Bid this hand with me

[overruff42]

I like 2S, to be followed by 3D, which must show a game forcing minor 2 suiter

[hrothgar]

I like 2S, to be followed by 3D, which must show a game forcing minor 2 suiter

 

Some people use that to show a single suited in clubs with short diamonds

[GrahamJson]

Sry for the digression but can someone pls explain why 2NT is better w/o fit vs. 2NT = super acceptance? If respondent is very weak the hand needs to be played in 3C regardless of the fit so to rightside the contract, 3C = no fit (most common answer) is best. When opener super accepts, some of the weak hands will choose 3NT so less hands will be played in 3C anyway so no need to have them bid by opener.

Or did I miss sth?

I agree on 2NT openings, opener bids NT if he doesnt like respondent's minor, but in that case responder is GF+, not here.

 

One reason is that if the bidding goes 1NT - 2S -2NT (SA) - 3C both opponents know that responder is weak but with a good fit. This enables both to come into the auction, for example with a TOX. Playing 3C as the SA only one oppo has the opportunity to bid once knowing the fit.

 

A second reason applies to the auction 1NT - 2NT. Playing 3D as the SA enables 2NT to be bid on weak 5-5 hands. If opener bids 3D then you have found a good fit, if he bids 3C responder can pass as opener is likely to hold better clubs than diamonds.

 

Incidentally, I have used SA to mean Super Accept although I don't think for minor suits it requires the same conditions as for a major, when a SA takes the level one higher. For auctions starting 1NT -2D a SA requires a maximum and good four card support. For auctions starting 1NT -2S a bid of 3C just requires three to a top honour. This allows responder to try 3NT if he has a good six card suit and no other values. I guess that a SA would be, say, 3H, which would show a max with good four card support (together with, I suggest, a doubleton in the bid suit).

[apollo1201]

Thanks Graham. All that makes sense. And I like the weak 55 possibility to transfer in D's. I used "supper accept" with a lack of better term (I'm not a native speaker), maybe "shows enthusiasm" is better :)

[dboxley]

IMPs, Both Vul,

15-17, 4 suit xfers w/super accept (immediate 3C response would be Puppet), no other special agreements , opponents pass throughout.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sq3hkda874cat8642]133|100[/hv]

 

***********************************************

Interesting posts so far...

 

OK, here is where we are now:

 

Partner

1NT

2NT super accept

3♠ no agreement

 

You

2♠ -> Clubs

3♦ GF with something in diamonds (again, no special agreements)

?

************************************************

 

I will update the bidding as we go along.

[Cyberyeti]

4♦ kickback.

 

3♠ should show values in spades and little in hearts, looking for some help for 3N.

 

The worry is a hand like AKxx, Jxx, Kxx, KQx where you have no parking place for your slow diamond loser, but he might have J♠ or Q♥ instead of the J.

[gszes]

***********************************************

Interesting posts so far...

 

OK, here is where we are now:

 

Partner

1NT

2NT super accept

3♠ no agreement

 

You

2♠ -> Clubs

3♦ GF with something in diamonds (again, no special agreements)

?

************************************************

 

I will update the bidding as we go along.

 

3s should show reasonable "stuff" in spades and "worry" about hearts. My feeling is that having only the ace in a worry suit (where partner most likely has little length) qualifies as a problem. I think we are looking at little/no "stuff" in hearts or only the ace. In either case, our hand has dramatically improved. Given the bidding so far it seems highly improbable we do not belong in at least a small slam. So the question becomes do we continue to search for more with our limited agreements or blast. We cannot bid 4n here since that could be taken as quant with hearts stopped but not spades. Given our limited agreements is it safe to continue to search or should we blast? I vote for

 

4c

 

in order to show partner our slam interest and give partner a chance to cue bid (4h). This also focuses on clubs more than diamonds since we could have also bid 4d here. Note that this is perfectly safe since the earlier bidding has forced us to at least 4n. P may bid 4d to focus on diamonds vs clubs and while that is a pain it is not deadly as we can follow with our 4h shortness. If p cannot bid 4d or 4h then we should settle for 6c without further messing around.

[Tramticket]

One reason is that if the bidding goes 1NT - 2S -2NT (SA) - 3C both opponents know that responder is weak but with a good fit. This enables both to come into the auction, for example with a TOX. Playing 3C as the SA only one oppo has the opportunity to bid once knowing the fit.

 

Thank you, I've learned something! I knew about the possibility of 2NT with 5-5, but this is a stronger reason.

[arock]

In my simple World I would bid 1 Club, forcing my P to bid his longest/strongest suit and go from there.

[miamijd]

Sry for the digression but can someone pls explain why 2NT is better w/o fit vs. 2NT = super acceptance? If respondent is very weak the hand needs to be played in 3C regardless of the fit so to rightside the contract, 3C = no fit (most common answer) is best. When opener super accepts, some of the weak hands will choose 3NT so less hands will be played in 3C anyway so no need to have them bid by opener.

