2NT-3NT artificial

[mgoetze]

2NT = strong balanced (e.g. 20-21).

 

Let's say you are prepared to risk playing 2NT-3NT as an artificial bid, presumably with 2NT-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT (either to play or various other hands). What's the best way to use all all these bids? Anyone have a good writeup?

[bluecalm]

2N - 3N not natural is very bad idea, no write-up on it could possibly be good as for that to happen you would need some good bidding theorists to work on the best way to lose which doesn't happen to often.

Those 3S's on every day frequent hands will bite you faster than any tiny gains you may have from putting some exotic hands in 3N.

[Vampyr]

2NT = strong balanced (e.g. 20-21).

 

Let's say you are prepared to risk playing 2NT-3NT as an artificial bid, presumably with 2NT-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT (either to play or various other hands). What's the best way to use all all these bids? Anyone have a good writeup?

 

I like Baron. Have played 5-5 minors as well.

[nigel_k]

I don't really get the whole idea of this.

 

If the opener cannot pass 3NT, then you have no way to invite slam in a minor and still play 3NT when opener is not interested. You can if 3♠ is Minor Suit Stayman. This seems quite important.

 

If opener can pass 3NT then whenever responder doesn't want that, he has to bid 3♠ then bid again over the forced 3NT without knowing what trumps should be or opener having contributed anything else to the auction either.

[JLOGIC]

2N-3S = 3N or both minors then...

4C=longer diamonds

4D=longer clubs

4M=5-5 minors, short in M

 

2N-3N = clubs

2N-4C = diamonds

 

Seems simple enough/reasonable and a significant gain on your minor suit slam auctions.

 

That said, I would not recommend playing 2N-3N artificial and basically agree with bluecalm.

[Flem72]

2N - 3N not natural is very bad idea, no write-up on it could possibly be good as for that to happen you would need some good bidding theorists to work on the best way to lose which doesn't happen to often.

Those 3S's on every day frequent hands will bite you faster than any tiny gains you may have from putting some exotic hands in 3N.

 

Don't get this: a 3N hand = a 3N hand, and the two relays are jsut too valuable to waste.

 

Anyhoo, playing Muppet we can describe just about anything we want to describe. Don't want to type out all the possible altrnatives, but using any of a number of variations on:

 

3S-->3N = to play or 4m = minor suit Smolen, stiff in corresponding M, variety of contracts possible; 4M = slammish w/long corresponding minor (4N = xx support, else RKCB)

3N-->4C = to play 4m; 4M = slammish 5-5 minors, stiff; 4N or 5C = slammish 5-5 minors, Exclusion in corresponding M.

 

or, by way of illustration, another (this one gives up the minor suit smolen, which I happen to like a lot),

 

2N-3S relay to 3N

2N-3S/3N-P to play: Only way to play 3N

 

2N-3S/3N-4m R is long in m

2N-3S/3N-4m/4M cue agreeing m with min xxx or Hx support

2N-3S/3N-4m/4N only xx support. If R bids, s/he claims a very good suit and is responding RKCB

 

2N-3S/3N-4M 5-5 ms, stiff M, SI

2N-3S/3N-4M/4N to play

2N-3S/3N-4M/5m agrees m, RKCB

 

2N-3N relay to 4C

2N-3N/4C P to play 4C

2N-3N/4C-4D to play

2N-3N/4C-4M 5-5 minors, SI, void M: O's 4N = to play, cheap agrees C, next = agrees D; now cheap = Exclusion

 

In any case, 2N-4S 5/5 in ms, weak: pick

 

Also, in terms of basic structure (not Puppet or Muppet) there's one called Niemeijer and there are a variety of 5-Card Major Stayman kind of thingies that allow pretty much the same descriptions.

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[JLOGIC]

Don't get this: a 3N hand = a 3N hand, and the two relays are jsut too valuable to waste.

 

Yes, but if 95 % of the time you have a 3N bid when you bid 3S, this will cost you on lead directing double inferences/negative inferences. You have to gain a lot on the 5 %, keeping in mind that most of the time you can deal with having less options reasonably well...to gain you actually have to get to spots you wouldn't have gotten to with less room, which is basically a low percentage of a low percentage already.

