What does north bid? - updated for south hand

[phoenixmj]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

The other day, we had this hand. We play a strong NT - 15-17 HCP. We will open 1N with a 5 card major.

 

Over 1NT - for minor transfers we play that 2S is a minor transfer, with the 1N bidder bidding 3c and then responder will correct to 3D if diamonds is the suit. If the suit is indeed diamonds, opener can pass the 3D.

 

Curious as to how you would approach this hand.

[zhasbeen]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

The other day, we had this hand. We play a strong NT - 15-17 HCP. We will open 1N with a 5 card major.

 

Over 1NT - for minor transfers we play that 2S is a minor transfer, with the 1N bidder bidding 3c and then responder will correct to 3D if diamonds is the suit. If the suit is indeed diamonds, opener can pass the 3D.

 

Curious as to how you would approach this hand.

 

Playing GIB 2/1 in the robot tournaments 3C transfers to diamonds. Then north could cue bid 3H and take it from there.

 

The way I play offline is to use 2NT as transfer to diamonds (kinda). If opener has Kx or better in diamonds he accepts the transfer with 3D. With a worse diamond holding he makes the cheapest response of 3C

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np2sp?]140|200| phoenixmj 'The other day, we had this hand. We play a strong NT - 15-17 HCP. We will open 1N with a 5 card major. Over 1NT - for minor transfers we play that 2S is a minor transfer, with the 1N bidder bidding 3c and then responder will correct to 3D if diamonds is the suit. If the suit is indeed diamonds, opener can pass the 3D.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Assuming that the only way you can show either minor is to start with 2♠.

2♠ might also function as a range ask. Then

 

After 1N - 2♠ - ??

-- 2N = MIN.

-- 3♣ = MAX.

 

After 1N - 2♠ - any - ??

-- Pass/3♣/3♦/3N/6N = S/O. (Responder might not have a minor).

-- 3♥ = S/T with ♣s.

-- 3♠/4♣/4♦... = S/T with ♦s. e.g. the OP hand.[/hv]

[chasetb]

phoenixmj, I would show this hand the as a Diamonds hand with slam interest (and we do in fact have interest).

 

In your system (if I am guessing correctly) I would be bidding 3♦ as a Game Force with long Diamonds. In my system, I use 2NT as a transfer to Diamonds, so I would transfer and then bid 3NT, showing 13-14 HCP, 6 Diamonds, and slam interest.

[johnu]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

The other day, we had this hand. We play a strong NT - 15-17 HCP. We will open 1N with a 5 card major.

 

Over 1NT - for minor transfers we play that 2S is a minor transfer, with the 1N bidder bidding 3c and then responder will correct to 3D if diamonds is the suit. If the suit is indeed diamonds, opener can pass the 3D.

 

Curious as to how you would approach this hand.

In your "system", how do you show a game forcing hand with diamonds? That's what I would bid. If you don't have a sequence, I would change my system.

 

On my card, I would transfer to diamonds and then bid 3NT showing diamonds, a hand suited for playing in NT, and some interest in slam.

[dsLawsd]

In the good old days of Walsh we used transfers by starting with 2♦then bid 2♠ puppet to 2NT. Then Walsh Relays allowed you to show solid or broken 6 card minors with slam interest.

 

On this hand I am tempted at matchpoints to just bid 3NT given the broken diamonds and Q9 of spades. But then who said I was any good at matchpoints?

 

What about transfer to diamonds and then bid 4NT quantitative?

I am not sure 3♥ cue really helps that much?

[SelfGovern]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

The other day, we had this hand. We play a strong NT - 15-17 HCP. We will open 1N with a 5 card major.

 

Over 1NT - for minor transfers we play that 2S is a minor transfer, with the 1N bidder bidding 3c and then responder will correct to 3D if diamonds is the suit. If the suit is indeed diamonds, opener can pass the 3D.

 

Curious as to how you would approach this hand.

 

There are a large number of possibilities -- it depends on how your bidding system is structured.

 

Start with this thought: When partner opens 1NT, almost everyone has a way to show a weak hand with a major suit (transfer, then pass), an invitational hand with a major (transfer, then bid 2NT with five or 3M with six), a game-going hand with a major (transfer then bid 3NT with 5, or Texas transfer with six), and slam interest (transfer and bid a new suit, or transfer and splinter, or Texas transfer and then use key card)

 

In comparison, many partnerships don't have each of these situations covered. Your first step is to analyze your agreements, and figure out which hands you can show, and which you can't. Then you think about unused sequences and figure out if you can define some of those undefined sequences as a previously unshowable hand.

