. They are no loss over a weak NT at all, far from it.

[Jlall]

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.

Totally disagree. A bunch of the texas regulars (ghinze/nagy etc) used to play this (3H over 2N) and I always refused to play it. Basically you are telling the opponents on every single hand where partner invites with 2N on this auction whether or not you have 2 hearts or 3 hearts. I think that this will cause them to defend so much more accurately on average that it is really bad to play this way.

 

My "solution" is to just bid 3H on a hand like this over 2S. Sometimes you end up in a 5-2 fit at the 3 level when partner is minimum, but thats not clearly worse than playing 2N when you are minimum. You then get to play the right game whenever partner has a maximum, without him exposing the amount of hearts he has over 2N bids.

 

With a balanced hand like 5332 I just bid 2C then 2N and miss the 5-3 fit. Again this is not clearly bad at all with a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand.

 

But yeah obv playing 2 way stayman is not going to be good when you are inviting in hearts and partner bids spades. If you don't want to change your system to transfers or something like 2C forcing 2D, then you're going to have problems no matter what you choose to do. I play this way also in my regular partnership, but I just accept it as a loss for the system.

[xcurt]

...

Justin beat me to it, but ++ all of this. I was reading this thread and throwing up over the idea of a 3H call from opener -- keeping the shape of the closed hand concealed in a NT auction is a big source of declarer's advantage. I also strongly dislike being forced to bid 2C-2x-2NT to invite in NT when I don't have a major.

 

In fact, I think there's a case for just forcing game with this hand. There are lot's of other situations in bridge where the first thing that goes when you don't have enough room is the invite. So sometimes you reach a poor game. They still have to beat it. And on this hand you have good trumps, reducing the chances they can double you -- especially if you power your way there.

[shintaro]

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

:rolleyes:

 

Transfers Smansfers

 

Just use the old fashioned Acol bid of (in this cse ) 3♥ Which merely says If you hold 3 ♥ (or more) Bid 4♥ else bid 3NT.

 

This is not a stayman hand :P