[Vampyr]

Beer?

[Caitlynne]

Thanks for sharing. Ron Klinger has suggested another method - KERI over NT - which has much to recommend it.

[Stefan_O]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-06, 09:11, said:

Beer?

My guess, you need buy pd a beer when u forget system, causing a disaster... as in
-here- passing an artificial 3NT.

[msjennifer]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-06, 08:39, said:

Exactly. The 2♠ response shows either a (semi-)balanced invite, a weak hand with long clubs, or a GF hand with clubs and a second suit.
We indeed use it that way.We show slam interested double suitors also .e.g 1NT- 2S and over any 3D/H/S by responder shows clubs and the bid suit with slam ambition.As also after a transfer to diamonds to show two suiter with slam ambition.






I played Baron a long time ago but over time have moved away from it. The better form of the convention IMO is Skip-Baron, in which Opener bids suits held and Responder bids suits not held. If not playing 3♣ as baron you can get some of it back using either 4♠ or 4NT for it. Obviously that does not help on hands where Responder is unwilling to go past 3NT without a known minor suit fit though.



You have to be careful with using 3NT that way. Not only is there the potential for the infamous Beer but more seriously the jury is out on whether the cost of always having to allow a possible double of a conventional call (see D) is greater than the advantage gained. This is why my preferred structure uses 3♠ for clubs and 4♣ for diamonds. This is a subject that has been discussed on BBF many times though, so best refer to those rather than focusing on it here.



This convention is pretty bad and shows part of the cost you vare paying for playing Baron. You would actually be better off using 3NT for this and 3♠ for clubs. That helps with both the right-siding and beer issues attached to the methods.

I agree.We shall make that alteration right away.Thanks a lot.

[Zelandakh]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 10:09, said:

My guess, you need buy pd a beer when u forget system, causing a disaster... as in
-here- passing an artificial 3NT.

Precisely. I recall someone writing that the 3NT response to 2NT showing 5♠-4♥ is known as the beer convention in Holland for just this reason.

[Stefan_O]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-06, 16:13, said:

Precisely. I recall someone writing that the 3NT response to 2NT showing 5♠-4♥ is known as the beer convention in Holland for just this reason.

Some players have solved this, for example, by staring into the ceiling with open mouth for a minute, then burying their face in their hands before placing such bid, to alert pd something is going on.

They have lower beer accounts.
May have other issues, though.

[kenberg]

mgoetze, on 2016-September-05, 09:53, said:

I bid 2♣ instead of 3♣.

This was in response to: If 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one major, what does responder do when holding both majors. And of course this is exactly right. But something came to mind.

Suppose I am on lead, the auction has gone 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. Suppose I am considering a lead from my four card major. I might naively think that while dummy is about to come down with a four card major, maybe I should lead my own major anyway, hoping that dummy's major will be the other major. No, maybe not. If Lho has game forcing values and only one major, he would have, or at least might have, started with 3C. Even if 4-2 in the majors he might have done so, taking advantage of being able to bid 1NT-3C-3D-3M, showing the OM w/o causing opener to divulge whether he does or does not have four cards in M. All in all, it seems dummy is coming down with four cards in both majors, so perhaps the minor suit lead would be better if I have, say, four hearts and four diamonds of more or less equal strength. You know that declarer has at least seven cards in the minors and so at least one is at least four cards. But if you know dummy has four cards in both majors then...

This seems right, but it had not occurred to me before reading this thread.

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-07, 12:38, said:

This was in response to: If 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one major, what does responder do when holding both majors. And of course this is exactly right. But something came to mind.

Suppose I am on lead, the auction has gone 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. Suppose I am considering a lead from my four card major. I might naively think that while dummy is about to come down with a four card major, maybe I should lead my own major anyway, hoping that dummy's major will be the other major. No, maybe not. If Lho has game forcing values and only one major, he would have, or at least might have, started with 3C. Even if 4-2 in the majors he might have done so, taking advantage of being able to bid 1NT-3C-3D-3M, showing the OM w/o causing opener to divulge whether he does or does not have four cards in M. All in all, it seems dummy is coming down with four cards in both majors, so perhaps the minor suit lead would be better if I have, say, four hearts and four diamonds of more or less equal strength. You know that declarer has at least seven cards in the minors and so at least one is at least four cards. But if you know dummy has four cards in both majors then...

This seems right, but it had not occurred to me before reading this thread.

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.
Leading your best minor, you might in the most favorable case, hit declarer's minor doubleton, where they likely have 2-2 or 3-2.
Such weakness can never be found with a major lead on this auction.

[kenberg]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-07, 15:54, said:

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.
Leading your best minor, you might in the most favorable case, hit declarer's minor doubleton, where they likely have 2-2 or 3-2.
Such weakness can never be found with a major lead on this auction.

Well, not quite. You mean dummy not declarer will have the minor doubleton, but he won't be 2-2 in the minors. With 5/4=2=2 he would Smolen over 2D. But he might well be, more often than not, 3-2 in the minors.

It's possible that declarer is 5/4 in the minors, this can happen, but 2-2 and 5/4 is less common than 3/2 or 3/3 in the majors and a three card minor.

I may try this out a bit. I am far to lazy to do a simulation, for me it would take a lot of effort to do a well designed one, but it seems logical. The next time I hear 1NT-2C-2D-3NT I am going to check their card before I lead to see if 3C would have been Puppet. If so. I would place a decent bet that dummy will hit with 4-4 in the majors.

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-07, 16:20, said:

Well, not quite. You mean dummy not declarer will have the minor doubleton, but he won't be 2-2 in the minors. With 5/4=2=2 he would Smolen over 2D. But he might well be, more often than not, 3-2 in the minors.

