Response to Weak NT with 7 Clubs & Weak

[Liversidge]

My partner and I play Weak No Trump & Stayman. Last night I had this hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hk865dqcqt98653&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

What would your response be?

Up to now partner and I have agreed that we take out to 3♣ via 2♠ showing either 11 HCP or a 7+ minor. Partner bids 2NT with 12 HCP and 3♣ with 14 HCP. With 13 HCP he upgrades or downgrades. The alternative is to bid Stayman followed by 3♣/3♦, but partner has another partner who likes the response 2♠ = 11 HCP and 2NT = 12 HCP and this seemed like a reasonable compromise.

Another player and I share a lift to the club. he is a much better player and when we have discussed the takeout to3♣ in the past he has said he would NEVER use it, and would always pass.

Last night the two hands were:[hv=pc=n&s=s8hk865dqcqt98653&n=sqj52hq9da642ca72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2sp2np3cppp]266|200[/hv]

We made 3♣. Most other boards did likewise. My car sharer passed and made 8 tricks for a top. On the way home he ribbed me about it, saying he had bet his partner that I would bid 3♣.

[eagles123]

I think you did completely the right thing

[helene_t]

1nt is almost certainly down on a diamond lead.

 

Of course you shouldn't pass.

[Cyberyeti]

1nt is almost certainly down on a diamond lead.

 

Of course you shouldn't pass.

 

I presume K♣ dropped.

 

I would bid stayman then 3♣ if partner doesn't bid hearts, but not everybody can do this, 3♣ can be to play, invitational or forcing here, you need to know which it is with your partner. Even this is slightly dubious as there are plenty of hands where a 7-2 club fit will play better than a 4-4 heart fit, at teams I'd just take out to 3♣, although you do raise the possibility of 1N-P-2♠-X getting opps into an auction where they weren't getting in otherwise.

 

I'm sure your passer would be equally amused if declarer had xxxx, AQxx, xxx, AKx and 5♣/5♥ were making but 1N was 4 down.

[Zelandakh]

I am very much on the conservative side when it comes to taking out 1NT into a minor with a weak hand but even I would not pass this one.

[Liversidge]

Thanks for that. Can I bolt on a question on another deal or should I post separately?

My partner bid 2♠ on a hand something like this. I am sure of his spades and hearts but iffy on the rest, except that he had around 8/9 HCP in total. [hv=pc=n&s=shaqjt9dat9752c85&n=sqt86542hk4djcq72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2sp3hppp]266|200[/hv]

We went 2 off, including one Diamond ruff. Our opponents said partner should have opened 3 spades. I wonder if he should have bid at all. I also now think I should have passed his 2♠, or maybe bid 3♦?

Supposing partner had passed and I opened 1♦ partner would have bid 1♠. I could not bid 2♥ as that is a reverse, and I have only 14 points including length (no fit) so I would have rebid 2♦. There's a good chance partner would have rebid 2♠ and we'd be where we actually started.

How should the bidding have gone?

[Cyberyeti]

You should really post the second one separately, but there is no simple answer to it.

 

Something a partnership should discuss is their preempting style, with my main partner we take the view that first seat is a gun preempting position, there are 3 people you might mess up and only one is on your side, but other people preempt fairly soundly in front of an unpassed partner.

 

Then you have to decide whether 2♠-3♥ is forcing, which I'd suggest it is for most people although not for me.

 

I can live with P, 2♠ or 3♠ with different styles of preempt.

 

Over 2♠ you have a nasty problem, but you'd not enjoy 3♠-P-P-X-P-P-? either. Obviously P works best in this case, but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do.

[Zelandakh]

On the second deal I prefer 3♠ to 2♠ too but 2♠ is not unreasonable. Most play a 3♥ response to this as forcing and I would have raised to 4♥. Better is to pass in tempo - maybe LHO will step in.

