After showing a two-suiter opposite 2NT

[gnasher]

Andy... do you have an example hand ? ( Opener/Responder )

 

Of what?

[Finch]

Because:

- I'm trying to solve the same problem for similar sequences where responder shows 4M-5m. These usually end with bidding the major.

 

You can play transfers here too, particularly if you are prepared to give up playing in 4M

 

2NT - 3NT (= xfer to clubs, forces 4C), then

4D = 5C, 4H

4H = 5C, 4D

4S = 5C, 4D (with 5-5 minors xfer to diamonds first)

4NT = 5332 invite

 

 

Opener completes the xfer to play in the major, anything else is a cue for the minor, except 4NT which is a sign-off.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Of what?

I thought that maybe your opening post was based on a particular hand you encountered .

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Another possibility is to play the cheaper unbid suit (by opener) as two-suits Keycard. Is that a good idea?

 

It seems helpful to have the player doing the asking know what trumps are, and knowing more about the location of the partnership's honours. Also, opener can delay a decision about trumps until he knows which queens we have.

 

The obvious disadvantage is that opener doesn't know how strong responder is.

Actually, I think that the "two-suits Keycard" ( ie 6 ace-RKC ) is a very good idea .

In fact, I think I'll change my post # 8 to show that .

[jallerton]

You can play transfers here too, particularly if you are prepared to give up playing in 4M

 

2NT - 3NT (= xfer to clubs, forces 4C), then....................

 

This doesn't fit in with Gnasher's 'minimise information leakage' scheme where 2NT-3NT is non-forcing with 4 spades.

[jallerton]

In a sequence like

2NT-3♦

3♥-4♦

I've always played that 4♠ and 5♣ are cue-bids for an unknown suit, usually followed by a muddled auction ending in a guess at the right contract.

 

Has anyone got any better methods?

 

I'm not keen on methods where the trump suit is ambiguous. I think the simple natural methods here are:

 

4♥ agrees hearts [now Responder can use RKCB if appropriate]

4NT = I don't like either of your suits

Others= cues, agreeing diamonds

 

A potential improvement is to use the bids agreeing diamonds as key card responses rather than cues. There's only room for 3 steps below slam, so you can't always find out about the trump queen, but could count the K♥ as a sixth key card, e.g.

 

4♠ = agrees ♦, 3 or 6 key cards

5♣ = agrees ♦, 1 or 4 key cards

5♦ = agrees ♦, 2 or 5 key cards

5♥ = agrees ♦, 5 key cards + trump queen

 

The low numbers of key cards are virtually impossible, but included for completeness/aid to memory.

 

I think the hand which has defined its strength should be telling partner about key cards, not asking.

[JLOGIC]

What if you have a good hand for hearts? Is 4H forcing? If so not being able to stop in 4H seems like a big loss. If not, you have no bids for good or really good heart hands.

[JLOGIC]

Your point about the hand that is defined in strength should be responding (and also the balanced hand). However, when that hand is much stronger, I wonder if that is true. It seems like that hand is more likely to be able to count tricks opposite a response/have more features it cannot show via keycard response than the other hand. And conversely, the weak hand can probably show important features via keycard response, maybe not the queen of the suit partner is not coming in but perhaps partner will be able to show the king or third round control ask that suit.

 

However, as responders shape is not defined obviously it might not be able to show a 5-5 or a 6-4 definitively via keycard. I am not sure, I'm not sure you're right about that one though even though what you say is usually true, but I would also not be surprised if you were right obv.

[gnasher]

I thought that maybe your opening post was based on a particular hand you encountered .

The question was provoked by this hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=skj2hak97dak2ckj2&e=sqhqjt8dqjt43cat3&d=w&v=0&b=14&a=2np3s(Forces%203NT)p3n(Forced)p4c(Diamonds)p4d(Forced)p4h(4H%2C5+D)p]266|200[/hv]

 

Nothing bad happened on this occasion: we had a slightly messy auction to 6♥, which made. We didn't bid the slightly safer 6NT because responder didn't know there was a top club opposite, and opener didn't know that the diamonds were solid enough not to need ruffing. If opener had held ♠A instead of ♠KJ, I think we'd have missed the grand slam.

