What bid did you dump from your agreements...

[Zelandakh]

No, I meant what I wrote. 4M-5oM is Smolen. Some players prefer to play 5M-4oM, which is either known as "Reverse Smolen" or "natural" depending on how sarcastic you are feeling.

[Trinidad]

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

Just natural 5M (+4OM), GF.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

We use 3♥ as minor suit Stayman, responses 3♠/N min/max no 5m, 4m shows 5. 3♠ is essentially a quantitative 4N bid with 5♦/3♣ which is the one bid that doesn't fit into the 3♥ structure.

[barmar]

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

I know you just wanted to relate a cute story, but a few anecdotal cases where a convention fails (or not playing it succeeds) are not a reason to drop it. We can all think of cases where a contract does better when played by one hand or the other, but it's not usually because of the convention, it's just because of the layout of the cards. For instance, one of the opponents has a void, so his partner can give him a ruff on the opening lead.

 

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

[Cyberyeti]

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

It is over a weak no trump where responder is likely to be stronger than opener, but not over a strong no trump.

[GreenMan]

Thanks. I'm playing 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M as 4M-5oM (as I think you meant), and I have no other way of doing that. But what is the "smolen problem" that seems to have eluded me? I can see you may have other ways to bid that major hand and therefore may prefer to use this sequence for the minors.

 

The "problem" I was referring to is that it's a convention you have to devote memory space to that apparently makes no difference in your results. There's some theoretical advantage to it, but in practice I've never seen nor heard of a hand where Smolen had any effect on the outcome.

[Free]

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

0-1M, 4OM, usually 4441, 5431 or 4450.

[Trinidad]

I know you just wanted to relate a cute story, but a few anecdotal cases where a convention fails (or not playing it succeeds) are not a reason to drop it. We can all think of cases where a contract does better when played by one hand or the other, but it's not usually because of the convention, it's just because of the layout of the cards. For instance, one of the opponents has a void, so his partner can give him a ruff on the opening lead.

 

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

Well, for starters the Smolen situation doesn't come up that often to begin with. But IMO this is the wrong question. I need a reason to play a convention and give up playing natural. Asking for a reason why I don't play a convention is turning it backwards.

 

I don't remember the hand, since it was a few years ago (I do remember my opponent's behavior and attitude at the table), but I do remember why my partner made the contract. It had nothing to do with the lead being in the correct hand or with the opponents by accident not getting a ruff. The contract was made because the known hand (the 1NT opener) ended up in the dummy.

 

The 1NT opener is much better described than responder's hand. Responder has shown a game force and at least 54 in the majors. Opener has shown 14-16, balanced with exactly 3 cards in the major, and 2-3 in the other major. Because the opponents didn't know how strong responder was, they didn't know what their aim should be: to beat the contract or to stop the overtricks. (It was Patton scoring, so that made it all a little bit more confusing.)

 

I admit that Smolen has the advantage that it makes the strong hand declare the contract. However, with the current 14-16 NT ranges that advantage is relatively small compared to the 16-18 range when Smolen was invented. And the drawback of making the best known hand declarer is significant. I don't know about you, but I like to defend contracts where declarer has opened 1NT: I know within 1 HCP what my partner has, and I have a pretty good picture of his distribution. I know what I can hope for in his hand to beat the contract and I know when there is no chance to beat it. When responder is declarer, I find it a lot harder to defend correctly, because I don't know what declarer and partner have.

 

Combine that with a few more drawbacks of Smolen (e.g. the warped space for slam exploration: extra space for spades that I don't need and lack of space for hearts that I do need.) and I don't see any reason why I would want to play Smolen when I can simply play natural. Add to that the fact that the situation doesn't come up that often to begin with and I see even less reason to make my system more complicated by adding a convention.

 

Rik

[Free]

I don't see a reason why to play natural either (instead of Smolen).

[aguahombre]

So that you can brag that you play reverse Smolen.

[Zelandakh]

I don't see a reason why to play natural either (instead of Smolen).

Rik gave a reason in the last paragraph of his post. After a natural 3♥, Opener can bid 3NT with no fit and make a cue bid with a nice hand for hearts; the same for a natural 3♠. After a Smolen 3♠, Opener can bid 3NT without a fit but now has only 2 cue bids below 4♥ with a good hand for hearts. FWiiW I do have a form of Smolen in my NT structure but I can easily understand any argument against it based on the above.

[Free]

Rik gave a reason in the last paragraph of his post. After a natural 3♥, Opener can bid 3NT with no fit and make a cue bid with a nice hand for hearts; the same for a natural 3♠. After a Smolen 3♠, Opener can bid 3NT without a fit but now has only 2 cue bids below 4♥ with a good hand for hearts. FWiiW I do have a form of Smolen in my NT structure but I can easily understand any argument against it based on the above.

Sure, but why show your hand at 3-level when you can do it at 2-level? Just play 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ as forcing for 1 round (at least invitational) and you don't need 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♥ to be natural.

[Cyberyeti]

Sure, but why show your hand at 3-level when you can do it at 2-level? Just play 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ as forcing for 1 round (at least invitational) and you don't need 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♥ to be natural.

 

Which is fine if you don't play Walsh relays.

[GreenMan]

Sure, but why show your hand at 3-level when you can do it at 2-level? Just play 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ as forcing for 1 round (at least invitational) and you don't need 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♥ to be natural.

 

Most people play that sequence as 5-5. If it could be 5-5 or 4-5, opener with e.g. 3244 has a tough guess.

 

Yeah there are plenty of other solutions if you like devoting larger chunks of memory to the problem, but most people considering Smolen aren't in that category.

[Zelandakh]

Sure, but why show your hand at 3-level when you can do it at 2-level? Just play 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ as forcing for 1 round (at least invitational) and you don't need 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♥ to be natural.

Many use this sequence for something else. For me it is a multi-way bid showing either a 5 card invite (natural 2NT or 4NT rebid) or clubs or a strong one-suiter. Since your method involves forcing to the 3 level anyway, the loss from showing the hand at the 3 level is minimal and, in the meantime, you are usually using the bidding space more efficiently.