Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems clear from the tone and content of OPer's remarks that he is suggesting that opening 1 with this East hand under the given conditions might be good “tactics” *NOT* just a very rare and totally unexpected “pscyh.”

He explicitly mentions how West might use “inference” to choose a call that caters to this type of “super light” 3rd chair opener.

All this suggests that we are discussing a situation where the partnership has some understanding about opening 1 in 3rd chair with a hand whose strength is clearly below the ACBL mandated minimum (for a non-“psych” opener).

Therefore, we are discussing a partnership tactic that is clearly disallowed by the ACBL (this is not to say that I believe that it *should* be so disallowed).
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no “not playing that” in this case as the meaning of 2NT on this auction is simply “bridge logic”, not a conventional agreement.

One could hardly have passed twice already (as in given auction) and suddenly discover one holds a natural 2NT bid.
Nor is “good/bad” relevent here for similar reasons.

So 2NT can only be a desire to compete in the minors with longer s and 3 card support. Whether or not it is a better choice than 3 with this 3=6 minor suit shape is perhaps debatable.
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why does it appear that “you don't have that tool”?
What else could 2NT possibly mean on this auction?
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Passing this out in (2) under stated conditions is completely out of the question. UI does not change this.

The only issue is whether to balance with 3 or 2NT.
Here, 2NT would be “choice of minors” (not good/bad).

But I think with a *3* card length discrepency, 3 is probably better.

Anyway, the choices OPer offers are not very good since they offer only Pass and 3 as alternatives. Surely he should have offered 2NT as an explicit 3rd choice in both cases (with and without UI) as otherwise he may not be finding out what he wants to know.
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a lead is not required to defeat 4N.
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I can tell you is that a series of 1000 deal simulations with this hand opposite random 1NT openers gave the following results:

opener: 15-17 HCP balanced hands
6 by 1NT opener: made on 941 deals
6N: made on 882 deals

opener: exactly 15 HCPs balanced hands
6 by 1NT opener: made on 903 deals
6N: made on 818 deals

opener: 15-17 HCPs with 2 s:
6 by 1NT opener: made on 910 deals
6NT: made on 858 deals

opener: 15 HCPs with 2 s:
6 by 1NT opener: made on 901 deals
6NT: made on 819 deals

These results suggest that we should be bidding a slam unless there is some very strong indication (e.g. two aces missing) to the contrary.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I know there is a check box on the ACBL convention card that says “minimum off-shape take-out doubles.”

I'm presuming that our partnership does not check that box.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is natural, values & suit for a 2 level overcall.
2 is limited Michaels (Majors)
3 is both majors, very strong
Double is TO of s (could be a very strong 1 suiter)
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick,
Perhaps you should take a poll:
You are VUL, They are NOT
LHO opens 1 in 1st chair and partner DOUBLES
What is the probability that partner holds 4 or more s ??

I am quite confident that the answer will be above 50%, justifying “usually.”
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The point I am trying to make is that the strength range shown by advancer's jump to 2 should be the same regardless of whether advancer has a 4 card suit or a 5 card one.

I play that this range is “9-11”.
Now it is certainly true that having a 5 (or 6) card suit is an asset. But that fact is taken care of by counting extra “points” for each card over four in advancer's long suit and also point(s) for advancer's shortness in suits other than the one partner doubled.

So, the minimum *high card* point requirement for a jump advance of 2 when advancer has a 5 card suit is lower than when his suit is only 4 cards (and lower still when he has a 6 card suit), but the the point range is still “9-11” when his HCPs are adjusted for his suit length and for his shortness in other suits, and secondary honors in his LHO's suit are discounted.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
The problem I see with your argument is that when advancer has a 4 card major, *usually* partner (the TO doubler) has 4 card support.

When advancer declines to express the full value of his hand for fear that the “fit” is only 4-3, good games can be missed because doubler does not know advancer has invitational strength.

