A simple problem

[Winstonm]

This is a hand to which a NT response system should cater because it can easily produce game in the major and a known fit exists in the minor. This hand should be able to play 3C when no spade fit is found. If your system does not allow that, IMO your system should be changed.

[Zelandakh]

This is a hand to which a NT response system should cater because it can easily produce game in the major and a known fit exists in the minor.

You are not allowed to open 1NT with 3442 shape?

[fromageGB]

You are not allowed to open 1NT with 3442 shape?

Certainly you can, but I am sure the point is that a 5-2 fit is known (of course may be better), and that is usually better than a risky 2NT when the 5 card suit is in dummy. So look for the major, and if it is not there, your methods should allow you to play in 3 of the minor. As we have said previously.

[rmnka447]

At IMPs, it pays to bid thin VUL games (approx. 35%+ chance of making is the break even point). That's because of the big IMP swing (+10 IMPs) for making versus the lesser loss for not making (- 6 IMPs).

 

So I'm bidding 2 ♣ with this hand. There is a possibility that either 3 NT or 4 ♠ could make. ♠ Q may be a possible entry to the ♣ suit at NT if a hold up in ♣ is made. The ♣ is a potential source of tricks at NT.

 

If rhm's simulation probabilites are correct (53% of the time game makes), then you should definitely make the try.

 

Make the hand 7 scattered points with a mangy 5 card ♣ suit and I'd pass.

[fromageGB]

If rhm's simulation probabilites are correct (53% of the time game makes), then you should definitely make the try.

Perhaps you missed this rider : "But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit."

Factor this in, and the probability is very poor.

[fromageGB]

...There is a possibility that either 3 NT or 4 ♠ could make. ♠ Q may be a possible entry to the ♣ suit at NT if a hold up in ♣ is made. The ♣ is a potential source of tricks at NT.

So you seem to be playing in 2NT with the 70% of the hands that do not have a spade fit. Perhaps your rose-tinted glasses also blotted out this figure : "2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%".

[yunling]

I will just pass, even if we have a spade fit, this will be a thin game, I think it is just not worth the effort.

 

btw, people does not defend 1/2NT contracts as good as they are against a 3C contract, so the advantage of 3C over 2NT may not be so big.

[rogerclee]

Surprised at all the strong votes for bidding, I would just pass, aceless 7 counts are not that good. I am surprised rhm's numbers are so low in terms of us being able to make 4S though when we catch a spade fit, but I guess it is what it is.

[rhm]

Surprised at all the strong votes for bidding, I would just pass, aceless 7 counts are not that good. I am surprised rhm's numbers are so low in terms of us being able to make 4S though when we catch a spade fit, but I guess it is what it is.

I am a passer, but if you can stop in 3♣ if opener has no spades makes it is just worthwhile bidding vulnerable at IMPs.

You win when partner has spades and game in spades makes (about 50%)

You still secure your plus score in 3♣ when opener does not have spades most of the time.

 

A slight edge to PhilKing.

 

However, the advantage is small and I can not stop in 3♣ after Stayman.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

A slight edge to PhilKing.

Au contraire, mon ami. Phil was bidding 3♣ invitational, not 2NT = 3♣ to play.

An edge to winston and fromage, you probably meant to write.

[MrAce]

Au contraire, mon ami. Phil was bidding 3♣ invitational, not 2NT = 3♣ to play.

An edge to winston and fromage, you probably meant to write.

 

 

I guess i misunderstood what Fromage and Winston wrote, my bad. Winston was talking about xfering to clubs after stayman and if spde fit was not found, which i thought he was suggesting to xfer to clubs over 1NT directly and pass. And i was trying to defend the idea that "if we are gonna xfer to clubs and pass, i'd rather pass 1NT" Again misunderstanding was on my end. Sorry.