You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the slam hand my first thought was not 5 but 5NT. Hopefully, after I have already tried to sign off once, it cannot be misinterpreted.
Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the first example 2 may be completely broke. I simply bid 2 in order to find our 8-card fit. With both majors and some strength I start with 1.
With 3-3 in the majors and a very bad hand I'd probably bid 1 then 2 (if forced) unless I have the agreement of rebidding 2 with any bad hand over partner's cuebid.

I did not think the second case was much different until I read Michaels's comment. Anyway, the example sequence would show a weak hand for me because with a stronger one with both majors I'd raise the cuebid.
Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think this type of overcalling problem has a definite solution. I am reluctant to overcall 2 on such a suit because of experiences similar to those of Michaels's.
However, double goes with its own risks. Consider the actual hand. You double, 2 on your left and now what is partner supposed to do? He clearly wants to bid something but what? Aha! The responsive double comes to the rescue. So he doubles and now South has got himself in an unenviable situation. If he bids 3 he has found an inferior fit and will probably go down. Shall he bid 3? He may feel it is not enough but if he bids 4 he will surely find it has been too much. And even if he bids 3 only, his partner might raise thinking he had a hand too strong for a simple 2 overcall.
Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He contracted for 11 tricks instead of 3. I have a hand a singleton and a king stronger than can have been expected.
Would it be far-fetched to visualize xxx, AQxxxx, xx, Kx in partner's hand? I would have passed the double with that…
So a clear 6 for me and I might feel guilty seeing him spread his hand at trick 1 for 13 top tricks if he has the A as well.
Jan. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, typically a 5333 hand.
Jan. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess RD is SOS but what type of hand? It cannot be a 4-suiter, consequently at least one side suit is short. I guess it will often be (5332) with a shaky 5-card . Or it may explicitely guarantee (5332) because opener will always bid his side suit regardless of quality?
If we take it granted that it is (5332) then obviously responder's 1NT is to play, without an 5-card suit.

As with the suggested structure, I think you have a mandatory redouble with almost all semibalanced hands, and use 1NT for SOS.
I still don't see how you untangle the strong pass hand after opener bids a new suit. Raise with an invitational hand and make an impossible jump to 3 if you want to force to game?
Jan. 14, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment Jan. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say opener does not bid 3 on a minimum 54, he bids 2 instead. Now, unless responder bids 2NT on a wide variety of hands, the club suit is lost for good. Even if responder bids 3, apparently good news, opener will have doubt whether he should raise, thereby bypassing 3NT (I don't think responder bids 3 only without a heart stopper). And when he decides to raise, responder will still be in the dark about opener's distribution, which makes him difficult to assess the possibilities of the hand.
Jan. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shows, however, 9 of opener's 13 cards. If you had to rebid spades it would be almost as uninformative as though you had opened 2.
Jan. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, yesterday I had almost the same problem and I got it wrong so don't expect miracles from me but here is my rather simple reasoning.
Why did West lead an unsupported ace instead of a ‘safe’ heart? Maybe because he was looking at all of the missing honour cards and with 14-15 HCP he decided he was not going to get help in either suit so in fact he decided to go passive.
So, despite having seen a lot of points from West, I'd play him for the Q.
Jan. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks John, that's very good news.
Jan. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is exactly what I used to play with a certain partner. 2 was s or a balanced slam try.

And once a terrible thing happened: after 1NT-2 the opponents came in with 3 something. I passed, and after some hesitation partner reopened with a double. I took it as the slammish hand, the opp asked why and I could not explain. It did not went to TD but was a bit awkward.
Jan. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me like 2 off.

Otherwise, I agree that 1NT is not likely to get passed out when I have a 3m hand.
However, if I bid 3m (or take a longer route to 3m) and I have a big fit, I practically force the opponents to bid game (LHO will have the strength and distribution to double after RHO has passed), while it is more difficult for them to find their game after a 2 Landy, when RHO will have to allow for the possibility of his partner having reopened on mediocre values. Defensive methods against a strong NT are not game oriented.
This would mean that I will have to preempt if I think they have no game, while I'd better pass if I think they have. And I have no way to know that.
Dec. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like your 3. If you had bid 4 I might disagree but I would certainly feel sympathy.
Dec. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With some partners I do use 2 not promising a 4cM with inviting strength. However, I hate it.
Dec. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Originally I did not intended to go into details about this. My goal is to build a responding structure which can fulfil the following tasks (other than the obvious):
- Has a bid for inviting to 3NT without having a major, such as the traditional 2NT.
- Has a puppet stayman bid to locate 5-3 (and 4-4) major suit fits. I take it as obvious that 1NT will often contain a 5-card major. At the same time I'd like to avoid bidding out opener's shape if possible (as with regular Stayman). A nice solution of pupstay was described once by Justin Lall on his site, I used it with one partner efficiently.
- Has a bid for minor one-suiters.

The scheme with 4-suit transfers has no invitational NT bid. To circumvent that, you can play that 2 is either a game invitation in NT or a club suit. It is a range ask and then responder clarifies. However, after a 3M intervention, it may be difficult to sort out various types and strengths. That's why I had the idea that maybe weak hands with a long minor suit may be gotten rid of.

Anyway, thank you for taking me seriously.
Dec. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick:
I can think of more than one system of responses based on disregarding the weak minor hands. The point is whether such a system is justified.
Maybe I should have asked whether anyone has experience with those runouts. I myself recall two cases, in one I was doubled in 3 and went down 2 (opps had nothing), in another one I was not doubled but running did not improve the contract.
I have played for 40 years now and I simply don't remember ever having a hand in which I bought the contract in 3m and it was good.
People playing ten thousand hands in one year may have a say based on statistical experience. I am not such a player.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fine problem. I gave up after 4 tries although I have already known the full hand by then.
Maybe tomorrow.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't expect 1NT to be the final contract when I have a hand suitable for a 3m signoff.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course it is forcing. Preempting here would be totally pointless, we have the balance of power.
Besides, we could have passed with long hearts and bid a number of hearts later so the only sensible reason why we did not do so seems to be solid hearts.
Dec. 25, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top