How Many NT

[jmcilkley]

A difficult question. 4nt should mean bid 6 of you are maximum so would be my choice. Its a lot easier if you play Baron when 2s reply to 1nt asks p to bid 2nt if minimum 12 or lowest 4 card suit if max 14 points. If p bids 3c then I will surely try for 6c and if p bids 3d then 6nt, if he shows min then I stop in 3nt

[jmcilkley]

A difficult question. 4nt should mean bid 6 of you are maximum so would be my choice. Its a lot easier if you play Baron when 2s reply to 1nt asks p to bid 2nt if minimum 12 or lowest 4 card suit if max 14 points. If p bids 3c then I will surely try for 6c and if p bids 3d then 6nt, if he shows min then I stop in 3nt

[jallerton]

The best bid clearly depends on your agreements. If you don't have any methods to show this exact hand, you can improvise. After 1NT-2♣-2♦, what would 3♣ mean in your system? If that would not be forcing, how about 4♣? A very old fashioned method called Sharples, a jump to 4m here shows a 4-card suit with slam interest. Maybe agricultural, but not as agricultural as jumping to 6NT!

[kenberg]

It occurs to me that 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ could be played as a four (or more) card club holding. After that:

 

Opener bids 3NT to deny four card club support. In this case, knowing partner has diamond length may slow you down a bit for a NT slam. Slowing down might be good..

Opener bids anything other than 3NT to show four card support.

 

Now suppose responder has five clubs. If opener has four, of course that's great, but suppose over 3♣ opener bids 3NT. We need not give up on clubs.

Responder, if he wishes to invite slam, bids 4NT. Opener, if he accepts, bids 6♣ if he has three card support in clubs, and responder passes with five clubs, corrects to 6NT with four.

If, instead, responder still wishes to force a slam after opener bids 3NT over 3♣, then he bids 5NT pick a slam, and opener, who has denied holding four clubs, bids 6♣ if he holds three card support.

I don't claim it is perfect but it is fairly natural with 3♣ showing clubs and a non 3NT response to 3♣ showing enthusiasm for clubs It is fairly easy to remember, important for an infrequent auction, and apt to handle a fair number of cases. For example, here, if I bid 3♣ and partner bid 3NT, I think bidding 4NT is enough. We have points, but the hands are not fitting very well.

 

Lacking agreements, I dunno, I suppose bid the slam. Beats me.

[mikeh]

If we are going to be open to other methods, I would suggest that this sort of hand is a reason to play 2 way stayman in response to the opening 1N. By responding 2♦, as an artificial game forcing response, that doesn't say anything much more than we're going to game and I want to find out about your hand, you are assured of being able to explore for all imaginable fits at a comfortable level. It does help (a lot!) to play transfer responses to the 2♦ so as to keep the bidding low and, as a side-benefit, to have the stronger hand both on play and having revealed very little information, making the opening lead difficult on many hands.

 

Since he has denied a major, we would start:

 

1N 2♦

2♥ 2♠

 

2♥ denies hearts, may have spades. 2♠ asks.

 

Note, if he has spades, we're declaring

 

We know (from the OP) that he doesn't.

 

Had he had a 5 card minor, he would have bid, over 2♦, 2N with clubs (we then bid 3♣ to set the suit, in a gf auction) or 3♣ to show diamonds (over which we probably bid 4N quantitative unless feeling very, very pessimistic).

 

As it is, assume he has no 5 card minor. Over 2♠ he bids 2N to deny spades and we bid 3♣

 

3♦ shows 3=3=4=3, 3♥ 2=3=4=4, 3♠ 3=2=4=4 and 3N 3=3=3=4.

 

It is a very effective method.

 

But back to the OP, since we have to solve this problem with the methods we have agreed to use.

 

I bid 5N. I won't try the cute 3♣ since I think it gives a misleading impression of my hand, and while I like involving partner as much or more than most, I don't like implying a longer and likely stronger club suit....he may like his clubs when they are in fact inadequate.

 

I won't try 4N quantitative even if we have a good method of moving forward (5N as 4=4 minors, for example) because he will too often reject even when slam is good. Unless he is a walter the walrus type he will do more than just add up the 4321 count: he will look at what is likely to be a low number of controls and hideous majors so pass with some working 13 counts.

 

5N still gives us a small chance of reaching clubs, which is why I choose it over the blind bash of 6N.

[the hog]

This is uncalled for...