 

If North passes, South does not have to open 1♦ but can foresee the problem and start with 1♥, then rebid 2♦ over a 1♠ response. This is a common tactic with weak 5M6m hands.

[1eyedjack]

Up to now partner and I have agreed that we take out to 3♣ via 2♠ showing either 11 HCP or a 7+ minor. Partner bids 2NT with 12 HCP and 3♣ with 14 HCP. With 13 HCP he upgrades or downgrades. The alternative is to bid Stayman followed by 3♣/3♦, but partner has another partner who likes the response 2♠ = 11 HCP and 2NT = 12 HCP and this seemed like a reasonable compromise.

Others have answered your question(s), but I just wanted to comment on the above method.

 

In UK it is quite popular among the lower echelon players to use 2S to show 11 HCP and 2N to show 12. This is seriously bad. It is true that if you are going to do that, you might as well make the best of a bad job by including some more hand types in the 2S response, such as a weak long minor (incidentally, with the right hand a 6 card minor is sufficient, no need to insist on 7). You could also include a quantitative 4N hand type in 2S to make more mileage out of it.

 

The method evolved out of a spare unused bid and whoever addressed the matter was so challenged in imagination that this was the best that they could come up with, as well as lacking the imagination to research other bespoke response structures that had already been invented. Presumably they considered minimising the impact on other responses as being a higher priority than building a half decent system.

 

May I ask the advocates of this method one question: What do you regard as a higher priority, between investigating a 4-4 major suit fit or distinguishing between 11 and 12 HCP? If you have a 4 card major and choose to look for a fit via Stayman, how do you then distinguish between 11 and 12 when partner does not have your 4 card major? If you choose to show your points via 2S/2N, do you agree that you risk losing a major fit?

 

There are certainly some partnerships who will tend to deny a major when bidding 2S/2N (4333 shape possibly an exception), and effectively give up on distinguishing between 11 v 12 on hands that are worth looking for a major. In so doing they tacitly admit that the distinction between 11 and 12 cannot be THAT important. Incidentally they seldom seem to disclose that part of the agreement.

[steve2005]

I presume K♣ dropped.

Of course if opener lacks A♣, 3♣ is the safer contract.

 

Playing weak NT I prefer a direct 3♣/3♦ as the signoff bid. It doesn't give opps 2 chances to come in and doesn't present an easy double of 2♠ to suggest entering.

[Zelandakh]

Playing weak NT I prefer a direct 3♣/3♦ as the signoff bid. It doesn't give opps 2 chances to come in and doesn't present an easy double of 2♠ to suggest entering.

Yes this is better in isolation but to use it you have to lose something elsewhere as it becomes a terminal sequence. The more terminal sequences you have, the less efficient your structure becomes overall.

[zillahandp]

At out table it went 1nt 2nt (xfr ) 3c made plus one pass is too risky, esp if going well, stay with the room. On ly possibl other if looking for tops is 2c hoping for 2ht respons not reccomemded biut depends on your score thus far

[zillahandp]

By the way i agree only palookas use 2s to show 11pts as one eyed jack states

[zillahandp]

On the second hand how did you go two off? How did you concede d ruff, seems to me you have two club and at worst two d losers but

[Vampyr]

On the second deal I prefer 3♠ to 2♠ too but 2♠ is not unreasonable.

 

I like disciplined preempts 1st and 2nd; otherwise partner will never know what to do. In 1st and 2nd I would not open 2♠ or 3♠ with 2 of my 8HCP in my suit. We have an honour in every suit-- will partner ever imagine we have this much defense?

[Zelandakh]

I like disciplined preempts 1st and 2nd

I agree with you in second but see first at Love All as another good opportunity to create pressure. Obviously that is a stylistic decision and there are plenty of very good players that prefer your approach (ie please don't take it as a criticism).