[gnasher]

You can play transfers here too, particularly if you are prepared to give up playing in 4M

 

2NT - 3NT (= xfer to clubs, forces 4C), then

4D = 5C, 4H

4H = 5C, 4D

4S = 5C, 4D (with 5-5 minors xfer to diamonds first)

4NT = 5332 invite

 

Opener completes the xfer to play in the major, anything else is a cue for the minor, except 4NT which is a sign-off.

As Jeffrey says, that's not quite what we play, but even if it was I don't see how second-round transfers would help with this problem*. You are using 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ each to show a specific suit. Where you have room, you use the next step to agree that suit. You can do that whether the bid was a transfer or not.

 

In fact, your suggestion has a defect: after ...4♠ there is no room to agree either suit without committing to slam. If you were playing these bids as natural, in all sequences you would have two cue-bids below five of the second suit. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and leaving Peter destitute.

 

* There is, of course, a much better reason to play transfers in your auction: it gets the contract played by the right hand. For the same reason, in our methods we should switch 4♥ and 4♠ (but we're not going to).

[Zelandakh]

The question was provoked by this hand:

How are you playing your 3♣ sequences to make this a problem? In a Puppet structure you can start

2NT - 3♣;

3♦ - 3♠;

4♣ = 4 hearts and good hand, and after this it should be simple. If Opener were to deny 4 hearts then you can continue 4♦ without any ambiguity, and still lower than the equivalent sequence starting with 3♠/3NT.

 

With normal Stayman,

2NT - 3♣;

3♥ - 3♠ does a similar job. Again, if Opener denies 4 hearts then continuing with 4♦ leaves us well placed.

 

I know that transferring to the minor with 4M5m hands is trendy right now but it just does not seem right to me when we already have devoted our cheapest response to finding 4 card majors.

[gnasher]

How are you playing your 3♣ sequences to make this a problem?

We play 3♣ as both majors, or a slam try with four spades and a four-card minor. This is so as to avoid giving away information about opener's hand unnecessarily when it's a game hand.

 

In a Puppet structure you can start

2NT - 3♣;

3♦ -

3♠;

4♣ = 4 hearts and good hand, and after this it should be

simple. If Opener were to deny 4 hearts then you can continue 4♦

without any ambiguity, and still lower than the equivalent sequence starting

with 3♠/3NT.

 

With normal Stayman,

2NT - 3♣;

3♥

- 3♠ does a similar job. Again, if Opener denies 4 hearts then continuing

with 4♦ leaves us well placed.

Regardless of what you play, there is a need to distinguish between 4-4 and 4-5 shapes. I can't see how you can do that using only the 3♣ bid.

 

I know that transferring to the minor with 4M5m hands is trendy right now

I don't think it's a modern thing, particularly. I was persuaded to play that by my first serious partner in the late 1980s.

[PhilKing]

I have a generic method that covers all these two-suited four-level situations plus 32 competitive (mostly leaping Michaels variants) sequences:

 

4M/5m = nat NF. 4M covers most sign-offs. 4N is never natural. 5m is encouraging if no "flag" is available

 

bids below 4M = if 1 step available, flag for M, if 2 lower = M higher = m

 

4M+1 = RKC M

 

4M+2 = Flag for m if not natural

 

5♦ = if not nat, then it is RKC for clubs

 

5♥+ = RKC response for the minor. This applies in all equivalent sequences and works! In the 2NT sequences, responses count the major suit king.

 

When we flag for the minor, partner can bid 5m+1 as keycard.

 

That above may cause indigestion, so I will give an example. After 2NT-3♦-3♥4♣:

 

4♦ = enc hearts

4♥ = sign-off. Can be 2.

4♠ = RKC hearts

4NT = enc clubs (now 5♦ = sand wedge)

5♣ = nat (now 5♦ = sand wedge)

5♦ = RKC clubs

5♥ = 1 or 4 of six key cards for clubs

5♠ = 0 or 3 of 6 key cards

5NT = 2 or 5 without

6♣ = 2 or 5 with

 

Or after (3♥)-4♣(NLM)-(Pass):

 

4♦ = enc spades

4♥ = enc clubs

4N = RKC spades

5♦ = nat

5♥ = RKC response for clubs

 

All sequences fit the rules, so do not need to be listed separately.