It's possible that declarer is 5/4 in the minors, this can happen, but 2-2 and 5/4 is less common than 3/2 or 3/3 in the majors and a three card minor.

I may try this out a bit. I am far to lazy to do a simulation, for me it would take a lot of effort to do a well designed one, but it seems logical. The next time I hear 1NT-2C-2D-3NT I am going to check their card before I lead to see if 3C would have been Puppet. If so. I would place a decent bet that dummy will hit with 4-4 in the majors.

I meant that declarer (in most favourable case) may be 5-2 or 2-5 in the minors, and you hit his doubleton.
Dummy likely has 2 or 3 in the same suit (since 4441 and 4450 are low % patterns)

If you lead a major they will always have at least 4-2 in the suit.

[Stefan_O]

Leading a minor, you may also find declarer with 3 and dummy with 2 of course, which is probably a decent start, too.
So, yes, I think, overall, a best-minor lead is usually the better chance after this auction
(if you are looking for their weak spot, and not prefer to go entirely passive, of course)

[Zelandakh]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-07, 15:54, said:

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.

It is more than an interesting inference, it is something that I feel should be alerted. For 3NT to promise both majors here qualifies as unusual and I find it difficult to understand how any ethical bridge player could argue otherwise.

[Stefan_O]

I agree. Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted, if you also have the 3C puppet option available.

[Zelandakh]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 03:22, said:

I agree. Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted, if you also have the 3C puppet option available.

To what end? "Partner might have 0, 1 or 2 4 card majors but will not have exactly 1 major in a balanced, game-forcing hand"? Is that useful information? It is the 3NT rebid that actually conveys the unusual information in this sequence.

[mgoetze]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 03:22, said:

Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted

I would suggest you consult the regulations of the jurisdiction you are playing in, rather than making up your own alert rules.

[kenberg]

Whether or not call is alertable is certainly up to the people in charge. It is still posssible to have an opinion as to whether or not it should be alertable.

As for 2C, I think not. Some, actually many, people have an artificial meaning for 1NT-2NT and many, not all, of those then start an invitational hand with 2C whether or not they have a four card major (there are other methods, eg playing that 1NT-2S either shows clubs or invitational balanced). I believe that the 1NT-2C is not, in acbl land, alertable. But 1NT-2C-2D-2NT now gets an alert (may not have a major) as does 1NT-2C-2H-2NT (denies four spades) and 1NT-2C-2H-2S (shows four spades with invitational values, alertable since it is hardly obvious the length is only four). And 1NT-2C-2S-2NT (alertable as might or might not have four hearts). I am no expert on the laws, but I believe this is the acbl way. The 2C is not alertable but later calls are alerted to clarify.

Now 1NT-2C-2D-3NT has generally been thought to be non-alertable, the idea being that the 3NT call showed that the problem with the 2NT call being unavailable as an invite clearly did not arise on this hand, so the defense can trust that dummy will hit with at least one four card major. Now it would seem to be a consistent philosophy to say that, if the auction 1NT-2C-2D-3NT pretty much guarantees that dummy will hit woth both maors, then this gets an alert just as 1NT-2C-2H-2NT gets an alert if it denies four spades. But I don't think, at present, this is the way that it is.

This problem of secondary inference from the non-use of a convention often arises. Playing in the nationals last summer there was an auction where I am on lead against 3NT after 1H has been opened on my right. They then had some sort of relay auction that I forget the details of. Before leading, I checked their card and quietly noted that they were playing Flannery. Rho had not shown extra values nor a sixth heart. I defended on the assumption that Rho held at most three spades. Had partner made the same inference, we at least might have beaten the contract. Such things arise often.

I have only recently been playing that 1NT-3C is Puppet. With one partner we agree that the Puppeteer will have at most one four card major, with the other we do not have this agreement although I can't see why someone with both majors would not just bid 2C so it might come to the same thing. Even if 3C could in fact be with two four card majors, the odds still favor 1NT-2C-2D-3NT as implying both majors since, if responder is 4-3 in the majors he might well have Puppeted.

My philosophy is to try hard to be a straight arrow about divulging methods but I also try to avoid getting bogged down in legalities. I look to the director/rules to tell me what to do and then I try to follow the sometimes confusing rules. I had not, as I said, given a moment's thought to either the available inference or the alertability of 1NT-2C-2D-3NT before this thread came up. I will do whatever I am told when we have this auction, but I will start checking their card to see if 3C would have been Puppet when they have this auction.

[Zelandakh]

I think this was an excellent spot from you Ken and something that many pairs will not have thought about at all. It is a shame that Fred, Mike and Justin are not posting any more - it would be interesting to know how this is treated in high level events when it comes up. (OK, that is not the only reason it is a shame! )

[Stefan_O]

mgoetze, on 2016-September-08, 04:38, said:

I would suggest you consult the regulations of the jurisdiction you are playing in, rather than making up your own alert rules.

After checking with my lawyer --- yes, I agree --- that would be a really awesome suggestion

[Stefan_O]

According to
http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf

2C
not alertable, since it's "Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major".

But
1NT-2C("puppet-excluded stayman")-2D-3NT("probably 4-4 majors")
would than be alertable(?), falling under "Other conventional responses"... or? ... what means "conventional" exactly? .... I just want to play in the contract I just bid...

Literally speaking, I also dont think it falls under "Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which guarantee a longer suit than that named" when 3NT shows 4-4 majors (NT not being a "suit") .... or... ?

Hmmm.... need to call my lawyer again...

[Stefan_O]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-08, 04:17, said:

To what end? "Partner might have 0, 1 or 2 4 card majors but will not have exactly 1 major in a balanced, game-forcing hand"? Is that useful information?

Irrelevant question -- dont make up your own rules -- just follow the regulations