 

One structure that might work for you:

Over 1NT:

1N - 2C

2any - 2N : invitational to 3NT; does not have 44 fit with opener's shown major

 

1N - 2S - transfer to clubs

 

2N bad support for clubs

P Responder willing to play 2NT

3C - Weak hand with clubs, opener passes

3D/H/S - Slam interest in clubs, showing a singleton or void in the bid suit

3N Balanced slam try in clubs, non-forcing

4C Minorwood (key card ask in clubs)

 

 

1N - 2S - transfer to clubs or range ask.

 

3C Hxx or better in clubs

P Weak hand with 6(+) clubs

3D/H/S - Slam interest in clubs, showing a singleton or void in the bid suit

3N Balanced slam try in clubs, non-forcing

4C Minorwood (key card ask in clubs)

 

1N - 2N Transfer to diamonds

Opener's rebids:

3C - Bad support for diamonds

3D - Good support for diamonds (Hxx or better; some reverse this and 3C)

Over opener's 3C bid, 3D is to play.

Over opener's 3C or 3D,

3N = balanced slam try in diamonds

3H/3S/4C = unbalanced slam try in diamonds

4D: Minorwood (Key card ask in diamonds)

 

1N - 3D 55 minors; game forcing.

Opener's rebids:

3H: Agrees clubs with desire to play in a suit

3S: Agrees diamonds with desire to play in a suit

3N: Major suits well covered, desire to play 3NT

 

Now that scheme doesn't give you invitational hands with a minor, but it does give you the rest -- and often, knowing that opener has primary support for your minor is enough to let you bid 3NT on less than 25HCP.

 

Others play that 2C is nominally Stayman, but if responder then bids 3C or 3D, it's game forcing with slam interest in the bid minor.

[Vampyr]

What does it mean in your system if opener bids 2NT instead of 3♣? What does it mean if instead of p/c over 3♣ you bid 3♥ or 3♠?

[nekthen]

I think you need to discuss the meaning of direct 3 level bids. I would advocate for

3♣ puppet stayman

3♦ GF 6+♦

3♥ and 3♠ GF splinter with 3 cards in the other major

 

After 2♠ 3♣ any bid other than pass or 3♦ is GF with 6+♣

[Cyberyeti]

We play 1N-2♠ weak with either minor or GF both minors, so 2♠ then 3♥ is GF both minors.

 

1N-3♦ = nat GF slam interest and is what I would do here

[FelicityR]

I wouldn't try to complicate this too much as a transfer to 3♦ by your preferred method of 2♠ or 2NT should automatically show a 6 card suit as far as I'm concerned, and then a cue bid of 3♥ by responder will show slam interest. It's then up to opener to clarify things further. 6♦ is at worst dependent on a finesse or at best makeable on a squeeze. 6NT might too be a feasible contract, but if you don't try to get there you're not going to get there (as my husband says). There's plenty of minimum 15 HCP no trump hands where 6♦ or 6NT is always there. And even if you are two aces light, there's always that horrible harbour of a contract of 5NT which I doubt would go down except with a bad lie of the cards.

[pescetom]

I play 2♠ as range ask or transfer to ♣ and 2NT as transfer to ♦, which is pretty much standard these days.

 

I'm puzzled why those advocating direct 3 level bids of 3♣/3♦ as GF 6+cards do not play them as transfer to the other minor, seems to me it would have almost no cost.

[Cyberyeti]

I play 2♠ as range ask or transfer to ♣ and 2NT as transfer to ♦, which is pretty much standard these days.

 

I'm puzzled why those advocating direct 3 level bids of 3♣/3♦ as GF 6+cards do not play them as transfer to the other minor, seems to me it would have almost no cost.

 

Probably because we play weak no trump and the hand bidding 3m is the big hand

[phoenixmj]

Here was my thought process when bidding this hand. We - unfortunately in this case - do not play 4 way transfers. We will definitely be rethinking this although these hands do not come up very often and I will argue this is our first instance where it is this critical. If N had both minors, we have a method to showing that with game or slam interest.

 

I looked at this hand and thought - my hand is much more valuable in diamonds than in NT. Consequently - I don't like the idea of just doing a quantitative raise. A pass over my quantitative raise and we might miss a slam (or game) in diamonds, and a 6NT opener rebid is past 6D. Technically - even with 17 points in partner's hand, we don't have a NT slam. It can happen with a good suit, but seems iffy. If I "assume" that we will be playing in diamonds (our agreement is that we do not open 1N with a singleton) - then I want to investigate slam. I have a worthless doubleton - so if I say 4c (gerber) - if we are missing an ace I am at a loss as to how to proceed. We also open 1N with a 5 card major, so I would not be shocked to see partner with a 5 card spade suit.