 

Also, if you play this way you are forced to use 3S as a relay. I am not sure that is best, if you play 3S as minors or a diamond one suiter, then you allow opener to have a vote over 3S and in effect can slam try and still get to 3N by playing 3N as NOT a relay. This has benefits.

[Flem72]

Yes, but if 95 % of the time you have a 3N bid when you bid 3S, this will cost you on lead directing double inferences/negative inferences. You have to gain a lot on the 5 %, keeping in mind that most of the time you can deal with having less options reasonably well...to gain you actually have to get to spots you wouldn't have gotten to with less room, which is basically a low percentage of a low percentage already.

 

Also, if you play this way you are forced to use 3S as a relay. I am not sure that is best, if you play 3S as minors or a diamond one suiter, then you allow opener to have a vote over 3S and in effect can slam try and still get to 3N by playing 3N as NOT a relay. This has benefits.

 

I understand this objection as stated -- but it all comes down to a frequency thing, right? So you lose on some percentage of hands where 3rd hand doubles 3S and declarer can't find his way to 9 tricks with just one stopper? And maybe gain a bit when O can pass 3S? Or warn O to avoid 3N? and isn't there an issue re: just how strong R might be? (Not doubling 3S would seem to be of questionable value negativeinferencedwise? If leader has S, he can guess 3rd hand doesn't have good S?) I of course bow to the 10,000+ hands you have played that I have not (and maybe Bluecalm also) but this seems to be an issue that could not reasonably be resolved without some humungous number of simulation deals.

 

I hate 2N openers.

[JLOGIC]

I of course bow to the 10,000+ hands you have played that I have not (and maybe Bluecalm also) but this seems to be an issue that could not reasonably be resolved without some humungous number of simulation deals.

 

I hate 2N openers.

 

I have barely ever played 2N-3N as artificial, so don't get me wrong and think I'm saying I'm sure it's a loser. I agree it would take a long time for anyone to ever be able to say that definitively.

 

I do *think* it's *probably* a loser, hence why I don't play it. If the expert community at large starts playing it because they suddenly decide it is a winner, I will probably believe them and jump on the bandwagon. It's not like it's a new idea, so I think the fact that few people play it is good evidence that it's likely to be a loser, but again it might be a case of groupthink/being against change, yada yada. I def do not have significant experience with the method that I am drawing on, only an educated guess in my head of what as you say comes down to a frequency issue.

 

Edit: But now that you mention how many hands I have played it's more like 100,000+ than 10,000+. I remember when someone and I were trying to figure out if anyone like passell, soloway, meck could play a million hands in their life...we thought it would probably be impossible.

[Vampyr]

If the opener cannot pass 3NT, then you have no way to invite slam in a minor and still play 3NT when opener is not interested.

 

If responder is slamming, 4NT is most likely safe.

 

I play this way, but am thinking a bit about Justin's comments in the post above.

[MickyB]

I used to play 2N:3N as minors NF and 2N:4C as minors serious try. Limits the damage if someone forgets...

 

Agree with playing 3S as ART not being worth it for lead-directing and memory reasons. You might not even notice when you lose a swing 'cos opening leader knew *not* to lead a spade after a failure to double.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Same a Justin only :

 

2NT - 3NT = 4/4 in the majors ( not my idea, but from the May 2006 ACBL Bulletin and "minor reversal" modification by Fred Hamilton ) .

[Vampyr]

Agree with playing 3S as ART not being worth it for lead-directing and memory reasons. You might not even notice when you lose a swing 'cos opening leader knew *not* to lead a spade after a failure to double.

 

If I have 20-22 we have gone through Kokish, so the opponents have already had the chance to double ♠s...

[Phil]

2N - 3N might be the most forgotten agreement in bridge. Of those that play it as artificial they generally don't play it as artificial with other partners so the memory strain is enormous. This, coupled with the fact as Justin mentions about the lead inferences makes it a very dubious treatment.

 

I have played it with one occasional partner. He goes out of his way and puts 2N - 3N - 4♣ - 4N "to play" on the cc to avoid UI issues (he thinks anyway - could be wrong about this).

[bluecalm]

I of course bow to the 10,000+ hands you have played that I have not (and maybe Bluecalm also) but this seems to be an issue that could not reasonably be resolved without some humungous number of simulation deals.

