mentor/mentee disagreement 2

[gszes]

8 J765 AK6542 93

 

4 way transfers

3d = 6/7 card suit 2 of top 3 honors and out

 

All partnerships need agreements. How would you proceed in your

partnership either using the tools described above or you own system?

[jjbrr]

Stayman and bid 3NT if no H fit

[hrothgar]

8 J765 AK6542 93

 

4 way transfers

3d = 6/7 card suit 2 of top 3 honors and out

 

All partnerships need agreements. How would you proceed in your

partnership either using the tools described above or you own system?

 

Stayman, intending to bid 3♠ over 2♥ and 3N over 2♦ or 2♠

[dustinst22]

Really, no one showing the diamond suit after no heart fit? In MP, i get it, but shouldnt we show this suit in teams?

 

Seems like we can make a slam on some layouts, and avoid a bad 3N on others.

[jjbrr]

Really, no one showing the diamond suit after no heart fit? In MP, i get it, but shouldnt we show this suit in teams?

 

Seems like we can make a slam on some layouts, and avoid a bad 3N on others.

 

I'm content giving up on partner having a prime perfecto with good diamonds in favor of the opponents not knowing what's going on. I think my stealing 3NT EV is greater than the EV from slam bidding or stopping on a dime in 4D or something.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm content giving up on partner having a prime perfecto with good diamonds in favor of the opponents not knowing what's going on. I think my stealing 3NT EV is greater than the EV from slam bidding or stopping on a dime in 4D or something.

How do you propose making 3N on a spade or club lead opposite Axxx, AKQ, xx, Axxx, 5♦ just requires 3-2♦, 3N requires a lot more than that (♦ 3-2 and nobody having more than 4 of the black suit led). Also possible is xxx, AQ10, QJ, AKxxx where 5♦ is cold, 6♦ is basically on a finesse and 3N loses a bundle of spades

[Siegmund]

To make an intelligent decision between 3NT and 5D, opener would need to know about the singleton spade, I think, even at IMPs. Put me down for Stayman then 3NT (and I feel like it may be a slight overbid.)

[wank]

How do you propose making 3N on a spade or club lead opposite Axxx, AKQ, xx, Axxx, 5♦ just requires 3-2♦, 3N requires a lot more than that (♦ 3-2 and nobody having more than 4 of the black suit led). Also possible is xxx, AQ10, QJ, AKxxx where 5♦ is cold, 6♦ is basically on a finesse and 3N loses a bundle of spades

 

obviously partner doesn't have that hand because he opened 1nt.

[hrothgar]

obviously partner doesn't have that hand because he opened 1nt.

 

????

[the_clown]

I am bidding stayman and then 3♦ over 2♦ and 3N over 2♠

[jjbrr]

????

 

what didn't you understand? wank is right of course

[Cyberyeti]

obviously partner doesn't have that hand because he opened 1nt.

If the highest x I have is a 4 I might not upgrade the hand, but there are plenty of others that make the same point, 5♦ is often better than 3N.

[plum_tree]

Really, no one showing the diamond suit after no heart fit? In MP, i get it, but shouldnt we show this suit in teams?

 

Seems like we can make a slam on some layouts, and avoid a bad 3N on others.

It all depends on your system. I was taught SAYC. 3♦ over 2♣ as Stayman shows slam interest in ♦ according to the 2006 SAYC booklet. Clearly that hand does not qualify for a slam try. 3NT will now have to be your 2nd bid. If necessary (not holding the ♦Q or 3 small), opener can sacrifice the first ♦ trick and hopefully make the other 5. 3NT can still make.

[Codo]

I would stayman and bid 3 ♦ afterwards.

If this is a slam try in Diamonds in your system, change your system.

[plum_tree]

It's not my system. It's according to the 2006 SAYC booklet. As a novice I was told to learn SAYC. That's what I did. If 3♦ as a slam try after Stayman is wrong then we must tell the compilers of the booklet that it is wrong. As I get better I can start changing the stuff that I think could be better. Obviously you believe the booklet is wrong. So how would you change it?

[PhilKing]

It's not my system. It's according to the 2006 SAYC booklet. As a novice I was told to learn SAYC. That's what I did. If 3♦ as a slam try after Stayman is wrong then we must tell the compilers of the booklet that it is wrong. As I get better I can start changing the stuff that I think could be better. Obviously you believe the booklet is wrong. So how would you change it?

 

I wouldn't change the booklet, I would just move on.

 

It is designed to give players a basic framework - nothing more, so if you want to modify or change something, just do it.

[hrothgar]

what didn't you understand? wank is right of course

 

Both of the following look like NT openers to me

 

♠ Axxx

♥ AKQ

♦ xx

♣ Axxx

 

♠ xxx

♥ AQT

♦ QJ

♣ AKxxx

[Cyberyeti]

I would stayman and bid 3 ♦ afterwards.

If this is a slam try in Diamonds in your system, change your system.

I actually play Stayman/3♦ over 2♠ as the old fashioned signoff 4♥-6♦, but I play a weak NT which makes it a lot more frequent. Provided it's only guaranteeing a mild slam try I'm not unhappy with it, xxxx, AK, Qxxx, AKxx would appear to be a pretty solid slam.

[helene_t]

I would stayman and bid 3 ♦ afterwards.

If this is a slam try in Diamonds in your system, change your system.

3♦ is a GF so I suppose it will usually be based on some slam interest, even if the main objective is choice of game. Maybe whether we should call it a "slam try" is just semantics. I wouldn't be afraid of overbidding if I bid 3♦ with this hand, regardless of whether we play SAYC or something else.

[1eyedjack]

As OP allows me to use my favourite gadget I respond 2S showing one of 2 hand types:

(1) Inv with 4 H and fewer than 4 Sp (this hand) or

(2) GF with 4 H and 5 Sp.

Opener rebids 3C with 4 H or Max, else 2N.

Over 2N I bid 3D to play

Over 3C I bid 3D (f) confirming any hand type (1)

if opener then bids 3H (min + fit) I may still pop him up one

EDIT

just noticed this is beginner forum, but op did ask so i leave it

[nige1]

♠ 8 ♥ J 7 6 5 ♦ A K 6 5 4 2 ♣ 9 3

4 way transfers. 3d = 6/7 card suit 2 of top 3 honors and out. All partnerships need agreements. How would you proceed in your

partnership either using the tools described above or you own system?

Prefer 2♣ (Stayman) and then 3N unless partner bids 2♥. Other possibilities:

• 2♣ and then 3♦ unless partner bids ♥ (Close second choice, May well find safer game).
• 3N immediately (The ♥ suit is anaemic. 3N is unrevealing and prevents lead-directing calls by opponents).
• 2N followed by 3♥ (if that shows ♥) or 3♠ (if that shows ♠ shortage). But partner will expect more.
• 3♦ (given your agreements) is also OK and might achieve a miraculous parts-core