[Phil]

Scoring: MP

Prd opens 2N (20-21), but will upgrade with a good five card suit). What is your plan at matchpoints?

---

Admin - poll choices 1 and 2 were merged on same line - please separate. Thanks.

[Dirk Kuijt]

3♥ and then 5NT.

Definitely want to make partner declare this one. From your side, even 3NT is not safe.

[JLOGIC]

3H and 6N

[Siegmund]

I don't have the methods to sensibly explore for miracles, so I go straight to 6NT.

[CSGibson]

3♥ then 6♠. When both Texas and Jacoby transfers are available, I play that a Jacoby transfer followed by 6 of the suit is a choice of slams with a 5 card suit.

[Free]

I'll just start with 3♥ transfer. Partner will let me know if he has fit ♠. If he doesn't, he'll also let me know if he has 5♥ or not. In either case, we can/have set trumps. If we don't have a fit, I guess we have to bid 6NT. Otherwise we have cuebids and 5NT pick a slam to decide if 6NT might be better.

[gnasher]

I'd transfer to spades and bid 5NT, trying to cater for the possibility that 6♠ makes 13 tricks and 6NT makes only 12, either because of a ruff or because partner has a suit that we can set up by ruffing.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

I'd transfer to spades and bid 5NT, trying to cater for the possibility that 6♠ makes 13 tricks and 6NT makes only 12, either because of a ruff or because partner has a suit that we can set up by ruffing.

Some of those hands partner might correct to 7S correctly if you bid 3H then 6N. I think it gives you the best overall chance of playing 7S with 13 tricks in spades and 6N with only 12 tricks in spades/NT.

[Fluffy]

I play 3♥ GF so partner will let me know if he has fit or not.

Playing nothing I bid 4♦ and see if partner raises spades or not.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

I'd transfer to spades and bid 5NT, trying to cater for the possibility that 6♠ makes 13 tricks and 6NT makes only 12, either because of a ruff or because partner has a suit that we can set up by ruffing.

Some of those hands partner might correct to 7S correctly if you bid 3H then 6N. I think it gives you the best overall chance of playing 7S with 13 tricks in spades and 6N with only 12 tricks in spades/NT.

Technically this sequence offers a choice between 6NT and 7♠. Nevertheless I doubt that opener missing 5 controls and the queen of ♠ will ever be in a position to correct 6NT to 7♠, particularly at MP, if you jump straight to 6NT. This hand is just too good.
To help opener getting this decision right you can improve on that by transferring and then cue-bidding 4♦. There is no need to rush bidding 6NT.
If opener thinks you are showing a two-suiter he should reconsider when you "correct" to 6NT.
The continuation over 4♦ will depend on how good your partnership agreements are:
If opener signs off in 4♠ or cue-bids over 4♦, cue-bid 5♦ then bid 6NT next.
(This assumes that 5♦ will not be considered a resting place by opener. If you are uncertain bid 6NT directly)
If opener bids 4NT just reply to RKB and correct 6♠ to 6NT (showing extras, here the king of ♦).
It does not matter whether 4NT was intended as RKB by opener or not. When you continue over 4NT, it is clear that you want to play slam and the reply should be interpreted as a reply to RKB. (But again if you are uncertain about your agreements bid 6NT directly over 4NT)

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on Aug 27 2010, 04:57 AM, said:

Technically this sequence offers a choice between 6NT and 7♠. Nevertheless I doubt that opener missing 5 controls and the queen of ♠ will ever be in a position to correct 6NT to 7♠, particularly at MP, if you jump straight to 6NT. This hand is just too good.

Huh? If I am "technically" offering 7S opposite a 2N opener, how much less can he expect me to have? Offering 7 over 2N shows quite a good hand!

Bidding 4D as a cuebid when it shows a suit seems like a bad idea. Responding keycard for spades over a 4N signoff (why spades anyways, why not diamonds, your second "suit") seems like a bad idea, maybe partner knows how to bid and assumes you do also, and will just view your third bid as patterning out over the natural 4N signoff.

What happens if partner doesn't signoff over 4D, and cooperates with your "second suit"? If you later jump to 6N to cancel the message that you have diamonds, why does this invite him to bid 7? Maybe you psyched your 4D call for some other reason, how is partner supposed to know what to do intelligently?