Or did I miss sth?

I agree on 2NT openings, opener bids NT if he doesnt like respondent's minor, but in that case responder is GF+, not here.

 

For a variety of reasons, if you play 4 suit transfers, it's best to play 2s as range finder or clubs. That is, you bid two spades on hands with clubs, but also on hands that would have invited game with 2nt or slam with 4nt in old fashioned Goren. Partner bids 2nt with a min and 3c with a max. After 2nt, responder can pass with the invite hand, bid 3c with the weak club hand, bid 3of another suit to show a gf in clubs (usually the bid suit shows shortness), bid 3nt with the slam invite, and so on

 

If partner bids 3c, then responder can pass with the weak club hand and so forth

 

Using this method means 2c guarantees a 4 card major, which eliminates a couple of awkward auctions and permits better treatments for auctions like 1nt 2c 2d/h. 2s

 

Cheers,

Mike

[lyk]

2

IMPs, Both Vul,

15-17, 4 suit xfers w/super accept (immediate 3C response would be Puppet), no other special agreements , opponents pass throughout.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sq3hkda874cat8642]133|100[/hv]

 

Partner

1NT

 

You

?

 

I will update the bidding as we go along.

[yusuf]

1 N 2♠

2N. 3♥ 3(2),1,4,5(6)

[maartenxq]

 

 

Partner

1NT

 

You

?

 

 

Tell what you have, ie minors and slam interest. Then partner can make a decision how to proceed. So 2 S and after partners bid 3 D. If P does not move 3 nt it will be. After superaccept I will move forward myself to 6 or even 7 with enough key cards.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[rmnka447]

I'm with gszes and bidding 4 ♣ next.

[Winstonm]

Torn between 2♠ and an immediate 3N

 

 

 

Me, too, and as I cannot see why I should assume my Qx, and K in the majors are a problem, and if they are my hand is worth even less, so I am just bidding 3NT.

[sfi]

Sry for the digression but can someone pls explain why 2NT is better w/o fit vs. 2NT = super acceptance? If respondent is very weak the hand needs to be played in 3C regardless of the fit so to rightside the contract, 3C = no fit (most common answer) is best. When opener super accepts, some of the weak hands will choose 3NT so less hands will be played in 3C anyway so no need to have them bid by opener.

Or did I miss sth?

I agree on 2NT openings, opener bids NT if he doesnt like respondent's minor, but in that case responder is GF+, not here.

 

Another reason for using 3C as the superaccept rather than 2NT is that the club hand is dummy when you know its strength and hidden when you don't. In other words:

 

1N - 2S; 3C (superaccept) - Pass

We know responder is weak, but the hand is dummy.

 

1N - 2S; 2NT (no superaccept) - 3C

Responder's hand is either weak or invitational and is hidden.

 

Contrast this to using 2NT as the superaccept.

[rhm]

Torn between 2♠ and an immediate 3N

Me, too, and as I cannot see why I should assume my Qx, and K in the majors are a problem, and if they are my hand is worth even less, so I am just bidding 3NT.

 

The question is of course when do alternative contracts to 3NT get attractive enough to explore.

 

I simulated this (1000 deals) opposite a 15-17 notrump hand (4333, 4432, 5332)

It turns out

 

3NT makes on 86.6% of all deals double dummy

6NT makes on 37.3% of all deals double dummy

 

Average number of tricks 10.8

This suggests 3NT is safe enough. Opponents will hardly be able to beat it whatever they do and whatever you will reveal in the bidding.

 

6♣ makes on 51.4% of the deals

5♣ makes on 90.2% of the deals

 

Average number of tricks 11.5

 

Diamonds is rarely a better option.

Given that most will have difficulty showing a primary club suit and only a secondary diamond suit it might be best to ignore the diamond option all together in most cases unless opener suggests diamonds uninvited.

 

 

My conclusion from this is:

 

Chances for slam in clubs are too good to ignore, certainly at IMPs.

At matchpoints it is as expected closer but making at least a suggestion to a club slam seems appropriate even at matchpoints. If notrump opener accepts you are unlikely to get dissappointed.

I play a new suit after minor suit transfer as shortage and consider this mainstream. Not ideal with a singleton king and would probably simply bid 3NT after transfer to clubs.

At matchpoints this is enough, at IMPs this could be wrong if partner superaccepts.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I simulated this (1000 deals) opposite a 15-17 notrump hand (4333, 4432, 5332)

Your sim results match up with what I would intuitively expect. I was a little worried when some of the better players were choosing to go directly to 3NT given my comment about LOLs starting with 3♣ but will take your results as backing up that line of thought in keeping with the BBF tradition of cherry-picking data. B-)