[han]

Scoring: IMP

---

2NT - (p) - ??

[Cascade]

Transfer WTP?

[Cascade]

Actually what exactly is the range for 2NT?

[helene_t]

Indeed, wtp? The problem arises when p superaccepts, I think.

At matchpoints, there was a guy from Dunedin (NZ) in the Bridge World who presented some simulation results in favor of 3NT. (Well it was after a 1NT opener, might make a difference).

[han]

I think it was 20-21. This particular partner thinks that I am a lunatic for opening some balanced 11-counts so I'd expect him not to upgrade may 19-counts. Not sure though.

Helene, if transfer and 3NT are both options, then perhaps Stayman is also an option?

[awm]

Here is my amusing approach to this sort of hand.

Bid stayman. If partner shows four hearts, bid 4♥. If partner shows four spades, bid 3NT.

If partner denies a four-card major, then fake a smolen hand by bidding 3♠.

The net effect is to play in 4♥ if:

(1) Partner has four hearts.
(2) Partner has three hearts and less than four spades.

And to play in 3NT otherwise. In addition, when partner has fewer than four spades and we end in 3NT, the sequence acts to deter a spade lead.

[helene_t]

han, on Feb 22 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

I think it was 20-21. This particular partner thinks that I am a lunatic for opening some balanced 11-counts so I'd expect him not to upgrade may 19-counts. Not sure though.

Helene, if transfer and 3NT are both options, then perhaps Stayman is also an option?

Yes sorry you're right, Stayman was the choice, not 3N. Actually I think it was correct at IMPs also.

Works better if you play puppet, suppose it goes
2N-3♣
3♦-3♠
4m
then you know p has 4 hearts and a suitable hand.

[mikeh]

transfer

Now, if partner were one of those idiots who thinks that the sequence of transfer than 3N commands him to bid 4major with all hands with 3 trump, I'd go the stayman route.

As it is, I don't play with those kinds of players, so I describe my hand and general flexibility and allow partner to use his judgment.

I don't feel strongly either way (for a change )

[david_c]

TP is you haven't counted your cards.

[rogerclee]

david_c, on Feb 22 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

TP is you haven't counted your cards.

8 posts without catching this, including the OP.

Adv/Expert .

[han]

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

transfer

Now, if partner were one of those idiots who thinks that the sequence of transfer than 3N commands him to bid 4major with all hands with 3 trump, I'd go the stayman route.

As it is, I don't play with those kinds of players, so I describe my hand and general flexibility and allow partner to use his judgment.

I don't feel strongly either way (for a change )

Thank you, I am one of those idiots.

I don't think play this way after 1NT-transfer-accept-3NT, but after 2NT-transfer-accept-3NT I will (almost) always convert to 4M with 3-card support as partner can be quite distributional.

[barmar]

Assuming there really is a doubleton ♠, the problem with the puppet Stayman approach is that you could end up in 3NT with 2-2 ♠ and 5-3 ♥. This is IMPs, you want to be in the safest contract, not necessarily the best contract.

[mikeh]

han, on Feb 22 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

transfer

Now, if partner were one of those idiots who thinks that the sequence of transfer than 3N commands him to bid 4major with all hands with 3 trump, I'd go the stayman route.

As it is, I don't play with those kinds of players, so I describe my hand and general flexibility and allow partner to use his judgment.

I don't feel strongly either way (for a change )

Thank you, I am one of those idiots.

I don't think play this way after 1NT-transfer-accept-3NT, but after 2NT-transfer-accept-3NT I will (almost) always convert to 4M with 3-card support as partner can be quite distributional.

1stly, your use of (almost) exempts you from inclusion in the class of idiots to whom I referred

2ndly, it is clear that you are not an idiot (clear even to an idiot such as myself, so that means REALLY clear ) So maybe my description of robotic major suit pullers was an overbid.


3rdly, I don't understand the logic behind your approach. Yes, partner 'can be' quite shapely over 2n and a transfer, but he is far more likely to be 5332 or 5422 or 5431 than to be markedly distributional, by an enormous margin. And surely he can be shapely after 1N as well, especially with 54 in a major/minor and really not have the stuff to want to invite an 11 trick minor contract...

I think of it somewhat simplistically: the great majority of hands that go 2N transfer 3n are identical to those that go 1N transfer 3N, with the 2N opener about 4 hcp stronger than the 1N, and the responder about 4 hcp weaker. Shape constraints are largely (not entirely, I concede) the same.

