Plan, Please

[aguahombre]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5ha83dct987532&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

At IMPS --1NT was 15-17 (Yes, 5CM's frequent if you care)

 

Would like to hear from both 4-SXf and 2-SXf about their thoughts and plan. What are the tools you will use? Only condition: direct 3-level bids, including 3C (Puppet) are Major suit oriented.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Pass first... then bid Clubs if provoked .

 

EDIT: After reading lalldonn's answer, I finally figured out what 4-SXf means .... So, I might have to change my answer .

Edited February 24, 2013 by TWO4BRIDGE

[lalldonn]

I transfer to clubs, then bid 3♦ showing shortness. If partner bids either major over that, I raise.

[aguahombre]

I transfer to clubs, then bid 3♦ showing shortness. If partner bids either major over that, I raise.

Does that major suit raise abandon Clubs in an attempt to play the major suit game in a 5-3 or 4-3 fit, or does it still hold out hope for clubs? Would pard's 3M be a suit?

[lalldonn]

Does that major suit raise abandon Clubs in an attempt to play the major suit game in a 5-3 or 4-3 fit, or does it still hold out hope for clubs? Would pard's 3M be a suit?

Yes 3M is natural. It's normal with a 5 card suit, or a (hopefully) good 4 card suit if he doesn't like his diamond holding for notrump. If he wanted to do it on some other holding because he had a plan, like looking for 3NT if I could bid it or something, then he is welcome to go back to clubs since he knows I don't have a 4-card major.

[Cyberyeti]

At IMPS --1NT was 15-17 (Yes, 5CM's frequent if you care)

 

Would like to hear from both 4-SXf and 2-SXf about their thoughts and plan. What are the tools you will use? Only condition: direct 3-level bids, including 3C (Puppet) are Major suit oriented.

If you play 2 suit transfers as I do, it's a bit awkward if I'm not allowed to play 3♣ nat F as I also do by your conditions, I just have no way of bidding this hand if you say I'm only allowed to play half my system.

[aguahombre]

If you play 2 suit transfers as I do, it's a bit awkward if I'm not allowed to play 3♣ nat F as I also do by your conditions, I just have no way of bidding this hand if you say I'm only allowed to play half my system.

Sorry, Cyber; But, 3C natural and forcing makes it too easy and obvious. Was looking for plans to cope with the hand using methods which are played; you found a hand where a natural, forcing 3C would be beneficial and more common methods are awkward.

 

Josh's plan seems more efficient anyway than a forcing 3C. His diamond shortness AND clubs are disclosed and he still has the possibility of a major suit contract in the mix.

[JLOGIC]

4 suit transfers are much better than 3C natural and forcing here, you get to transfer to clubs (and learn whether partner likes his hand for clubs or not) and then bid 3D showing short diamonds. Why is that more awkward or worse than bidding 3C forcing which does not allow you to show your shortness, and does not allow you to learn anything about your partners hand, while being only 1 step lower?

[aguahombre]

Which brings up a related question. Does "I like Clubs" have standards for hand strength and suit, or just the suit, and what are those standards? Certainly they are different than the criteria for a super-accept of a major xfer.

[lalldonn]

Which brings up a related question. Does "I like Clubs" have standards for hand strength and suit, or just the suit, and what are those standards? Certainly they are different than the criteria for a super-accept of a major xfer.

I just ask myself "if partner bid an invitational 3♣ would I pass or accept?" So it's not at all like a super-accept, but more like an invitation that you should accept half the time or so.

 

But Clee and I actually play 2♠ is a notrump invite or clubs, so that we don't have to go through stayman to invite and can play 2NT shows diamonds. That means we just show straight min/max over it without regard for clubs, which is slightly less accurate but unlikely to really matter. I suppose if I thought I was right on the fence my club holding could be the tie breaker lol.

[JLOGIC]

I define it as I would accept an invite in clubs.

[Fluffy]

I bid 2♠+ 3NT to show diamond shortness, 2♠ + 3♦ would be both minors

[SteveMoe]

I would venture 3♣ Puppet Stayman, then raise 3M to game. Over 3♦ I rebid 4♣ and over 3N I bid 5♣.

[aguahombre]

I would venture 3♣ Puppet Stayman, then raise 3M to game. Over 3♦ I rebid 4♣ and over 3N I bid 5♣.

Yeh, I tried that. The problem was 3C Puppet, then 4C was defined as slammish and I didn't know whether I wanted to do that or 3C, then 5C. Interesting you choosing differently over 3D than over 3NT. (Because 3D shows a major and you wanted to go slammish?)

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry, Cyber; But, 3C natural and forcing makes it too easy and obvious. Was looking for plans to cope with the hand using methods which are played; you found a hand where a natural, forcing 3C would be beneficial and more common methods are awkward.

