Awkward hand

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=n&s=sat73h4dqt8753ck8]133|100|1N*-2♣,

2♦-?

 

*14-16[/hv]

 

I held an awkward hand type for our system. Partner opens a 14-16 NT, and you make a routine stayman inquiry, partner denying 4 card majors. 3♦ now by an unpassed hand would be natural, game forcing with possible slam interest if partner has a good fit, and 2N would be invitational to 3N with a 4 card major.

 

Playing matchpoints, what would you do? Would your plan change either NV or Vul at teams?

[jjbrr]

3♦, which I don't believe suggests or denies slam interest.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=n&s=sat73h4dqt8753ck8]133|100|1N*-2♣,

2♦-?

 

*14-16[/hv]

 

I held an awkward hand type for our system. Partner opens a 14-16 NT, and you make a routine stayman inquiry, partner denying 4 card majors. 3♦ now by an unpassed hand would be natural, game forcing with possible slam interest if partner has a good fit, and 2N would be invitational to 3N with a 4 card major.

 

Playing matchpoints, what would you do? Would your plan change either NV or Vul at teams?

you look like you're pretty much screwed into "Hamman eggs in one basket" :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

If you're forcing to game then you have an easy 3♦ bid. If you decide you're only worth an invitation then you have to bid 2NT (or show diamonds and forget about spades to begin with). I definitely prefer bidding 3♦. 2NT would be much more possible if partner had bid 2♥ instead of 2♦.

[Bbradley62]

3♦ seems automatic

[Cascade]

3♦ now by an unpassed hand would be natural, game forcing with possible slam interest if partner has a good fit

Isn't this what you have?

 

After all

 

♠ Kx

♥ Axx

♦ Kxxx

♣ Axxx

 

Is a minimum that makes a slam

[CSGibson]

I'm a little surprised that no one is considering passing at matchpoints, since playing 2♦ is the surest way to go plus on the hand. After all, there are lots of hands out there where neither 3N nor 5 diamonds has play, even if partner chooses the right contract.

 

Edit - I am not advocating passing, just expressing surprise that no one has mentioned it.

[whereagles]

Passing 2♦ is masterminding. Only players like me are authorized to do it.

[gwnn]

:)

[Hanoi5]

Passing 2♦ is masterminding. Only players like me are authorized to do it.

Hey I also thought about it!

[whereagles]

Please request your license to mastermind before engaging in the activity.

[robertb]

A secure diamond game, it seems to me, requires partner to hold 3 out of the 5 key cards (K♠, AK♦, A♥, A♣) as well as a useful secondary spade feature, such as a doubleton or the queen. It seems to me that can I think of about 18 useful points that partner could potentially hold.

 

A decent game in NT requires partner to hold a top diamond with a double stop in hearts, or AK♦ and a single heart stop, as well as (in either case) either the spade king or the club ace. It seems here that partner could have about 20 points that would be useful for a NT game.

 

There are 31 points that I can't see. Partner has about half of them. For a diamond game, he has to have 11/18 useful points; for the NT game he has to have about 13/20. So it seems to me that the diamond game is a better bet...but I think both bets are slight favorites to lose.

 

I would bid 3 diamonds vulnerable at teams. But at match points, or not vulnerable at teams, I think it's right to pass 2 diamonds.