[overruff42]

i believe that NF stayman followed by 3 of a minor describes a 4-6 or 4-7, which does not have game going values (adjusted for whatever notrump range you play)

Pass is a call designed to go for a big swing, either way

[Vampyr]

i believe that NF stayman followed by 3 of a minor describes a 4-6 or 4-7, which does not have game going values (adjusted for whatever notrump range you play)

 

This old-fashioned method is no longer very popular.

[perko90]

On the 2nd deal:

 

1) I prefer a 3♠ opener, but I'd take 2♠ as a 2nd choice over Pass

 

2) Response to 2♠: I'd try 3♦ (assuming NF). You're not trying to get to the best MP spot - just trying to improve the contract and a 6-card suit is better than a 5-card suit. Also, you rate to be better than the folks who play new suit forcing and have to pass the 2♠ bid.

 

3) If you had a chance to open that hand, definitely start with 1♥!! Treat it as a 5-5 hand. It's better to conceal a 6th diamond than hide a 5-card heart suit.

[pickabidp]

Alternative:

Playing 4way transfers..

2S to Clubs

If opener has 'good' clubs (you will have to make up

your own decisions as to what is good-bad, depending on

your other limits)

he will bid 2NT..this gives you a choice between 3c (to play)

or knowing clubs will run to bid 3NT.

With the shown hand I would have bid 3C.

[perko90]

1st hand ... alternative system:

 

2♠ = invite, no 4CM (either 11-12 bal or a long minor)

Responses:

-- 2NT = min

-- 3NT = max, would accept any invite

-- 3m = "crash landing" = max, but weak holding in suit (Jx or worse) (you bid the suit you don't like)

 

2NT = transfer to C's (either sign-off or slammish (any continuation shows the strong variety))

3♣ = D's (same as above)

 

Above is my fav, but might be too complicated for a novice forum.

[NickRW]

Others have answered your question(s), but I just wanted to comment on the above method.

 

In UK it is quite popular among the lower echelon players to use 2S to show 11 HCP and 2N to show 12. This is seriously bad.

 

 

Not only is having two balanced invites a waste of one bid, it is arguably better to play with no bal invite at all - just pass or blast 3NT.

 

When you invite you hope to gain when partner can bid 3 (doesn't always by a long shot) and that it will make (also doesn't always do that either). Also 2NT can be one down when 1NT was making.

[mcphee]

An easy solution for you will solve many problems when playing weak NT and that is 2 way stayman. 2!C is NF stayman, 2D GF staymam. So hand 1 allows you to bid 2C looking for a possible H fit, when not found bid C now to play. I would never play weak NT without 2 way stayman, the upside is huge.

[Vampyr]

An easy solution for you will solve many problems when playing weak NT and that is 2 way stayman. 2!C is NF stayman, 2D GF staymam. So hand 1 allows you to bid 2C looking for a possible H fit, when not found bid C now to play. I would never play weak NT without 2 way stayman, the upside is huge.

 

It might be, but the idea has not caught on here where the majority play weak NT, so it can't be as advantageous as you believe.

[rmnka447]

Hand #1 - I'm playing in 3 ♣. Your pal might have the last laugh this time, but next time when 1 NT goes down 150 or 200 and 3 ♣ still makes on a similar hand, you'll get the last guffaw. It can't be too wrong to play in your 9+ card fit unless you're absolutely sure NT makes.

 

Hand # 2 - I'm passing 2 ♠ or 3 ♠. The high cards in my hand will be of use to partner in ♠s, but partner's ♠ may not be of any use to me in any contract I bid. With a known misfit, I'm out of the auction as quickly as possible anyhow. There's no guarantee pard has any thing at all in the suits I hold and bidding 1 level higher stands a good chance of increasing the set or turning a decent result (2 ♠ making?) into a bad result.

 

If partner passes, I'm bidding 1 ♥, so I can bid ♦ on the second round. so I'm treating the weak ♦ suit more like a 5 card suit rather than a 6 card suit. If partner gives me grief about it, I'm ready to run out the old "sorry pard, I had a ♦ in wit the ♥s" ploy.