[lxt08]

---

I and pd is first pd
we sys use sayc
I do not know pd with no transfer Minor(3c) or Stayman Minor(2s)
how bid?

[mike777]

I will try 2c followed by 3d gf.

If pard rebids 3nt I will try 4d slam try.

[wank]

if you've got no system, just bid 6 diamonds.

[whereagles]

yup. 6♦ is just about what can be made on average on this one.

[helene_t]

Maybe use Gerber first just to avoid a slam with two missing aces.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2014-September-03, 05:01, said:

Maybe use Gerber first just to avoid a slam with two missing aces.

This is (finally) the correct use of Gerber - an unbalanced hand with a long suit lacking enough system to find out about the missing aces through an alternative route.

[whereagles]

So, after like 10 years we finally found a hand for gerber. I knew it would happen!!!!

[ahydra]

What's 1NT-3D in SAYC? (In ACOL it's a slam try in diamonds, which looks a pretty good description)

I once had a bucketload of spades and some kings'n'things after partner opened 2NT. Since I just needed the number of aces Gerber was perfect: 2NT-4C; 4NT-7S; lead; claim. Gerber shouldn't be laughed at as much as it is; it's just that club players (particularly LOLs) overuse it.

I think aiming at 6D on this hand is correct, and going via Gerber to avoid being off two aces can't be wrong - unless, given how much Gerber is mocked, your pickup pard might misunderstand 4C!? It depends on the skill of the pard, I guess. In my experience with pickup pards, going straight there (6D) is best for avoiding disasters.

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

whereagles, on 2014-September-03, 06:41, said:

So, after like 10 years we finally found a hand for gerber. I knew it would happen!!!!

Only if not playing any system though - otherwise showing diamonds and asking for key cards with 4♦ or 4♥ would probably be better.

Edit: to ahydra, the problem with Gerber is that methods have bypassed it. It was created for an era before transfers became widespread and well before RKCB. These days most pairs have ways of setting a suit and asking for key cards at a reasonable level rendering the use of Gerber unnecessary. The number of hands where Gerber shows an advantage over the best alternatives is small enough to make the use of even a big jump like 4♣ questionable, especially over 2NT.

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-03, 05:03, said:

This is (finally) the correct use of Gerber - an unbalanced hand with a long suit lacking enough system to find out about the missing aces through an alternative route.

Actually, Super Gerber 5♣ would work when diamonds will be trumps.

[gszes]

lho has 15 17 (i am assuming since info was not supplied) and we have 11
so the final 12-14 are split on average with 7 for p and 6 for rho.

There seems to be little rhyme or reason to assume this hand is odds on slammish
and in fact it would be pretty darn rare for slam to make under these conditions.

I think the practical bid is

3n

there is a superb chance we have 7 tricks in our hand and the average 7 hcp with p
seems enough to supply the other needed 2 tricks. 5d is a not totally bad 2nd choice
but one with far less probability of making. 3N has an additional benefit of having the
1n opener on lead so there is even less chance a long suit will be led (we do not give
a whit about long suit leads in 5d).

With a more practiced partnership 2n showing the minors and converting 3c to 3d might
be the preferred choice which leaves all contracts in play and allows p to make a
much better determination on how to proceed but without system 3n seems the most
practical solution.

[neilkaz]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-03, 05:03, said:

This is (finally) the correct use of Gerber - an unbalanced hand with a long suit lacking enough system to find out about the missing aces through an alternative route.

Of course.

[Cyberyeti]

gszes, on 2014-September-03, 13:20, said:

lho has 15 17 (i am assuming since info was not supplied) and we have 11
so the final 12-14 are split on average with 7 for p and 6 for rho.

There seems to be little rhyme or reason to assume this hand is odds on slammish
and in fact it would be pretty darn rare for slam to make under these conditions.

I think the practical bid is

3n

What post were you reading, PARTNER has the 15-17 no trump

[lxt08]

---

Combat game
i bid 2c opp ask me 2c=? i answer 2c=ask(Stayman)
5d opp lead C,we lose HA,fly dk lose,5d=make.
Then opp Find referee
say i 2c ask no h/s4,=cheat bid.
referee to we A+- N/A 40.00%.
my god

[Vampyr]

lxt08, on 2014-September-03, 17:39, said:

Combat game
i bid 2c opp ask me 2c=? i answer 2c=ask(Stayman)
5d opp lead C,we lose HA,fly dk lose,5d=make.
Then opp Find referee
say i 2c ask no h/s4,=cheat bid.
referee to we A+- N/A 40.00%.
my god

What is your jurisdiction? I don't know of one which requires a 4-card major for bidding Stayman.

[Cascade]

6♦ is too much in my opinion. Partner is only promising about half of the outstanding high cards. We are missing three key cards so we want partner to have two of these before we start. Without any other information this is only around 50% and then there are other problems on the hand.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-03, 18:02, said:

What is your jurisdiction?

Probably BBO, although OP is from China.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2014-September-03, 18:29, said:

BBO

So does BBO require that a Stayman bidder hold a 4-card major? I would be very surprised if it did.

[Cascade]

lxt08, on 2014-September-03, 17:39, said:

---

Combat game
i bid 2c opp ask me 2c=? i answer 2c=ask(Stayman)
5d opp lead C,we lose HA,fly dk lose,5d=make.
Then opp Find referee
say i 2c ask no h/s4,=cheat bid.
referee to we A+- N/A 40.00%.
my god

ACBL Alert Chart requires an alert for "Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which do not promise a major".

If in this jurisdiction it is not a 'cheat bid'. However if you do not alert then you may get an adjusted score because of damage.

I am unaware of any regulation anywhere that says that 2♣ without a four card major is illegal. You do though everywhere have an obligation to disclose your methods according to their regulations.

[Zelandakh]

For this one we really need to speak to the players involved. Whether there was damage depends on whether South has a convincing case that the club lead was influenced by the lack of an alert (assuming that the jurisdiction requires this) or other misinformation. On the face of it I would feel a little hard done by by the ruling though.

Once again though, you would do better using the section of the site dedicated to questions about Rulings and other TD-related matters. One of the stickied posts there mentions that you should always post your jurisdiction for rulings questions. This one is an example of why - we cannot be sure if this was a general BBO tournament, an ACBL tournament (BBO or face to face), in China, or something else. Alerting requirements are a matter of regulation and therefore vary from place to place.