 

a) (2♦multi)-4m (2 sequences)

b) (2M)-4m (4 sequences)

c) (2♥)-3♥-3♠-4m (2 sequences)

d) (2♥)-3♥-3N-4m (2 sequences)

e) (2♠)-3♠-3NT-4m (2 sequences)

f) (3♥)-4m (2 sequences)

g) (3♠)-4m (2 sequences)

h) (3♦)-4♣-4♦-4M (it's the exception that fits the rules) (2 sequences)

i) 1♣-(2M)-4♦ (2 sequences)

j) 1♦-(2M)-4m (4sequences)

k) 2NT-3♠-3NT (2 sequences)

l) 2NT-3NT-4♣ (2 sequences)

m) 1N-(2M)-4m (4 sequences)

[Zelandakh]

With Puppet you can handle hearts and a minor by utilising the unused bids: 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3oM; 3NT - 4♥/♠ = slam try with 4 of corresponding minor. This does give up on using, for example, 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♥; 3NT - 4♥ as 46xy though, so it is not free. With (23)44, you are pretty much stuck with using some sort of Baron in most methods that do not have MSS available.

 

When playing normal Stayman you are not surprisingly better off here after a 3♦ response. For example, you could play that 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3♠ is Baron and move the 5♥4♠ hands into the 3♦ transfer (as in the first post). Or play that as 4+ clubs with 4♣ (instead of 3♠) as 4 diamonds and 4♦ as 5 diamonds. A 3♥ response is ok too, with transfers again being one answer: 2NT - 3♣; 3♥, then 3♠ = 4+ clubs; 3NT = 4 spades, cog; 4♣ = 5+ diamonds; 4♦ = agrees hearts; 4♠ = 4 diamonds. The problem comes after a 3♠ response. Here the only way of handling 4♥4m slam try hands seems to be via 4NT, which is not ideal. I do not have a solution for this other than changing away from normal Stayman.

 

Talking of which, I have not come across your 3♣ response before but it looks like it is underutilised. Perhaps there is space within the follow-ups to handle an additional hand type here (4♠5m?) to make things easier on the other sequences.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

The question was provoked by this hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=skj2hak97dak2ckj2&e=sqhqjt8dqjt43cat3&d=w&v=0&b=14&a=2np3s(Forces%203NT)p3n(Forced)p4c(Diamonds)p4d(Forced)p4h(4H%2C5+D)p]266|200[/hv]

 

Nothing bad happened on this occasion: we had a slightly messy auction to 6♥, which made. We didn't bid the slightly safer 6NT because responder didn't know there was a top club opposite, and opener didn't know that the diamonds were solid enough not to need ruffing. If opener had held ♠A instead of ♠KJ, I think we'd have missed the grand slam.

Thanks for posting the hand which is not what I expected given the bidding in your original post .

However, Responder's hand certainly is enough for slam somewhere .

But, I too, wonder how you use the 3C response ( over a 2NT open ) ?

[fromageGB]

I think introducing a minor should show slam interest. There isn't enough space to cater for the small set of hands where responder doesn't have slam interest, doesn't want to play 3NT, and thinks that 5♦ will play better than a 5-2 heart fit.

Surely this depends how you play (natural methods) the minor rebid after a transfer to the major. If 4m is perhaps a slam try, perhaps a game escape, isn't a 5m rebid, after whatever opener says, to play?

[gnasher]

Surely this depends how you play (natural methods) the minor rebid after a transfer to the major. If 4m is perhaps a slam try, perhaps a game escape, isn't a 5m rebid, after whatever opener says, to play?

You can play it that way if you like. As I said, I think 4m should show slam interest, so in my world opener is allowed to raise responder's attempted sign-off.

 

I'm a bit surprised that two people have now suggested that 4m might not be a slam-try - I'd have guessed that playing it as a slam-try was almost universal.

[jallerton]

What if you have a good hand for hearts? Is 4H forcing? If so not being able to stop in 4H seems like a big loss. If not, you have no bids for good or really good heart hands.

 

I thought someone might say that! It's not very scientific but, as a practical matter, most very good hands for hearts will have 4-card ♥ support and will have broken the transfer on the previous round. Meanwhile, most very bad hands for hearts will be those with values stuffed in the black suits; these hands are usually best off hiding the 3-card support and bidding a natural and discouraging 4NT. If, exceptionally, Opener has a hand with 3-card support with all working cards, he can always jump to 5♥.

[Finch]

This doesn't fit in with Gnasher's 'minimise information leakage' scheme where 2NT-3NT is non-forcing with 4 spades.

 

I thought of replying to say "only from one side of the table" but that would be cruel, so I didn't.

