A simple problem

[Coelacanth]

IMPs, 7-board matches

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sq964h6d863ckq975&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Is passing obvious here, or is this close to a 2♣ call? If you would pass, how much better would this hand have to be to get you to bid 2♣?

[gszes]

nice simple easy 2c bid if p bids 2d or 2h bid 2n if p bids

2s bid 4s not even that close of a decision vul at imps:))

[Winstonm]

I see an obvious 2C.

[ggwhiz]

I see an obvious 2C.

 

I agree with the agreement that over a 2♥ response, 2♠ shows exactly 4 of them with invitational values.

[ArtK78]

I guess I am just more pessimistic than most. I see this as an obvious pass or transfer to 3♣ intending to play it there.

[karlson]

I can't imagine passing.

[broze]

Several very good players I know in England play the style that 1N-2C-2whatever-3m is non-forcing to play. Ergo 1NT-minor transfer-accept-3M is nat game forcing. This is a great hand for this treatment.

 

Playing standard I would always bid 2C with this, esp at IMPs vul with a game bonus to protect.

[fromageGB]

Not obvious, but possible. Having recently given up on stayman then 2NT to play, I wouldn't invite.

I prefer 1NT 2♣ 2♦/♥ 2NT transfer to 3♣ and pass. If opener has both majors he will bid 3♠ over 2NT.

[Codo]

I would pass. My partners always bid hearts in this situation.

[Zelandakh]

Several very good players I know in England play the style that 1N-2C-2whatever-3m is non-forcing to play.

One option is to play that 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2NT is a puppet to 3♣, which can be useful on some hands like this. It does require 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2♠ to promise 4 spades though, which in turn requires that you have an immediate response (eg 2♠) for showing an invite without a major (unless you think that this hand type does not exist).

[MrAce]

I would definetely bid 2♣

 

I can not critisize passers but i can not disagree more with those who considers transfer to clubs with only 5 card suit and a very suitable hand to play 1NT. Our side has at least 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff ♥. Why would i risk playing partscore at 3 level even if we have a ♣ fit, when i can play it at 1 level, once i gave up on game ? I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣ and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

[gwnn]

pass. I will bid 2C with another jack, I would guess.

[fromageGB]

I would definitely bid 2♣ ...

... 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff...

Herein lies the problem. 22hcp does not play perfectly in 2NT if that is where you are heading when receiving a reply like 2♦. And if opener fancies 3NT on his 16, 23hcp does not make a good 3NT.

 

Even if partner has a heart stop, it is a probable lead, given the missing length, and you do not have sufficient combined strength to stop them regaining the lead.

 

So if I take the gamble on trying 2♣, when it fails to come off I prefer the security of 3♣.

 

I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣

My partner won't.

 

and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

With 4 spades, my partner would bid 3♠ or 4♠, not 3♣.

[fromageGB]

duplicated Edited May 29, 2013 by fromageGB

[rhm]

I would definetely bid 2♣

 

I can not critisize passers but i can not disagree more with those who considers transfer to clubs with only 5 card suit and a very suitable hand to play 1NT. Our side has at least 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff ♥. Why would i risk playing partscore at 3 level even if we have a ♣ fit, when i can play it at 1 level, once i gave up on game ? I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣ and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

I think Pass stands out and bidding on is poor advice.

3NT is unlikely to fetch and partner will have 17 only about 25% of the time and 15 HCP nearly 50% of the time.

Game is an underdog even vulnerable at IMPs

4♠ in a 4-4 fit is probably slightly better, but not much.

However it requires finding a spade fit, a big if ...

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

2♣, then 3♣, mildly constructive over 2 red.

 

With a weaker hand and the same shape, 2♣ then 2NT, puppet to 3♣.

[rhm]

For those, who care I ran a quick simulation specifying for West balanced, less than 4 cards in spades, 15-17

 

DD result over 1000 deals:

 

3NT makes on 212 deals 21.2%

2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%

1NT makes 7 or more tricks on 830 deals or 83%

 

Average number of tricks per deal are 7.56

 

As expected chances for game in spades if West has 4 or 5 spades are better.

