Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although 2NT is perhaps less than completely clear-cut, I would hardly call it a “massive overbid”.

In fact, I think it is quite a reasonable choice.
Perhaps a bidding poll for the West hand after
(1) P (P) DBL
(1) ??

would be interesting ?
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get “not the point of the problem.”
I don't see the point if the hand were xxx-Ax-AKJx-T8xx.
Then you'd have no option but to rebid 1NT.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Problem with passing now is the problem I will have when partner re-opens with a double.

I probably wouldn't pass that, but if I bid a “safe” 2, we might be missing a 4=4 fit. And if I bid 2 ….

So I stretch a little now to double so if partner bids we can play there. Otherwise (say he rebids 2 red), we play 2.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand looks like the right time to apply the following option from BWS negative double description:

"Negative doubles:
A negative double at the one-level or when there is
exactly one unbid major guarantees at least four cards
in any unbid major(opener may rebid in a three-card suit
there in a pinch);"

OP problem seems like “a pinch” to me.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see the choice as between PASS and 2.

If I had doubled in direct position, this hand would not be strong enough for DBL then 2.

But because I'm in balancing seat where partner may be allowing for me to be a Q (or K?) weaker than normal, perhaps this hand should “stretch” to bid 2 in case partner has more than normal for his 2 advance.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 5 s and 4 s and a strength I judge as (only) game invitational, we bid:
1N 2
2 2 (forces 2)
2 2NT (5=4 majors, game inviational)

With the same shape but GF strength, responder would bid 3NT instead of 2NT
Also, responder can bid this way with weak 5=4 (he passes 2)

With 5 s and 4 s and the same strength we bid:
1N 2
2 2

showing 5+ s, 4+ s, > , invitational or better
Now opener continues:
2N: minimum with 2 s
3N: maximum with 2 s
3: minimum with 3 s
higher: maximum with 3 s (can cue-bid)
(also possible to use opener's 3/3 to show 3 s with
either medium strength or as advance cues_
Nov. 2
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Game invitational splinters into majors in support of minors are NF.
Invitational splinters into minors in support of a major are forcing (to the next level of the major).
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, of course 2 is non-forcing. That's the point.
It is just a shape based game invite. Opener can pass, go back to 3, or “re-invite” with 3, etc.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4=6 and 6=4 major hands are no problem when partner opens 1NT (15-17).

Assuming you deem in worthwhile to explore for a possible 4=4 fit (and I've done many simulations which suggest that it is unless the 6 card major's honor structure is *much* stronger than the 4 card major's), you start with Stayman (if you don't want to look for 4=4 fit, just use Jacoby or Texas for the 6 card suit as appropriate).

If you hit a major fit, strain problem is solved.

If partner replies 2, you have two choices depending on how strong your hand is:
1. With game going strength but not slam interest:
use “delayed Texas”:
1N-2-2-<4 or 4> to transfer to </>.

2. With slam interest strength, go through 2-level
Smolen, then if partner bids NT (2N or 3N), transfer
to the 6 card major at the 4 level (“super delayed
Texas”), e.g.:
1N 2
2 2 (ostensibly 4=5 majors)
2N/3N 4 (transfer to s, 4=6, slammish)
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is significantly stronger than 2.
2 would be fewer than 10 HCPs.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not. Biggest problem is the wrong texture suit for a pre-empt.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did a 5000 deal simulation with OP hand opposite what I consider a “super-accept” of 2 Jacoby.
On all deals, opener was given four s, 17 HCPs, and a side doubleton of “xx”, “Tx”, “Ax” or “AT”).

On this simulation, 4 made on 2203 deals (44%).
3 made on 4428 deals (89%)

This suggests bidding 4 VUL at IMPs is certainly percentage, and probably even NV at IMPs.

At matchpoints, probably prudent to stop in 3.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The whole point of a “super-accept” is to tell partner that you do NOT hold an “average hand for a 1NT opening.”

The super-accept says you have a hand with 4+ card support that is worth MORE THAN 17 POINTS in support of responder's major. Usually, this is 17 HCPs plus a small doubleton “ruffing value.”
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule for opening “funny” NT bids (off shape and/or out of range) is that responder is supposed to choose an auction (and final contract) under the assumption that opener has a hand within the agreed strength and shape parameters for his call.

If responder does that and the final result is poor because opener's hand doesn't conform to expectations, then that is opener's fault, not responder's.

Thus, it is OK to “upgrade” (or downgrade) and/or open off-shape NT bids only if you believe your choice accurately represents your values.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't OP auction appropriate for “Relay Double” treatment?
That way, South's actual 3 would be construed as game-invitational, while a “just competing” hand with s would double, then remove opener's (likely) 3 to 3.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your ratios for 22 vs. 23 vs. 24 are approximately correct.
My simulation gave:
22 HCPs: 58.3%
23 HCPs: 28.2%
24 HCPs: 13.5%
These were based on using exact OP responding hand and using balanced opening hands with 2-3 s and 2-3 s.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play that after 2N-3-3N(s):
4 transfers to s
4 shows s and slam interest
4 shows s and slam interest (Forcing)
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT then 3 over 3 should not be forcing (raising 2 to 3 directly would be the force).
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North could consider 4 (fit jump) instead of actual 3.

I'm not sure the fit jump is clear as the suit is a trifle thin *and* North has two significant high card values in the other two suits. Clear or not, it would certainly make it easy to bid the slam this time as South would know his holding was gold.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,
You must be looking at a different hand than I am.

All poor West did was make a non-vul 1 overcall, and now he finds his partner issuing an explicit slam try.
And West sits with two aces, the K, and a promsing 4 card suit.

Since it seems quite likely on the bidding that East has a stiff , West knows his A covers that. The “thin” suit isn't too big a deal since partner is making a slam try in the suit. And East has a secondary potential trick source in the suit (he has no reason to suspect that East is short in that suit).

To me, I think it would be very conservative (for West) to merely issue a FP and then accept defending should East double in response (which OP East would not).
To my way of thinking, I would find it hard to imagine what sort of “slam try” East has where OP West hand wouldn't offer at least a reasonable play for 6.

As West, I might be expecting East to produce something like Axx-Axxxx-x-KQxx which would make 6 pretty excellent.
Oct. 30
.

Bottom Home Top