 

I don't play much bridge :)

Anyway, some time ago when I was really into thinking about bidding I went through hundred of dealt hands trying to see how stuff works. My opinions about routinely bidding puppet stayman with 3-2 majors and about this convention (which sometimes someone want me to play) is result of this. I think that if they start doubling you with strong 4 carders you will suffer as it's often the case that opening leader needs to guess which major to lead (with some 3-3-4-3 or something) and he will be right very often vs you. Giving free information to opening leader is the most damaging in 3NT contracts.

You can try to deal hands and go through to them to see it. My estimation is that it bidding 3S will cost you game swing in about 4-5 hands out of 100 (I just went through 200 random hands to pull it off, nothing scientific) which is 0.4-0.5imps/hand (and this is ignoring overtrick, so it's more like 0.6imp/hand). This is huge, no convention will ever yield such benefits. At matchpoints it's a total disaster probably costing you in the 12-15 hands/100 ballpark (again this is very quick estimation, I am not motivated to do more of this, as I consider this solved question already).

 

You may have problems noticing it in real life. 2NT opening isn't that frequent, it will take some time to have significant sample, especially if you play against people who won't double you often enough. Also it will often seem that spade lead was normal anyway... except it would be chosen with say 50% probability and after double it went to 100%.

 

The worse offenders in this are are conventions like:

2N - 3C*

3H** - 3S***

3N

 

*-puppet stayman

**-no 4-5 card major

*** - transfer to 3N

 

This way you give them a chance to double two suits, this like shooting yourself in the foot basically, it's like giving away about 1 imp/hand every time you are dealt 2N opener.

[gnasher]

2NT = strong balanced (e.g. 20-21).

 

Let's say you are prepared to risk playing 2NT-3NT as an artificial bid, presumably with 2NT-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT (either to play or various other hands). What's the best way to use all all these bids? Anyone have a good writeup?

I think you're starting from the wrong place. The question should be "What can't I do with my current methods?" When you've answered that, you'll have a better idea of whether it's worth playing 2NT-3NT as artificial.

 

Anyway, here are a couple of answers to your original question:

 

(1) A hand-type that often isn't handled well by existing methods is a minor-major two-suiter. This is a possible solution:

3

♠

-3NT;4

♣

shows diamonds and forces 4

♦

, then 4

♥

/

♠

/NT show a second suit

3

♠

-3NT;4

♦

shows 5-5 in the minors

3

♠

-3NT;4

♥

/

♠

/NT show clubs with a second suit

(2) Another problem with standard methods is the amount of information leakage when responder bids Stayman. This scheme avoids that:

3

♣

= both majors, or a balanced slam try with four spades. Opener responds as to Stayman (you could play that 3NT = 2-2 in the majors). 3

♣

;3

♦

-3M = five of the other major.

3

♦

= 4+ hearts. 3

♦

;3

♥

-3

♠

= exactly four hearts (including balanced slam tries with four hearts).

3

♥

= 5+ spades.

3

♠

= forces 3NT. Continuations as in (1) above.

3NT = four spades, to play game.

On game hands, this avoids telling them anything about opener's hand except what responder wants to know. It loses by giving them more things to double, but we get some of that back on the hands where responder has four spades only.

[32519]

If you are interested in exotic sequences which you will see like once every 2 years, here is something to chew on:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq7hkq83datck53&w=s632ht972d542ct84&n=s98hdkq973caqj962&e=sjt54haj654dj86c7]399|300[/hv]

 

The Bidding:

2NT-3NT (3NT = 6-5-2-0 in the minors and 8+ HCP slam interest)

4♥ = confirm the void

4NT = confirms ♥ as the void (4♠ would show a ♠ void)

5♥ = 6-card RKC Blackwood for the minors (5 of either minor would be a signoff, therefore 1 step above a signoff becomes RKC Blackwood)

Responses are:

1 step = 1 or 4 keycards

2 steps = 3 or 0 keycards

3 steps = 2 keycards with neither Queen

4 steps = 2 keycards with lower Queen

5 steps = 2 keycards with higher Queen

6 steps = 2 keycards with both Queens

 

So after the 5♥ ask, North replies 6♠ (6-steps showing 2 keycards and both minor suit Queens)

7♣ from South ends the auction.

