New suit at 3 level?

[the_dude]

[hv=pc=n&s=s982haqt762d5ckj9&d=n&v=e&b=5&a=1d2s]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, favorable, 2/1 strong NT context. Do you play this is good enough for 3♥?

 

For that matter, how forcing do you play 3♥ - 100% forcing to game or can you stop in 4m?

[Zelandakh]

For that matter, how forcing do you play 3♥ - 100% forcing to game or can you stop in 4m?

 

GF is often taken to mean forcing to 3NT, meaning you can stop in 4m if it is discovered that there is no fit and an unstopped suit. Those that take this approach have a higher level, for example UGF (unconditionally game forcing) where you cannot stop in 4m even in the above situation. In this case the distinction is probably irrelevant because, if you did bid 3H and partner responded 3S, you would not be willing to stop in 4D anyway. I usually prefer to double and then bid hearts next time around on these hand types. That may or may not be a good treatment.

[Fluffy]

3♥ is game forcing on basic methods, advanced players will play conventional 2NT and then transfers or something. I bid 3♥

[gwnn]

3♥ is game forcing, period. Stopping in 4m here is problematic because both hands are unlimited and we are at 3♥ already. It is good to stop in 4m when both hands are kind of limited and slam is all but impossible, for example

1M-1N;

2m-3m

3M-4m

 

ps there's plenty of advanced players who don't play transfers here Fluffy (I would say more than 50%).

[Phil]

3♥. If I had a way to invite in hearts I would.

 

After 3♥, it is inconceivable we could stop in 4m.

[aguahombre]

My alleged thought process:

 

When pard opened 1D, my responding hand would be comfortable up to the 3-level inviting hearts. The only negative feature at that time was the singleton in pard's opening.

 

After RHO bid 2S, there doesn't seem to be anything about my initial evaluation which would cause an upgrade. The 3 small spades could be good or could be bad; the opps don't have to have a spade fit.

 

3H is forcing beyond 3H, whether forcing beyond 4m or not, and I don't want to do that. A negative double here, would express the desire to be at least at the 3-level, so I make a negative double. Will follow up with 3H if available, or a second double if 2S is raised and it comes back around.

[pooltuna]

My alledged thought process:

 

When pard opened 1D, my responding hand would be comfortable up to the 3-level inviting hearts. The only negative feature at that time was the singleton in pard's opening.

 

After RHO bid 2S, there doesn't seem to be anything about my initial evaluation which would cause an upgrade. The 3 small spades could be good or could be bad; the opps don't have to have a spade fit.

 

3H is forcing beyond 3H, whether forcing beyond 4m or not, and I don't want to do that. A negative double here, would express the desire to be at least at the 3-level, so I make a negative double. Will follow up with 3H if available, or a second double if 2S is raised and it comes back around.

 

generally agree but note that pass could work as well as pard will probably be able to reopen with an X, making 4♥ an easy call. In this scenario tho missing a slam looks more likely than if a negX is followed by partner's jump to 4♥

[han]

Please explain to me why you would not switch 3C and 3H in this auction.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♥.

 

My alleged thought process:

 

When pard opened 1D, my responding hand would be comfortable up to the 3-level inviting hearts. The only negative feature at that time was the singleton in pard's opening.

At the time that you thought that, you expected that you would be able to show six hearts, whilst dividing your hands into at least three strength ranges.

 

Now not all of those options are available to you. Even if you have the rest of the auction to yourselves, you will still only be able to describe two strength ranges - game-forcing and not game-forcing. If you start with double and LHO bids 4♠, you will no longer be able to show six hearts. Hence you may be facing the choice between showing (1) game-forcing with 5+ hearts, and (2) constructive+ with 4+ hearts.

 

If all the hands that were originally not worth a game-force go into the second group, it makes that category very ill-defined. To reduce that problem, it's better to game force on some hands that aren't quite worth it.

 

Please explain to me why you would not switch 3C and 3H in this auction.

Because it's better to play transfers, and easier to devise generic methods

Edited October 11, 2011 by gnasher

[JLOGIC]

Not clear that it's better to play transfers over switch in this auction imo, but generally agree. Switch is pretty generic though, many people play it over 1m-(1S) and 1m-(3S) already. People also play it over kokish where I think transfers are better, though one good reason to play switch over transfers is if you want to use the 3D step over the 1 suiter as a double negative so you can sign off in 3H.

[han]

Because it's better to play transfers, and easier to devise generic methods

 

I thought about adding (unless you play transfers), but decided against it for style reasons.

[whereagles]

3♥ is game forcing on basic methods, advanced players will play conventional 2NT and then transfers or something. I bid 3♥

 

I've onced come up with a transfer scheme for situations like these and believe me it was such a nightmare to memorize it all that I stopped playing it. I don't think the majority of top level players use such contrived schemes to cater for stuff that happens like 1% of the hands and for which natural + good judgement should be enough. I might be wrong, though.

 

Anyway, I think the hand is good enough to strech to GF status. 3H for me too.

[gnasher]

I've onced come up with a transfer scheme for situations like these and believe me it was such a nightmare to memorize it all that I stopped playing it.

 

I do believe you, but probably all that tells us is that you're either not very good at devising transfer schemes or not very good at memorising them.

 

My notes regarding transfers after a two-level overcall take up half a page of A4:

 

After 1any (2lower) or 1S (2S) [Michaels]

Transfers from 2NT up to the suit below theirs

Transfer to their suit = good 3-card raise. Aide memoire: playing the raises this way around allows space to ask for a stop.

Bidding their suit – good 4-card raise.

Opener's suit = competitive.

Double = negative

 

After 1any (2higher)

1H (2H) [Michaels]

Transfers from 2NT up to two below their suit.

One below their suit = natural (can also transfer to it – meanings depend on whether it's opener's suit)

Three-level cue bid = splinter (with a game-level raise, start with the inv+ raise and then move)

1H (2H) 2S = good 3-card raise

Double = negative

 

After other two-suited cue-bid that specifies only one suit, eg 1D (2D) showing S + another.

2 new = F1

Transfers from 2NT up to one below our suit.

Transfer to their suit, if available = good 3-card raise

2-level cue bid, if available = good 3-card raise

Transfer to our suit = good 4-card raise.

 

When we can both transfer to a suit and bid it

In several of the sequences above, there is one suit where we can either transfer to the suit or bid it. When that happens:

- If it's opener's suit at the three level (including clubs), transferring is compet/FG, and bidding the suit is invitational.

- If it's a new suit, transferring is 6 inv+ or 5 FG; bidding the suit is 5 inv.

[whereagles]

I do believe you, but probably all that tells us is that you're either not very good at devising transfer schemes or not very good at memorising them.

 

I find your attitude rather unpolite. Since it really brings nothing positive to the discussion, I'll just stop it here.

[han]

The truth is often the hardest part.

[neilkaz]

Tough call here but with basic methods I'll stretch a bit to upgrade to a GF 3♥

[lexlogan]

I don't care for the three losing spades, so I'll try double, planning to rebid 3♥. If LHO bids 4♠ and partner doesn't double I'll take a stab at 5♥.