 

Does anybody play 2 suit transfers and NOT play 3♣ nat ? This was my point, insisting on 3♣ puppet with 2 suit transfers makes it pretty non sensible, I've certainly never seen anybody play that (although 3♣ puppet is quite rare over here).

[aguahombre]

Does anybody play 2 suit transfers and NOT play 3♣ nat ? This was my point, insisting on 3♣ puppet with 2 suit transfers makes it pretty non sensible, I've certainly never seen anybody play that (although 3♣ puppet is quite rare over here).

It would be non sensical if someone hadn't worked out how to fit the various bid into the 2-suit transfers style. But, they have.

[Cyberyeti]

It would be non sensical if someone hadn't worked out how to fit the various bid into the 2-suit transfers style. But, they have.

Err - how ? unless you're going to lose some other hands or play Walsh relays (which in the version I would use this hand has insufficient suit quality for).

[Free]

I bid 2♠ (asking min/max or showing various hands) and after partner's response (2NT = min, 3♣ = max) I'll bid 3♦ showing a GF hand with short ♦ (and no 5 card M).

 

After this, partner can

- signoff in 3NT which I'll pass

- bid 3M showing 4+M, after which I'll bid 4♣ and see if partner can rebid his Major

- bid 4♣ which is highly unlikely :)

[gnasher]

It would be non sensical if someone hadn't worked out how to fit the various bid into the 2-suit transfers style. But, they have.

That makes it easier. I make my systemic three-level bid to show a one-suiter in clubs with diamond shortage.

Edited February 25, 2013 by gnasher

[aguahombre]

That makes it easier. I make my systemic three-level bid to show a one-suiter in clubs with diamond shortage.

That would be LALLDonn's choice, above. And his plan included raising if opener then bid a major.

 

But, should the plan change depending on whether Opener bids 2N Vs. 3C over the initital 2S xfer? When we show the diamond shortness and get a 3M bid, should we still raise it if Opener likes clubs?

[aguahombre]

Err - how ? unless you're going to lose some other hands or play Walsh relays (which in the version I would use this hand has insufficient suit quality for).

Heh. We had Walsh Relays, but as you say, this suit is well below "broken suit" with some really nice support for a 5cM.

[Trinidad]

I would venture 3♣ Puppet Stayman, then raise 3M to game. Over 3♦ I rebid 4♣ and over 3N I bid 5♣.

If partner would respond 3♦, I would bid 4♦ to make him bid his 4 card major.

 

Rik

[SteveMoe]

Yeh, I tried that. The problem was 3C Puppet, then 4C was defined as slammish and I didn't know whether I wanted to do that or 3C, then 5C. Interesting you choosing differently over 3D than over 3NT. (Because 3D shows a major and you wanted to go slammish?)

Some context: I play 4♣ as game invitational in this sequence - protecting a possible misfit / wasted values in the other minor. We play 1N-P-3♥/♠ as splintering for minors with a 3-card major fragment. Playing 4-suit transfers, transferring to minors shows no interest in hearing about partner's 4 or 5-card major. Keeps things simple, even if this might not be optimum.

 

3♦ response to Puppet might encase a 2-card ♣ holding, while 3N is less likely to do so (3=3=5=2 only). So I can afford to bid game directly. Really hard to judge working points here - few good tools...

 

One more point - I use Puppet to find partner's 5-card major, not to find a 4-4 fit. If I do not hold a 3-card major I do not use puppet. I know that allows for more information leakage, but the inferences left to partner are rich and important.

 

What do you think and how do you approach this issue?

 

(Aside: with one partner I play 1N-P-3♦ as 55 GF in the minors (no 3-card major fragment); so 1N-P-3♥/3♠ as 3 card major fragment with 2, 1 or 0 in the other major - a fusion of the minor splinter slam try and the balanced Anti-Lemming game try invented/promoted by Alan Truscott. It works! .. and it eliminate the opponent's double as a suggestion for sacrifice...)

[SteveMoe]

Double post deleted

[aguahombre]

One more point - I use Puppet to find partner's 5-card major, not to find a 4-4 fit. If I do not hold a 3-card major I do not use puppet. I know that allows for more information leakage, but the inferences left to partner are rich and important.

 

What do you think and how do you approach this issue?

Justin, I believe, and others use the 3C/1NT puppet with 4-2, etc in the majors ---mentioned in another thread.

 

We don't. But we do use it in a way most do not. In addition to 4-3, 3-3, and 3-less, we might use it with strong 2-2 in the majors. 1NT-3NT is alerted and removable.

 

Using 3C with, say, 4-3-2-4 and game values gives us the shot at the 5-3 fit which a regular 2C would not.