 

You’re going to find some auctions where opener can bid 7NT holding both major suit Aces.

[Codo]

2NT = strong balanced (e.g. 20-21).

 

Let's say you are prepared to risk playing 2NT-3NT as an artificial bid, presumably with 2NT-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT (either to play or various other hands). What's the best way to use all all these bids?

 

Do not use it. I tried it. Until the first time, it had gained us some imps, we had lost several hands via "system forgotten", lead director, non lead director etc.

It is not just that you forget it when you start with this convention. You will do so after a long session too.

 

And the overall gain is really really small, not worth the energy you put in that area.

 

But if nobody can stop you: One possibilty not mentioned yet is 5♠ 4 ♥, a possible hand which needs a lot of work to be bid with normal puppet stayman.

[Zelandakh]

I tried this for a while but gave it up. If you can possibly deal with the hand types in a different way then I recommend doing so. Taking Justin's suggestion for example, I play:

 

3♠ = clubs, either 6+ clubs or both minors

3NT = to play

4♣ = 6+ diamonds

 

This leaves you 1 step higher on the hands with both minors but as recompense you have discovered Opener's degree of fit for clubs. Compared to the lead-directing doubles and potential system-forgets you must surely be ahead here. Further, you can handle the slam hands with 5-4 majors in other ways, for example the sequence 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 4M is close to a free way of handling these.

 

Really, I would say that Andy has this right. Look at your system and see what it cannot do. Then see if there is any way of having it cope with that hand type without using 3NT. If you are still drawing a blank then you might consider using 3NT artificially. A good example of this comes from Roland's post. I know 2NT - 3NT = 5♠4♥ as the beer convention since it is forgotten so often and you are meant to buy your partner a drink whenever you do. But using the bid in this way is really just lazy. You can accomodate the hand type into Puppet with very little work and the result is simply better. When you really get down into system nuts and bolts there is a surprisingly large amount of space over 2NT - and that means you can almost always afford 3NT to play.

[Vampyr]

One possibilty not mentioned yet is 5♠ 4 ♥, a possible hand which needs a lot of work to be bid with normal puppet stayman.

 

Not if you play as mentioned above, 3♥ shows no 4/5 card major.

[Finch]

I've played 2NT-3NT as artificial for years. It's not really a question of what I happen to use it for (a club slam try, as it happens) but rather as Andy and others have said, so that I can get everything I want to into the response structure to 2NT. One thing we do think is important is that we have two different ways to get to 3NT after a 2NT opening - either by 3S (diamond slam try or to play in 3NT) or via 3C. That gives some control over what suit RHO might double.

 

The estimate that this costs "1 imp per board" looks crazy to me. Given that we never forget it (and we have never forgotten it) it makes no difference nearly all the time, some of the rest of the time we bid a good slam that we wouldn't otherwise have done, sometimes it gets them off to the wrong lead, sometimes they go for a penalty (a +960 not that long ago springs to mind) and yes, every now and again, it gets them off to a better lead against our final contract.

[mgoetze]

Frances, would you mind posting at least your direct responses to 2NT? The more detail you are willing to provide the better of course. ;)

[ArtK78]

With one partner I play 4 suit transfers over 2NT. We have to go through Puppet Stayman to get to 3NT if we have no slam interest.

 

This has its plusses and minuses, but we have not had any real problems with it.

[steve2005]

If one is using puppet styman doesnt the number of hands you would bid 2N-3NT go down considerably?

Then it would make some sense to use a gadget in 3NT.

[bluecalm]

The estimate that this costs "1 imp per board" looks crazy to me

 

I was referring to 3C/3S sequence which gives chance to double two suits on the way to 3N.

My estimation of cost of 3S = transfer to 3N as the way to get to 3nt is 0.5/0.6imp per board and about 12-15 tricks per 100 hand on opening lead at matchpoints.

I admit those are very quick estimations but I would be very surprised if they were way off, the way those things work in my view.

 

it makes no difference nearly all the time

 

Well.. yeah. Notice that let's say 5 out of 100 hands when they defeat your 3N when they otherwise wouldn't is already 0.5imp/hand but all you could intuitively say from experience is exactly what's in the quote above.