 

I am thinking - even with the low end of 15 HCP - partner has to have a couple of aces. Question is - does he have the ace of diamonds and does he have the ace or king of spades. The spades are the real problem for slam bid, and frankly I don't see how to get that info with me doing the asking. So, if I get an answer of 2 aces, I am still guessing about 2 losers off the top.

 

So, how do I get him to do the asking.

 

If we played 4way transfers and I get him to bid 3D, it should be clear that I have 6 diamonds and if I then bid 3h, I can see that my partner would think something was up. Is this 3H bid a cue bid showing 1st or 2nd round control of hearts and slam interest? Is this saying we should be in game at least and you choose if you want to bid 3N if you have a minimum. Would this bid prompt my partner to start asking me for info and if so, how should he go about doing that?

 

I want to see some more replies before saying what i actually did and also show partner's hand. Then I will show all 4 hands.

[msjennifer]

Sir.We will only show a slam oriented hand by our methods. 1NT-2NT(TRANSFER TO D)-3C(min)/3D(max)--3H (Heart Ace) 6card D suit with at least 2 of three tops.If opener can cue spades then only we try and explore a slam.If he does bid 3S then on this hand we bid 3NT to deny any other ACE but guaranteeing 2ND round control in C .Then its upto opener .BY THE BY PS-We do not open 1NT with a five card major .We also do not open 1NT with two suits unguarded.

[pescetom]

If we played 4way transfers and I get him to bid 3D, it should be clear that I have 6 diamonds and if I then bid 3h, I can see that my partner would think something was up. Is this 3H bid a cue bid showing 1st or 2nd round control of hearts and slam interest? Is this saying we should be in game at least and you choose if you want to bid 3N if you have a minimum. Would this bid prompt my partner to start asking me for info and if so, how should he go about doing that?

 

I think you can see by now the case for playing 4 Way Transfers: the traditional price to pay was being forced to put a natural balanced invite through Stayman, but you can fix that by adding Range Ask.

It may sound odd as I have probably bored everyone to death here with my passion for control-bids (aka cue bids), but I don't advocate playing 3♥ here as one. I prefer 3♥/3♠/4♣ to be splinters, 4♦ as an invite to control-bid and 4♥ as Kickback. Showing (or denying) splinter gets vital information across, enabling partner to re-evaluate his hand and better interpret our successive control-bids. So I would be bidding 4♦ here.

[pescetom]

Probably because we play weak no trump and the hand bidding 3m is the big hand

 

Sure, I was thinking about the OP strong no trump situation which I imagine nekthen was referring to.

[phoenixmj]

Sir.We will only show a slam oriented hand by our methods. 1NT-2NT(TRANSFER TO D)-3C(min)/3D(max)--3H (Heart Ace) 6card D suit with at least 2 of three tops.If opener can cue spades then only we try and explore a slam.If he does bid 3S then on this hand we bid 3NT to deny any other ACE but guaranteeing 2ND round control in C .Then its upto opener .BY THE BY PS-We do not open 1NT with a five card major .We also do not open 1NT with two suits unguarded.

 

Suppose north's hand is stronger - but still diamonds. If the bidding went 1N, 2N (transfer to d), 3c (opener has a minimum),

 

Now what - If north bids 3d I assume that opener will pass?

What could north bid to say - even with your minimum, we should be at least in game and likely in slam?

 

Thanks

[phoenixmj]

What does it mean in your system if opener bids 2NT instead of 3♣? What does it mean if instead of p/c over 3♣ you bid 3♥ or 3♠?

 

We have played a 2N response as invitational in NT - balanced hand.

 

I suspect we will be changing this to allow for 4way transfers.

[phoenixmj]

I think you can see by now the case for playing 4 Way Transfers: the traditional price to pay was being forced to put a natural balanced invite through Stayman, but you can fix that by adding Range Ask.

It may sound odd as I have probably bored everyone to death here with my passion for control-bids (aka cue bids), but I don't advocate playing 3♥ here as one. I prefer 3♥/3♠/4♣ to be splinters, 4♦ as an invite to control-bid and 4♥ as Kickback. Showing (or denying) splinter gets vital information across, enabling partner to re-evaluate his hand and better interpret our successive control-bids. So I would be bidding 4♦ here.

 

Question about range ask - Since we have not played 4 way transfers, I have not looked at this before. I see a Robert Todd article on Rodwell 2S - size ask - which I am going to guess is the same thing????? On this, it appears that it addresses the situation where the responder has a 6 card club suit - but I am not seeing anything about a 6 card diamond suit.