Of course, when the fit really is only 4-3, the cautious approach you advocate will likely pay off.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hand could be similar but with :AKQ and :A or :AKQJ, etc.
It is hard for me to imagine what hand type responder can have for 5 other than something along these lines.

A void seems all but certain, else he could just ask for key-cards in s.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would your call be if your partner opened 4 and you held:
: QJT9xxxxx : void : AK : AK ?
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,
I don't consider this a form of Puppet Stayman.
The main goal was to be able to
(a) allow overcaller to show 5 cards in either major
and
(b) allow advancer to be able to show 5=4 or 4=5 majors
and
© find all routine 4=4 major suit fits

“(a)” is well handled by Puppet Stayman, but that convention does not handle “(b)”.

“(b)” is well handled by Smolen, but that convention does not handle “(a)”.

The method I outlined handles both “(a)” and “(b)” (and “©”), while in all cases resulting in the strong hand declaring.

I'm doubtful that “Regular Stayman” can do that (nor can Puppet Stayaman nor can Smolen) even with a “few modifications”, unless those modifications are something like what I've outlined (which I certainly wouldn't call “Regular Stayman with a few modifications.”
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's a way to handle advancer's 4=5 and 5=4 majors, find 4=4 major suit fits, and discover if overcaller has a 5 card major:
After (2)-2N-(P)
advancer's 3 inquires about majors.
Overcaller replies:
3N: shows 5 s
then, 4 transfers to s

3: shows 5 s
advancer can bid 3N or 4 to play
or 4 to show slam interest in s

3: shows exactly *4* s
advancer can raise to 4 to play or
or bid 3 as relay to 3NT either to play or
to continue as a slam try

3: < 5 s and < 4 s
then:
(a) 3 asks for length:
3 = three s
(caters to advancer's 5=4 majors+
3NT = < 3 s (generally, two)
4 level=4 s
cue-bid in case advancer has slam
interest.

(b) 3 is relay to 3NT
(to play or continue with slam interest)

© 3N shows advancer's 4=5 majors (an 8
card fit can still exist in either major)
4N/5N would be same shape but stronger
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Further, a pair that uses 2NT as their strong passed hand major suit raise opposite a 3rd chair opener is most likely *not* a pair that frequently opens very light 1M in 3rd seat.
A frequent very light opening pair would surely play 2 “Drury” in order to discover the light opener without bidding beyond 2M.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 3NT, we are likely to get a lead.
That will remove our A.

Then, if partner lacks the A (or even if he has it stiff), our hand is likely to be “dead.”

That suggests to me that passing 3NT is unwise even though this be matchpoints.

So the only issue I see is whether to bid 4 or 5.
Surely 4 must be forcing, but 5 seems more to the point of emphasizing “good s in context” which I think we have.

Yes, one could easily criticize North's earlier bidding in various ways (e.g. open 5 or rebid 3).
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it interesting that on this poll:
* 48% choose a call committing to slam (5NT, 6, 6)
* 41% choose the call rejecting slam (5)

* but only 11% choose the call saying “maybe slam” (5).

So roughly half the people “know” there is no slam and roughly half “know” there is one. But very few think there might be one and want to send that message to partner.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did a similar simulation (1000 deals) with this North hand.
I gave South 2=5=3=3 shape with 12-13 HCPs, and West 5 s (including K) with 8+ HCPs.

My results for NT played by North showed that
3NT outperformed 1NT by 1758 IMPs (Not VUL).

At Matchpoints, 1NT beat 3NT on only 386 deals.

Since the hands given to South represent those which are real openers yet would pass a 1NT response, this suggests that 1NT will miss too many good games when South has a minimum balanced opener.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will just note that Bridge World Standard defines a passed hand 1NT response to partner's 1M opening as “6-12” and “semi-forcing.”

I do not believe that they are specifically addressing the case where there is a 1 overcall as here, but I see no reason to think that would cause the 1NT response to be defined any weaker.
Sept. 20
.

Bottom Home Top