2NT-3NT artificial

[mikeh]

In one partnership, I agreed to play 3N as confit, with 3♠ puppeting to 3N with a variety of hands, either to play or all slammish.

 

We had only one confit auction in which we reached a good slam where I felt any doubt that we wouldn't have reached it otherwise, and of course it failed on a bad trump break, to lose 12 imps.

 

We didn't have any auctions, that I recall, wherein a double of 3♠ cost us. I think the danger of the lead-directing double of 3♠ is overstated.

 

As others have pointed out, we routinely use stayman, and red suits as transfers, and few worry about the lead-directing double....indeed...haven't we all played in the doubled suit, sometimes redoubled? And when 3♠ is a puppet to 3N, while it will rarely be with a 4 card spade suit, it will frequently come with 2 or 3, and opener can redouble or pass with interest in playing, so my message to those who suggest lead-directing doubles on a good 4 card suit is....bring it on.

 

Having said that, my experience with confit is such that I truly think it a waste of time. It allows us to use 2N 4N for a specialized purpose, but (in our methods) that purpose arises rarely and can be accommodated with only a minor loss of precision in another sequence.

 

Another partner likes 3N as to play and 3♠ as a puppet, which seems redundant at first glance, but we only bid 3♠ on hands in which we are not playing 3N, and only playing notrump with substantial values....if they want to warn us off 4N and into 5m, that's ok with us, as one example....meanwhile, if we do play 3♠ xx'd, we are going to have a lot of hcp going for us, as well as good spades in opener's hand.

[han]

Is Gnasher able to show 2-suiters when opener has 3-card support for the major? If not it seems like a loss compared to transfers.

 

I have played 3NT as natural and artificial and I don't have strong feelings on the subject if both partners are able to remember the agreement. I do think that the "you play other artificial bids so don't complain about this one"-argument is not very strong.

[gnasher]

Is Gnasher able to show 2-suiters when opener has 3-card support for the major? If not it seems like a loss compared to transfers.

I'm not actually recommending giving up transfers, but I don't think sequences like 2NT-3♦;3♥-4♣ are a good advertisement for them. Opener usually knows which suit he wants to play in, but responder doesn't. Opener may have a good hand with a fit, a normal or bad hand with a fit, a hand with no primary fit that wants to sign off, a hand with no primary fit but still some interest, etc. He has to fit all of those into a few bids, without knowing how strong responder is. It's hard to have a good auction when only one player knows what trumps are and the other one knows what the partnership's combined assets are.

 

In contrast, playing natural methods after 2NT-3♥;4♣, both partners know that there's a heart fit, and opener has shown some suitability. Opener doesn't know about responder's side suit, but we have got quite a lot of definition in return, and can actually have a sensible auction.

 

I do think that the "you play other artificial bids so don't complain about this one"-argument is not very strong.

I agree in general. but this was intended as a refutation of "Artificial bids let the opponents double for the lead, so you shouldn't play them." In that context, it's quite a good argument.

[han]

I'm not actually recommending giving up transfers

[\quote]

 

I know. ;)

[DrMunk]

'Normal' Reverse Kokish [putting 22-24 through 2H] is indeed flawed - has anyone ever actually used this to stop in 3m? Wrong-siding is a much more frequent issue.

...

 

Are Reverse Reverse Kokish better than Reverse Kokish?

[Avoidance]

If you currently play 2NT-3NT as CONFI and want to keep it, but are convinced by Bluecalm's arguments, you could instead

use a Walsh Relay to combine i)the heart transfer & ii)CONFI (2+ control points balanced/semi-blanced slam try) in your 3D response:

 

2NT-3D*

3H- 3S* CONFI - control ask (reponder's other rebids promise 5H+)

 

2NT-3D*

3S (4-5H 5-7 control points A=2 K=1)-3NT CONFI control point ask (responder's other rebids promise 5H+)

 

2NT-3D*

3NT (4-5H 8 control points) -4C (CONFI- ask for 2nd suit/distribution - 4D/4S/5C 2nd suit, 4H = 5H 4N = 3433)

(responder's other rebids promise 5H+)

2NT-3D*

4C (4-5H 9 control points)

 

 

(Or 2NT-3D*-3NT(S)/4C/4D (4-5H 8 control points 4-5 card suit/shown bid 3+ of top 4 in that suit)-next step (not 4H)-CONFI ask for 2nd suit/distribution

2NT-3D*-4H 4-5H 8 controls no strong side suit/(9 control points), then 4S = CONFI)

 

etc.