I seriously question a plan of "bid 4D as a cuebid even though it's a suit" followed by "respond keycard for spades over 4N even though it's not keycard" in order to HELP us find the right contract. It seems like a convoluted sequence that is just going to muddy the waters for everyone, and all the later bids are going to be to cancel the message of the previous bids rather than trying to have a constructive auction.

Compared to making a bid that directly, as you say, offers a choice between 6N and 7S opposite a 2N bid, which seems to be what I want to do, I think the masterminding sequence seems very bad.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

rhm, on Aug 27 2010, 04:57 AM, said:

Technically this sequence offers a choice between 6NT and 7♠. Nevertheless I doubt that opener missing 5 controls and the queen of ♠ will ever be in a position to correct 6NT to 7♠, particularly at MP, if you jump straight to 6NT. This hand is just too good.

Huh? If I am "technically" offering 7S opposite a 2N opener, how much less can he expect me to have? Offering 7 over 2N shows quite a good hand!

You may be showing 13 HCP, but not 5 controls and such a good ♠ suit

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

Bidding 4D as a cuebid when it shows a suit seems like a bad idea. Responding keycard for spades over a 4N signoff (why spades anyways, why not diamonds, your second "suit") seems like a bad idea, maybe partner knows how to bid and assumes you do also, and will just view your third bid as patterning out over the natural 4N signoff.

I do not buy this. This implies that you can never start a cue bidding sequence after a 2NT opening and a transfer, unless opener super-accepts. Slam invitational or better hands are quite common over a strong 2NT opening and a rebid of 4NT is not a solution to all problems.
What a third bid over 4NT sign-off should mean is of course subject to agreement. I do not think that "patterning out" at the 5 level makes a lot of sense opposite a 2NT opener, where you could have played game a level lower.

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

What happens if partner doesn't signoff over 4D, and cooperates with your "second suit"? If you later jump to 6N to cancel the message that you have diamonds, why does this invite him to bid 7? Maybe you psyched your 4D call for some other reason, how is partner supposed to know what to do intelligently?

Come on. Whenever you transfer into a major and later bid 6NT the implication is always that you are inviting to bid 7. Why else would somebody bypass 6♠ or introduce a second suit? Who psyches in a constructive slam oriented sequence, unless it is a guy called Zia? An intelligent partner is simply assumed to draw simple inferences.

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

I seriously question a plan of "bid 4D as a cuebid even though it's a suit" followed by "respond keycard for spades over 4N even though it's not keycard" in order to HELP us find the right contract. It seems like a convoluted sequence that is just going to muddy the waters for everyone, and all the later bids are going to be to cancel the message of the previous bids rather than trying to have a constructive auction.

Actually I do not mind very much if opener takes 4♦ as suit, as long as he understands that I would not introdue a weak one. After all ♦ is where I live outside of ♠ and opener is allowed to have a ♦ suit himself.

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

Compared to making a bid that directly, as you say, offers a choice between 6N and 7S opposite a 2N bid, which seems to be what I want to do, I think the masterminding sequence seems very bad.

Trouble is if partner did not super-accept over 3♥ there is virtually no hand where opener will now bid 7♠ or 7NT. You are dreaming. Even in the unlikely event, that opener holds a solid ♣ or ♥ suit and 3 ♠s to the king, will he bid 7 with just 6 controls, which is below average for a 2NT opener? (Average expected number is about 7-8). I certainly would not. Opener simply can not assume that all aces and the queen of ♠ are on board.
But assuming opener to have ♠ king and both aces among his 20-21 HCP, there is almost always a play for 13 tricks and often it will be cold.

While 6NT is often a good bet at MP, almost all pairs in a reasonable field will reach at least 6NT here with this powerful hand opposite a 2NT opener.

My guess is if you do not like a convoluted approach the best approach may well be to bid 4♥ followed by RKC with the intention to bid 7NT (7♠ will only rarely increase your trick taking capability compared to 7NT) if opener shows 3 key cards and 6NT otherwise. I am pretty sure, given a strong field, that this will have an above average MP expectation when you reach 7NT (no guarantee but a good bet) and a slightly above average MP expectation when you now stop in 6NT.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

If 3♥ followed by 6NT offers 7♠, is it really a good idea? How can I expect partner to know that he must hold two aces and the ♠K to bid 7? And that even that is not necessarily enough?

For example, even on a near-perfect fit like

Kxxx
AKJx
Qx
AKx

.. there is heart loser.

What is expected of partner's hand to "correct" 6NT to 7♠?