[fromageGB]

You can play it that way if you like. As I said, I think 4m should show slam interest, so in my world opener is allowed to raise responder's attempted sign-off.

 

I'm a bit surprised that two people have now suggested that 4m might not be a slam-try - I'd have guessed that playing it as a slam-try was almost universal.

If you have a slam try, by definition that means if you decide not to, you can play in 5m. It seems strange that you would deny the ability to play in 5m when responder is a zero count 5008 shape, to quote a common hand type.

[gnasher]

If you have a slam try, by definition that means if you decide not to, you can play in 5m. It seems strange that you would deny the ability to play in 5m when responder is a zero count 5008 shape, to quote a common hand type.

 

Consider these two approaches:

(1) 4♦ is a slam try. With slam interest, responder can:

- Sign off if opener shows no interest, but drive slam if he shows interest.

- Sign off even if opener shows some interest, leaving opener to bid slam if he is sufficiently suitable.

- Drive slam

 

(2) 4♦ is either a slam try or a hand looking for the best game. With slam interest, responder can:

- Sign off if opener shows no interest, but drive slam if he shows interest.

- Drive slam

 

Obviously (1) is more accurate in the slam zone than (2), because it splits responder's range into three slam-tries, rather than two slam-tries and a best-game hand. I think this justifies the loss of accuracy on hands where responder has no slam interest (if such hands exist). Apparently you don't. That's OK with me.

 

In fact, of course, there isn't a firm line between "slam try" and "best-game hand". A hand where the best game is 5♦ opposite an average 2NT opener is likely to make 6♦ opposite a very suitable hand. Even your 5-8 Yarborough would make a grand slam opposite the right 16-count (or 11, on a good day). So presumably your sign-off in 5♦ isn't final anyway, it's just more of a sign-off than my 5♦ bid.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Responder should have at least a 5-5 to go past 3NT ... and wants to play in one of these suits:

After 4♦:

??

4♥ = agree ♥

and the next 4 steps can be ( EDIT :) 6-Ace RKC-showing agreeing ♦:

 

Opener is in the narrow range of 20-21, so Responder remains Captain.

 

If ♥ agreed, then Responder can either pass, bid 4S = RKC or 4NT = Exclusion ( ♠-void )... EDIT: again, use 6 Ace-RKC .

 

If ♦ agreed ( via the RKC-showing ) , then Responder can place the contract or ask for the ♦Q ( next step ) or K-ask ( 2nd-step ).

 

Here's a hand where Responder certainly is slammish opposite a 2NT open, but I think Responder still should have at least a 5-5 to guarantee at least an 8 card fit in one of the two red suits:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sakq2ha2dj32caq32&e=s3hqj543dkq654ck4]266|100[/hv]

 

2NT - 3D!

3H - 4D

??

.. 4H = agrees ♥

Next 4 steps are 6 Ace RKC-showing agreeing ♦ ( implies only 2 cards ♥ )

.. 4S = 0/3

..4NT = 1/4

.. 5C = 2 - ♦Q

.. 5D = 2 + ♦Q ( ♥Q is rolled into the K-ask ; specific replies )

After:

4S ( 0/3 )

...... - 5D to play; missing 2 of 6 key cards

[Finch]

Here's a hand where Responder certainly is slammish opposite a 2NT open, but I think Responder still should have at least a 5-5 to guarantee at least an 8 card fit in one of the two red suits:

 

I'm afraid you are basically in a minority of one here.

How do you expect to bid

 

AKxx

Kx

AQxx

Axx

 

opposite

 

xx

AQxxx

KJxx

xx

?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I'm afraid you are basically in a minority of one here.

How do you expect to bid

 

AKxx

Kx

AQxx

Axx

 

opposite

 

xx

AQxxx

KJxx

xx

?

I'm afraid I'd just end up in 3NT ( I notice only 30 combined hcp too ) eventho it looks like 6D might make :

2NT - 3D!

3H - 3NT

 

Minority or not, it just doesn't seem prudent to go past 3NT with a 4D bid on only a 4 card suit.

 

What if Opener is:

AKxx

Kx

Axxx

AQx

[gnasher]

What if Opener is:

AKxx

Kx

Axxx

AQx

 

We play in 6♦. Even though the tranfer response means we've wrong-sided 6♦, it's still a reasonable contract. On a club lead it's around 50%, but some of the time they'll lead a spade.