Phil Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 W/r teams A6xx 9xxx Axx Qx You open a 10-12 NT. Pard bids 2♦ (forcing stayman). 2♥ by you, 3♦ by pard, 3♠ by you. LHO doubles, 3N by pard. Sit or pull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbenvic Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 W/r teams A6xx 9xxx Axx Qx You open a 10-12 NT. Pard bids 2♦ (forcing stayman). 2♥ by you, 3♦ by pard, 3♠ by you. LHO doubles, 3N by pard. Sit or pull? What was 3d? nat forcing denying 4♠? Pull to where 4d? I assume your replies show 4-4 in the Majors (or is 3♠ a cue for ♦), you've got the A♠ so them running 5 spades before partner starts isn't going to happen. A♦ is a big card assuming 3♦ is nat so I'm sitting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Unless there is a contrary agreement I expect partner to have a spade stopper to bid 3NT. He has an easy pass otherwise. I also expect partner to have only mild slam interest. Again he could pass or do something more exciting. I have a couple of good cards (aces) and a dodgy ♣Q, a medium fit in a minimum hand. This points to 3NT being our most likely best contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 What is 3♦??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 What is 3♦??? When you play two-way Stayman, all game forcing bids go via 2♦. Accordingly, absent of any further artificiality, which the opener would have announced, when you are interested in slam with a long minor your only way to bid is 2♦ followed by your minor. Is that not obvious? 3♦ is completely natural and, having forced to game already, must show interest at least in a high ♦ contract. However, the 3NT bid, when responder could either have passed or bid 4NT, which I would consider invitational, limits his slam ambitions. Missing the ♦ace, he must have something in spades or he would have passed 3♠. The biggest danger to 3NT is not spades, but that partner is short in hearts, precisely the hands where 6♦ could easily make. But I am not quite prepared to bet on this outcome, but it is close. This hand is minimum but has diamond support and 2 bullets. I pass, but exchange the minor suit honors and I would not consider this hand minimum any more and would bid 4♦. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 The auction is funny, but I'm going to sit this. Reason: LHO probably has ♠KQJxx and didn't overcall. The inference is he's weakish and it should be easy to shut him off during the play. If pard happens to have a slammish hand, well tough luck. He should have made his intentions clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 The auction is funny, but I'm going to sit this. Reason: LHO probably has ♠KQJxx and didn't overcall. The inference is he's weakish and it should be easy to shut him off during the play. If pard happens to have a slammish hand, well tough luck. He should have made his intentions clearer.Pard made his intentions quite clear: a) He has a game forcing handb) He has no majorc) He does not think it clear that 3NT is the right contract, or else why embark on a long journey in the auction? d) He was interested in a diamond slam missing 2 aces at least, else why bid 3♦? The only issue is what to do with this information in light of this hand. It is close between pass and 4♦. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Rainer, the question is: how far can you trust pard to be on the same wavelength to bid 4D now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Rainer, the question is: how far can you trust pard to be on the same wavelength to bid 4D now?I usually trust my partners, even though this is not always a success. :D And mistrusting them has its own perils :P Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 "Knowe thy partner and you shalt knowe thyself" :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted December 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦. Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was: Pass -1♦1♥ - 2♣3♦ - 3♥3♠ (x) - 6♦ Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost. Unfortunately they did not call the director :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 When you play two-way Stayman, all game forcing bids go via 2♦. Accordingly, absent of any further artificiality, which the opener would have announced, when you are interested in slam with a long minor your only way to bid is 2♦ followed by your minor. Is that not obvious?I thought there were also possibilities to describe responder's hand when he's GF. Therefore it's useful to know the difference between going through 2♦ and showing ♦ in some other way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 I play a 10-12 1NT opening non-vul in 1st and 2nd seat. However, after 2♦ forcing Stayman, opener would bid 3♣ in my methods to show 4-4 in the majors. Still, I can't imagine that responder would want to allow partner to play in 3NT at IMPs. For all that responder knows, partner's spades are 98xx. The auction would probably go: 1NT* - 2♦**3♣*** - 3♦3♠**** - (x) - 4♣4♦ - 4♠5♦ - ? * 10-12** Game Forcing Stayman*** 4-4 in the majors**** Something in spades. Not clear if this is a NT probe or a cue bid. Responder has to decide whether to bid one more. He assumes that opener has the ♠A and Axx of diamonds (to justify the forward going moves) and another card. Opener presumably does not have the ♣K since he did not cue 5♣. I don't know if responder can count on opener having Axx of diamonds on the auction, so his best move is probably to stop in 5♦. But it is certainly very close, and it turns out that slam is pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦. Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was: Pass -1♦1♥ - 2♣3♦ - 3♥3♠ (x) - 6♦ Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost. Unfortunately they did not call the director :( If 3NT is slow then Pass is 100%. 3NT is also 100% - 100% crazy with spade void. How on earth is partner supposed to judge - unless you bid it slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often.That is also part of my structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦. Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was: Pass -1♦1♥ - 2♣3♦ - 3♥3♠ (x) - 6♦ Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost. Unfortunately they did not call the director :( I don't think that it is too late to call the director at the score-up. You may have lost some of your rights and it may be hard to establish the facts but the director is still responsible for equity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often. By the way, if you are playing a mini NT, why use your two cheapest bids in response to ask for the same information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 By the way, if you are playing a mini NT, why use your two cheapest bids in response to ask for the same information?You don't ask, you tell. 2♦ is more about telling opener that you got a strong hand, but where the final contract needs investigation, and that further bids below game are forcing. Now what do you suggest opener should do when he has a 4 card major over 2♦? 2♦ allows you to play any other start as natural (except 2♣), non forcing and preemptive. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 The idea of using 2♥ and higher bids as to play is fine, but if 2♣ asks for 4-card majors, you should use 2♦ to ask for something else, for example 3-card majors. Gerben's "condensed transfers" make a lot more sense than so-called "forcing Stayman", in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 The idea of using 2♥ and higher bids as to play is fine, but if 2♣ asks for 4-card majors, you should use 2♦ to ask for something else, for example 3-card majors. Gerben's "condensed transfers" make a lot more sense than so-called "forcing Stayman", in my opinion.In my experience, double-barrelled Stayman (2♣ less than a game force, 2♦ game forcing) makes eminent sense over a 10-12 1NT opening. It is also effective over a regular 11-14 weak NT. You really do not want to play any sort of transfer method when you play a 10-12 1NT opening, except if you mean that opener transfers to responder (for example, the responses to 2♦ game forcing Stayman should attempt to make responder - the strong hand - declarer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 Transfers do make sense over a 10-12NT, you just make the transfers 2-under and ditch Stayman completely. For example, ETM MiniNT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 You really do not want to play any sort of transfer method when you play a 10-12 1NT opening, except if you mean that opener transfers to responder (for example, the responses to 2♦ game forcing Stayman should attempt to make responder - the strong hand - declarer). I haven't really seen transfers cost opposite either weak or mini nt. I think it is an overblown concern. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 I haven't really seen transfers cost opposite either weak or mini nt. I think it is an overblown concern.That has more to do with the fact that few partnerships can be bothered to discuss effective defenses to transfers. They are occupied with discussing the latest variant of puppet stayman. For example doubling 2♦(transfer) to show diamonds is a waste of time. It does not prove that transfers are a sound method over mini notrump.A better question might be to ask what transfers over mini notrump are supposed to accomplish. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 A better question might be to ask what transfers over mini notrump are supposed to accomplish. To get more kinds of hands in: signoff with a 5+ card, invitational with 5, invitational with 6, GF with 5. Surely you knew that already, so why ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.