 

Basically the answer to your question is that it would not occur to me to think of bidding any amount of NT. Just like Cyberyeti, I would search for the club fit. It is quite obvious that it is not really relevant how you and your partner do that. But it should be even more obvious that you do not commit to any number of no trump before you have investigated a club fit. Somewhere between 2♦ and x NT you should have a bid for that.

 

Rik

 

No i is not uncalled for. CY does this on nearly every post and it is boring. Why not just say "after 2C 2D I would look for a C fit"?

[Cyberyeti]

No i is not uncalled for. CY does this on nearly every post and it is boring. Why not just say "after 2C 2D I would look for a C fit"?

 

Your criticism, is boring, I did say that

 

If I have a means of locating a 4-4 club fit I'll use it here

 

I then added how we do it but the obvious implication of the way I said it was that there were lots of ways of doing it.

[kenberg]

I have a question for the OP: Suppose, just suppose, I could bid 3♣ over 2♦ and that opener would then bid 3NT lacking four card support and make the most descriptive bid available if he has four (or more) clubs. In that case, I bid 3♣. What would opener do? If he shows club support we will be playing 6♣. If he denies club support I will invite slam by raising 3NT to 4. Will this work out?

 

Added: I phrased the question badly. I meant "If I use 3♣ that way, will I end up by placing it in 6♣ or will I be inviting with 4NT?". In short, given that I can find out if partner has four clubs, does he? I see many responders thinking that the answer is "something else", given that there is a way to ask about clubs.

[Cascade]

Not relevant. Same auction applies if Smolen not available. You just bid 3♥ instead.

 

Unless that means something else.

[Antrax]

I bid 5N.

Isn't 5N here a quant bid with 23 HCP or so?

[mikeh]

Isn't 5N here a quant bid with 23 HCP or so?

I would agree if we bid 5N directly, but, and I may be kidding myself, I think after stayman it should be pick a slam. I admit that I am unclear about this, since in my methods after a weak 1N I would never have this problem.

[wank]

to explain why mikeh is suggesting 2 way stayman over 1NT....

 

In England almost everyone at the lower end of the ability scale plays a weak NT and as such have no idea what continuations they should play so just default to normal stayman and transfers. In places like America, only a few people at the top end play a weak NT and do so for specific purposes and have put effort into thinking what systemic follow ups to play.

 

As slam is quite rare opposite a weak NT and the opponents will often have a game on, the American approach is to try and make the responses more pre-emptive. For example, 2♥/♠ are weak which means 4th hand only has 1 opportunity to bid, unlike over a transfer where it can pass and protect once 2M is passed out. You can play 3m similarly.

 

To resolve the stronger hands the common approach is to play 2C as stayman with a limited hand and 2D as an artificial GF, so it's akin to 2-way checkback over a 1NT rebid.

[kenberg]

to explain why mikeh is suggesting 2 way stayman over 1NT....

 

In England almost everyone at the lower end of the ability scale plays a weak NT and as such have no idea what continuations they should play so just default to normal stayman and transfers. In places like America, only a few people at the top end play a weak NT and do so for specific purposes and have put effort into thinking what systemic follow ups to play.

 

As slam is quite rare opposite a weak NT and the opponents will often have a game on, the American approach is to try and make the responses more pre-emptive. For example, 2♥/♠ are weak which means 4th hand only has 1 opportunity to bid, unlike over a transfer where it can pass and protect once 2M is passed out. You can play 3m similarly.

 

To resolve the stronger hands the common approach is to play 2C as stayman with a limited hand and 2D as an artificial GF, so it's akin to 2-way checkback over a 1NT rebid.

 

This makes a lot of sense, at least to me. Particularly the part about an immediate 2m being to play, cutting down on the opponents' ability to define their hands. I have played weak no trumps only rarely, and not in a well-structured way. This sounds right to me.

[Zelandakh]

There are pros and cons Ken. You gain the non-forcing 2M responses but overall lose bidding space. As someone who has played a weak NT my whole life and who has looked into this a fair bit I dislike the 2-way Stayman approach for this reason. I have more sympathy for the 2-under 2m transfer method but that is quite a lot to learn for the average player.

 

Incidentally, it is not only America that uses 2-way Stayman. Around these parts it is the most common structure over a weak NT too.

[mikeh]

There are pros and cons Ken. You gain the non-forcing 2M responses but overall lose bidding space. As someone who has played a weak NT my whole life and who has looked into this a fair bit I dislike the 2-way Stayman approach for this reason. I have more sympathy for the 2-under 2m transfer method but that is quite a lot to learn for the average player.