 

On 1000 deals game made on 537 deals (53.7%) and was down on 463 deals.

But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MickyB]

To Phil and Zel -

 

Is 1N:2C, 2S:2N natural or transfer? If the latter, how do you bid with INV with 4 hearts?

[PhilKing]

To Phil and Zel -

 

Is 1N:2C, 2S:2N natural or transfer? If the latter, how do you bid with INV with 4 hearts?

 

Bid 3NT. Haven't we been over this before?

[PhilKing]

For those, who care I ran a quick simulation specifying for West balanced, less than 4 cards in spades, 15-17

 

DD result over 1000 deals:

 

3NT makes on 212 deals 21.2%

2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%

1NT makes 7 or more tricks on 830 deals or 83%

 

Average number of tricks per deal are 7.56

 

As expected chances for game in spades if West has 4 or 5 spades are better.

 

On 1000 deals game made on 537 deals (53.7%) and was down on 463 deals.

But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

What number of tricks could we make in clubs when no spade fit was found?

[Zelandakh]

For me it is natural. That limits the usefulness of the club transfer over 2♥ for sure but the other benefits of using transfers here make up for it. If you know of a way to get as much space over a 2♠ response as over 2♥ then I would love to hear it!

[Coelacanth]

Wow, so much for a "simple" problem. Lots of opinions here, and not at all unanimous.

 

At the table, I bid 2♣ with the problem hand, and over 2♦, I bid 2NT invitational. (We play a direct 2NT over 1NT as natural, so we don't have to go through Stayman to invite in NT; thus, my sequence promised at least one 4cM.)

 

Partner bid 3NT and went down 3. As you might expect, the opponents found a heart lead and managed not to block the suit.

 

The winning action is to bid 2♣ and then pass 2♦. (Partner had ♦AKxxx). In discussion after the match, I suggested that I should have found this. Both partner and one of our teammates thought that I had an obvious pass of 1NT.

 

I think I'd bid 2♣ again. But I'd pass over 2♦ and correct 2♥ to 2♠, which we play as weakish.

[MrAce]

Herein lies the problem. 22hcp does not play perfectly in 2NT if that is where you are heading when receiving a reply like 2♦.

 

No.

 

It has been very long time since people started to use the tools frequently that allows you to play other partscores than 2NT after starting stayman over a so called strong NT, and i am not talking about garbage stayman. Zel and Phil already gave examples of some versions of it. There are more similar methods.

 

I guess you are advocating transfer to clubs and pass, if not i do not challenge the idea of passing 1NT as i mentioned in my other post. I do not have any tool to make simulation but, IFwe decide to play only partscore, 1NT plays much better than 3♣ imo. Thats what i meant by "combined 22 hcp" It was not meant for 2NT despite the fact that playing 2NT with 22 hcp is not the end of the world. It may not play perfectly as you mentioned. Thus, imo xfer to clubs followed by pass is a bad idea. I would rather play 1 nt on any day with this hand.

 

If we add the possibility of finding a spade fit, and if can not be found, ability to play choice of 2 nt - 2 ♠ -3♣ + imps makes stayman very atractive imo.

[rhm]

What number of tricks could we make in clubs when no spade fit was found?

 

3♣ makes on 753 deals (75.3%) double dummy (West has at most 3 spades)

Average number of tricks are 8.51

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

I think I once agreed this with Shogi

1nt-2♣

2♥-2♠ (ostensionally invitational, four spades)

and now

2NT-3♣ (to play)

or

3♣ (accepts invite but without spade fit)

 

But you can also keep it simple and play one-fashioned stayman style in which

1NT-2♣

whatever-3m

is invitational. Then GF hands with a minor go through transfers even if they have a form-card major.

 

With this hand I would prefer to show a sign off in 3♣ if partner doesn't have four spades, but treating it as invitational is not that bad.