[gnasher]

I don't agree that 3♥-3♠-6NT invites partner to choose between 6NT and 7♠. If I wanted partner to do that, I would have bid
  2NT-3♥
  3♠-5NT
  6♠-6NT
or
  2NT-3♥
  3♠-5NT
  6NT-pass

3♥-3♠-6NT says "If you'd broken my transfer I would have investigated 7♠; since you didn't I'm guessing to play in 6NT because it scores more than 6♠, and we don't have any sensible way to investigate." Since that's more or less what we've got, it's not a bad description.

With that knowledge, partner may, with an exceptional hand, bid 7♠, but he's not particularly invited to do so.

This part of standard bidding is bit of a disaster area, isn't it? On the one hand, Justin is skipping three levels, possibly bypassing the best contract, eventually giving his partner a guess; on the other Rainer is showing a suit that he doesn't have, followed (IMO) by a fragment that he doesn't have, and falling back on the argument that if things get difficult he can always jump to 6NT. All this because we don't have a way to make a forcing bid with one of the most common shapes.

[hanp]

I like to play that after 2NT - 3H, opener bids 3NT with a good hand and 3 spades. As Andy said, over 3S I can therefore just bid 6NT, to play. Over 3NT we can cuebid and keycard to investigate a grand in spades.

My system is so good, I don't even have to make up a suit that may or may not be natural!

[pooltuna]

3♥ if partner does not superaccept then 6NT

[Phil]

I wouldn't take 3♥-->6N as anything but offering a choice between 6N and 7♠ just the same as I would take 3♥-->5N as a choice between 6♠ and 6N. Whether or not partner can properly evaluate at the 7 level is another story. The idea of using opener's acceptance of the transfer to promise support definitely makes a lot of sense after 2♣ - 2♦ (GF) - 2N. At worse, over a 2N opening it seems to offer some tradeoffs.

Partner took an interesting route. He used puppet to find out if I had four spades, and then signed off in 6N when I didn't. His reasoning was that he thought 6♠ was more likely to gain an overtrick than 6N, however, I thought this was flawed thinking because:

If the chances of an overtrick are less than 50%, then 6N>6♠>7♠, but we are better than 50% to make 7♠, then 7♠< 6♠<6N therefore, 6♠ can never correct.

So I agree with the 3♥, 6N approach, since it appears to get you the best EV.

By the way, I held KJx AKQx QTxx AQ. Seven has lots of chances, and made 7 it made on a friendly club lead. I can't remember if the squeeze would have worked or not.

• Board 13
  
• 7N = 12 (1)
  
• 6N+1 8 (7)
  
• 6S+1 3.5 (2)
  
• 6S= 1 (2)

By the way, admin - after about 12 hours the poll choices are still wrong. Are we relying too much on filters these days to monitor the site?

[kenrexford]

Puppet Stayman is stupid.

If you play Puppet, you should at LEAST convert to Muppet, where Opener bids 3♥ with no 4-card major and 3NT with five hearts. That way, when Responder has 5♠/4♥, he can show his two suits below 3NT (3♣, and then 3♠ if Opener bids 3♥). That doesn't solve this hand's problem completely, because Opener might bid 3♦ and have hearts. But, if that happens, you COULD play that 3♥ by Responder then shows four or five spades. Opener would accept at the four-level with four spades, or bid 3♠ with 4♥/3♠.

There are even more complicated Puppet versions, but at least basic Muppet is easy.

With super-basic Muppet (no modification to find that 5-3 when Opener has four hearts), 3♣ will still work with this hand whenever Opener does not have four hearts OR has both majors. If Opener has 2-3 spades and precisely four hearts, he ends up bidding 3NT. But, then 4♠ by Responder should probably be quantitative, with 5♠/3♥.

[mikeh]

I like Andy's analysis of the meaning of 3♥ then 6N.

I agree that this area of bidding is a quagmire in standard.....years ago I played a relay stayman method...it was a lot of memory work, but it led to some remarkably accurate auctions. Responder would have learned that opener was 3=4=4=2 with 6 controls, and all the Queens except the spade Queen....I am not sure if the auction would time out before learning of the spade J. We wouldn't have found out about the diamond 10:)

Too bad my current partners like simple methods.

[bluecalm]

Quote

This part of standard bidding is bit of a disaster area, isn't it?

We use other major as slam try in transferred suit. It obviously comes at a price of losing one way to show major 2 suiter which may hurt if you play pupper stayman.
That would make bidding this somewhat easier here though.