Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If advancer transfers with only a 5 card suit, he should have a hand type where he knows what he is going to do next.

Typically, a transfer to a suit other than s shows a 6 card suit. Even then, advancer will often have a planned follow-up, e.g. returning to overcaller's suit to show a good hand with Hx support and a 6 card suit of his own.

Occasionally, advancer with only a 5 card suit will have a very strong hand where he plans to introduce a second suit or, perhaps, bid NT.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see much problem with your example hand–advancer continues with 3. That said, it will be fairly rare for advancer to have 15 HCPs on this auction, so this is going to be a fairly uncommon problem.

Transfer advances certainly don't solve all problems. There can and will be difficult hands (even) with that tool.

It's just that TA's give extra flexibility compared to other advancing methods which will make some hands easier to bid.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Logically, partner’s pass over the XX *should* mean he wants to defend (1XX).
Otherwise, he should bid something.
But do I trust his brainpower enough to be confident that he will have figured this out?
Since this is posted as a problem, presumably I do not, so I guess I should bid something as a hedge against disaster.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We agree on our second choice–3.

But I chose 2NT as 3 sounds too much like partner needs a stopper for 3NT *and* 3 being just a “courtesy raise” tends to show a slightly weaker hand than this (but I'll admit that 2NT tends to show a slightly stronger one).

I don't really understand 2 with four card support and only a doubleton and s double stopped and 10 hard working HCPs (with two 10 spots). 2 sounds like a weak hand (6-7) with a doubleton and < 4 s.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We generally play that spiral is used (only) when responder has either game-invitational strength or slam invitational (plus) strength and exactly four cards in his major.

With GF strength (but not enough to have any slam interest), and four cards in the major, we just bid 3NT (i.e. do not use spiral) and rely on opener to correct with four card support.

When responder has *5* cards in the major, we also do not use spiral (since we are guaranteed to have at least an eight card fit).
Instead, if responder wants to invite, we use natural game tries. These bids guarantee 5+ cards in the suit.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the “logical” meaning is:
values enough for game but not enough to have any slam interest with *exactly four s* and a relatively balanced hand. Partner is expected to pass with only 3 s, but generally convert to 4 with four s.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My view is that you just imagine partner has advanced a natural NF 2. If you would pass that (which I certainly would with OP hand), you accept the transfer.
Doesn't really matter exactly how many s you have–just that you would have passed a natural NF 2 advance.

If you would not have passed over a natural NF 2 advance, then you do not accept the transfer. Instead, you bid whatever you would have over the hypothetical natural NF 2 advance.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no reason to bid more than 2 now unless you fear partner won't realize that call is 100% forcing.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened to the hand partner held during the auction?
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We actually play this as natural, GF, no slam interest, but opener is generally expected to “correct” to 4 if he has four s.

I suppose if opener wanted to take a view (especically at matchpoints) and pass 3NT even with four s, say 3=4=3=3 or something, that would be OK (particularly if it worked out well :-)).
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't double with this.
I think it's between 2 and 3.

I went with 2 as partner might have little useful for me in s (maybe he has long s and was hoping for a double).

But I can see how the aggressive 3 could easily be right.
Give pard xxx-xxx-xxxx-Kxx and 4 is decent.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with David C. that if one must overcall with this hand, then 1NT seems like a much better description than 2.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd definitely open this hand 2.

So now, there really is no bid to describe this hand since we're already “off the rails” with the wrong opening bid.

I try 3, Eisenberg jump shift (GF,not necessarily s), but really nothing will do since I'm over-strength for the 1 opening.

Jumping to 4 is terrible as that shows a speculative type of hand with very long s but sharply limited HCPs.
Here are some examples from Mike Lawrence's software on “2/1 GF” for 1-1N-4 auction:
(a) KQJT654-32-KQ7-A
(b) AJT87654-2-AQ-K7
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 Eisenberg jump shift seems reasonable, treating as a strong hand.
Alternative would be 2NT–slightly risky since NF.
3NT is wrong as that describes a different kind of hand.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 with this flat, sterile hand could be a disaster–going down (maybe several) when they don't have a game.

3 is weak, but I think it should have some shape.

So why not pass? I could do that, but I'd like to tell partner about my support, perhaps to encourage him to lead a against their final contract.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Balanced hands that are too strong to bid 2NT generally double and then bid NT next time.

3NT directly suggests stopper(s) plus trick source (a long running suit). There is no Stayman, and partner would remove to a major suit only if it were very long (at least 6 cards).
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two Places to Play.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that OP's claim that in Bridge World Standard responder's 3 is GF+ is incorrect.

Bridge World Standard notes say:
Competition After Our Major-Suit Opening:
In responding to a major-suit opening
over an artificial action:
Over a Michaels cue-bid
(other major plus a minor):
....
(b) a virtual cue-bid in overcaller's anchor
major is a game-invitational-plus raise."

In that case (i.e. if 3 was *not* GF), then partner's 4 shows (at least a little) more than a minimum.
If his hand were so bad that he would have attempted to play in 3 opposite a LR, then he would have passed (4).

But if 3 had been a GF+ raise, then his 4 would be his weakest action.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because pass by partner would be stronger than bidding 4.

4 is how partner warns us not to think about going any higher unless we've really got the goods.

Pass by partner would be more encouraging.

This is pretty standard–when we make a bid in competition that forces us to some particular level and strain, bidding the contract to which we are forced immediately is the weakest action.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've already made a VUL 2-level overcall on a 5 card suit.
Perhaps marginally justified by our decent high card structure.

But without a real fit for partner's s, I cannot see why we would bid again freely with this hand. If we belong higher, partner should/will bid again.
July 8
Craig Zastera edited this comment July 8
.

Bottom Home Top