[kenrexford]

If the goal is to find either major, then this is another good hand for fixing your inferior and old Puppet Stayman methods.

3♣ asking for major shape.

If Opener bids 3NT (4-4 majors), bid 4♦ (transfer) and pass.
If Opener bids 3♠ (five spades), bid 4♠ or 3NT as you judge best.
If Opener bids 3♥ (4-5 hearts), bid 4♥.
If Opener bids 3♦ (2-4♠/2-3♥), bid 3♠, inviting 4♥ if partner has three of them, or, if the goal is to only play 4♥ if partner has four of them, bid the same, but then bid 3NT after 3♦.

The problem with this is the inability to check on a spade stopper situation. Deciding what to play as a function of partner's spade length seems nice, and a normal Stayman or normal Puppet seems to facilitate this. But, I can do better...

I do think that the normal sequence of a transfer and then 3NT stands out with this specific hand, but I am glad that I use the "enhanced" Puppet approach, because it helps me on this hand even when I do not use it.

"Why?" you ask.

If I have a method of handling a 3♠/5♥ hand through Puppet Stayman, then a 3♦ transfer to hearts, followed by 3NT, says more than that I have five hearts and GF values. It also says that I normally have 0-2 spades, or perhaps a hand like this, with three cruddy spades and five cruddy hearts. In other words, I focus partner on the spade problem. Because he will be better placed to make a decision as to the spade stopper situation (looking at anything from xxx to AK tight), this seems ideal.

This result is possible because, as we all know, the more tools you have to describe various hand patterns, the more options you have to F with those techniques for Machiavellian ends.

[han]

Mike, maybe I should have added a smillie because I was not at all offended. Now back to bridge...

If I bid 1NT-2H-2S-3NT I almost never have shortness. With shortness I would bid 3m (in the old days) or 3S (nowadays: unbalanced choice of games). So opener will (almost) always pass with 4333 distribution and sometimes even with 4432 distribution. Over 2NT I will often have a 5431 shape, I think it would be quite rare for opener to pass.

Over 2NT, I would prefer a style where opener almost always corrects and responder doesn't transfer with some balanced hands like this one. I have been told that Hamman has changed the responses to Smolen to be able to do both over 2NT: insist on 4M with a 5-3 or make a balanced choice-of-games. Not such a bad idea.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 23 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

Indeed, wtp? The problem arises when p superaccepts, I think.

At matchpoints, there was a guy from Dunedin (NZ) in the Bridge World who presented some simulation results in favor of 3NT. (Well it was after a 1NT opener, might make a difference).

Jeff Miller

[Cascade]

awm, on Feb 23 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Here is my amusing approach to this sort of hand.

Bid stayman. If partner shows four hearts, bid 4♥. If partner shows four spades, bid 3NT.

If partner denies a four-card major, then fake a smolen hand by bidding 3♠.

The net effect is to play in 4♥ if:

(1) Partner has four hearts.
(2) Partner has three hearts and less than four spades.

And to play in 3NT otherwise. In addition, when partner has fewer than four spades and we end in 3NT, the sequence acts to deter a spade lead.

That is a cute idea.

The problem on the hand is that you aren't that keen to play in 3NT when partner has fewer than four spades.

There is some safety based on the combined 29 or so hcp. It would be even more of a problem choosing strain with a more marginal game hand.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Feb 23 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

transfer

Now, if partner were one of those idiots who thinks that the sequence of transfer than 3N commands him to bid 4major with all hands with 3 trump, I'd go the stayman route.

As it is, I don't play with those kinds of players, so I describe my hand and general flexibility and allow partner to use his judgment.

I don't feel strongly either way (for a change )

This is slightly different over 2NT than over 1NT.

Over 1NT transfer then 3NT should almost always be reasonably balanced as with a problem hand you have the bidding space to show a second suit (or a problem suit for no trumps).

Over 2NT the auction is much more crammed so partner with some ordinary 5-4-3-1 hand will be forced to transfer and rebid 3NT fairly often. With this is mind I pull 3NT to 4major more often after I have opened 2NT than after I have opened 1NT.

[cherdano]

3N, wtp?
I also play the style where opener virtually always corrects to 4M with 3-card support after 2N - xfer + 3N but often passes after 1N - xfer+3N. I thought this is standard.

[helene_t]

Have to make some simulations on this. I would be very surprised if Han's style did not turn out to be superior to Mike's style, but then again, I have been surprised before.