 

The article briefly mentions something about a super-accept of a transfer to diamonds. So I am guessing that this means to transfer to diamonds, you respond 2N over 1N open, then if opener has a weak hand they bid 3c???? 3D would indicate a strong hand and diamond support? But now the responder is playing it and in the driver's seat for the next bid. In this case, still have the worthless doubleton issue. Or can you start cue bidding now to show controls since you have 'agreed on a suit".

 

Curious - does this come into play here? Do you have a good place for me to read about this?

 

Thx,

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments:

 

1. I'd treat this as a slam oriented single suited hand with diamonds

 

2. 1NT the Scanian Way has a good set of responses over a 2♠ range ask

[Cyberyeti]

Sure, I was thinking about the OP strong no trump situation which I imagine nekthen was referring to.

 

OK, but you asked why people were advocating the method, and it's probably because they play it (and may be in a weak NT system) but also 1N-3♦ in a strong NT setting, the hands are nearly the same strength, so you conceal the one that may have unexpected shape.

[pescetom]

Question about range ask - Since we have not played 4 way transfers, I have not looked at this before. I see a Robert Todd article on Rodwell 2S - size ask - which I am going to guess is the same thing????? On this, it appears that it addresses the situation where the responder has a 6 card club suit - but I am not seeing anything about a 6 card diamond suit.

 

The article briefly mentions something about a super-accept of a transfer to diamonds. So I am guessing that this means to transfer to diamonds, you respond 2N over 1N open, then if opener has a weak hand they bid 3c???? 3D would indicate a strong hand and diamond support? But now the responder is playing it and in the driver's seat for the next bid. In this case, still have the worthless doubleton issue. Or can you start cue bidding now to show controls since you have 'agreed on a suit".

 

Curious - does this come into play here? Do you have a good place for me to read about this?

 

No idea of where to read sorry, I picked it up from a post of mikeh here and then thought it through with the rest of my system and saw it fitted well - all I had to do was invert the like/dislike after diamond transfers.

It's very simple in principle, a direct bid of 2♠ over 1NT initially asks for strength with replies 2NT or 3♣. You can handle this both as a pure natural NT invite or as a transfer to clubs. So when you used to bid 1NT - 2NT - p this now becomes 1NT - 2♠ - 2NT - p. And when you used to bid 1NT - 2NT - 3NT - p this now becomes 1NT - 2P - 3C - 3NT - p. This is much better than using 4 way transfers without range check where you have to bid 1NT - 2C - 2X -2NT to invite, which means that opponents learn about X and can find a dangerous lead.

[dsLawsd]

All great discussions. Since most do not use Walsh these days it is good to have optional sets of agreements. The ones here I like.

 

RESEARCH: What I have done over the last 6 months is to pull down and save as a PDF many of the top pairs convention cards so I can see how they put things together and what their preferences are.

 

NOTE: In Walsh + Walsh Relays the heart transfer is two-way which transferor can then overrule by bidding 2♠ puppet to 2NT.

That allows for 2♠being used as MSS, 2NT is clubs and 3

♣ as diamonds. These days so many systems use the 3 level to show shortness at least 1-3-5-4 that perhaps that is more flexible.

 

VERDICT: A good partnership discussion that keeps notes and revisits them every few weeks or months.

[phoenixmj]

Here is what happened at our table. My partner bid 1N. I pondered (probably for a bit longer than recommended) and given our partnership agreements, I only saw bad things happening. So - I decided that getting the answers I really wanted was a long shot. I bid directly 6D. Which I made.

 

I noticed that fully 80 percent of the field did not get to slam. We were the only ones playing it in diamonds. The other slams were 6N. My guess is the bidding went, 1N, 4N, 6N. With the "best" lead, 6N goes down 1 - but only 1 of the 6N bidders went down. It was matchpoints so the 10 point premium meant that we got fewer points. But, I truly think it is the correct contract. The trick is - how to get there.

 

This was a common game hand - and unfortunately they did not do bidding analysis of this hand. But, the entire field (across the entire common game) had very few people getting to a slam of any kind, and about 20 percent of the slam bids were diamonds. The rest were NT.

 

I am attaching north and south's hand now.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa84hkqj6da86cqj7&n=sq9ha7dkqt532ckt8]133|200[/hv]

 

So, let's assume that we did play 4way transfers. In this case, I would have said 2N - transfer to diamonds. If opener answered 3c, then let's assume that he has a minimum hand and then I should say 3D. If he says 3D, then let's assume he has a maximum hand.

 

So - now what? I still don't know if he has controls in spades and that is really critical to making slam of any stripe.

 

I was pleased with our result but felt unsatisfied about my bid. It just "felt" like a slam and definitely worth a shot - but it still does not feel right to bid 6D right off the bat.