 

Incidentally, it is not only America that uses 2-way Stayman. Around these parts it is the most common structure over a weak NT too.

I truly don't think that is correct, Zel. It is if one uses basic 2 way but the method I use enhances bidding space while often making the undescribed hand declarer in high level contracts. I have touched on it earlier, but the responses to 2♦ are:

 

2♥: denies hearts or a 5 card minor. 2♠ now asks, over which:

 

2N denies spades, 3♣ asks exact shape

3♣ shows 4 diamonds and 4 spades

3♦ shows clubs and spades

3♥ shows 5♠

3♠ can either 'does not exist' or shows a max 4=3=3=3, whichever you like

3N shows either all 4=3=3=3 hands or, if you use 3♠ as a max, it shows a minimum 4=3=3=3

 

2♠: shows 4+ hearts, denies spades. 2n asks for minor (again, bid the other one) and you can use 3M/3N to show either 3=4=3=3 ranges or 5 hearts

 

2N: shows 5+ clubs

 

3♣: shows 5+ diamonds

 

3♦: shows 4=4 majors.

 

Note that responder can always set trump below game anytime he finds a fit and usually below 3N, and in doing so makes a slam try while usually becoming declarer without ever really saying much about his hand, other than cuebidding.

 

Responder can always break the relay and bid his own suit over opener's response.

 

I've shown this to several expert weak 1N bidders and everyone who has tried it, adopts it (so far).

[Zelandakh]

Thanks for providing more detail Mike. My comment about less space overall is simply the maths of bidding theory. Every end sequence (non-forcing call) is a sequence not available to show a hand. If you are clever with the structure you can minimise these sequences and that is what creates the extra space. Of course sometimes having a complete description of one hand via relays is enough to offset that and I am fond of this style of bidding. It tends to be more difficult to optimise the later rounds of natural bidding than relays, although that is less of an issue in wel-designed 1NT structures than for suit auctions.

 

Looking over the outline you have provided I can think of a few issues but one obvious one for a start. Say I have a hand with 5 hearts and a 4 card minor that wants to look for slam if there is a fit but otherwise stop in 3NT. So I respond 2♦ and Opener rebids 2♥. Now if I try 2♠ to check for the minor fit and hear 3♥ I cannot look for the heart fit. Alternatively if I bid 3♥ over 2♥ I have lost the minor. Playing transfers with second round transfers we can respond 2♦ followed by 2♠ (for clubs) or 3♣ (for diamonds) and find the fit in either suit at the 3 level. There are biggers problems if we also open 1NT offshape and the standard issues, although I think these tend to be overblown, of having the balanced hand describe to the unbalanced one. But in truth I would need to test it for a bit and add more details before making a proper appraisal. As a (very much) non-expert I will not break your record either way though. :)

[kenrexford]

I like 2 way stayman as well. I recall a great sequence where I had a good 5 card minor , heard that partner did also, and found a very light slam after the 2D force and partner bidding 3 min.

[BillPatch]

It occurs to me that 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ could be played as a four (or more) card club holding. After that:

 

Opener bids 3NT to deny four card club support. In this case, knowing partner has diamond length may slow you down a bit for a NT slam. Slowing down might be good..

Opener bids anything other than 3NT to show four card support. . . .

 

Edgar Kaplan proposes a similar setup, but his bid for opener to show less than four card support would be 3♦, promising at least 4. If responder has both minors he has found his fit in the other minor. See Edgar Kaplan's notes on Kaplan-Sheinwold at the BridgeWorld.com website.

With a holding of 4 +♣, opener rebids 3NT if both majors are stopped, or his better major.

[kenberg]

Edgar Kaplan proposes a similar setup, but his bid for opener to show less than four card support would be 3♦, promising at least 4. If responder has both minors he has found his fit in the other minor. See Edgar Kaplan's notes on Kaplan-Sheinwold at the BridgeWorld.com website.

With a holding of 4 +♣, opener rebids 3NT if both majors are stopped, or his better major.

 

Great minds think alike. Joking, joking, joking. Did I mention I was joking? I'll take a look. I am still driving hither and yon on vacation and I need a nap, but I will look.

 

It seems to me that the auction 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ and its follow-ups should be discussed by all advanced pairs. "Should be" is definitely not the same as "has been" and so this topic seems very suitable for the I/A forum.

 

Thanks for the reference.