[Phil]

W/r teams

A6xx 9xxx Axx Qx

You open a 10-12 NT. Pard bids 2♦ (forcing stayman). 2♥ by you, 3♦ by pard, 3♠ by you. LHO doubles, 3N by pard.

Sit or pull?

[bigbenvic]

Phil, on 2011-December-20, 19:35, said:

W/r teams

A6xx 9xxx Axx Qx

You open a 10-12 NT. Pard bids 2♦ (forcing stayman). 2♥ by you, 3♦ by pard, 3♠ by you. LHO doubles, 3N by pard.

Sit or pull?

What was 3d? nat forcing denying 4♠?
Pull to where 4d? I assume your replies show 4-4 in the Majors (or is 3♠ a cue for ♦), you've got the A♠ so them running 5 spades before partner starts isn't going to happen. A♦ is a big card assuming 3♦ is nat so I'm sitting it.

[Cascade]

Unless there is a contrary agreement I expect partner to have a spade stopper to bid 3NT. He has an easy pass otherwise.

I also expect partner to have only mild slam interest. Again he could pass or do something more exciting. I have a couple of good cards (aces) and a dodgy ♣Q, a medium fit in a minimum hand.

This points to 3NT being our most likely best contract.

[Free]

What is 3♦???

[rhm]

Free, on 2011-December-21, 03:22, said:

What is 3♦???

When you play two-way Stayman, all game forcing bids go via 2♦.
Accordingly, absent of any further artificiality, which the opener would have announced, when you are interested in slam with a long minor your only way to bid is 2♦ followed by your minor. Is that not obvious?

3♦ is completely natural and, having forced to game already, must show interest at least in a high ♦ contract.
However, the 3NT bid, when responder could either have passed or bid 4NT, which I would consider invitational, limits his slam ambitions.
Missing the ♦ace, he must have something in spades or he would have passed 3♠.
The biggest danger to 3NT is not spades, but that partner is short in hearts, precisely the hands where 6♦ could easily make.
But I am not quite prepared to bet on this outcome, but it is close.

This hand is minimum but has diamond support and 2 bullets.
I pass, but exchange the minor suit honors and I would not consider this hand minimum any more and would bid 4♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

The auction is funny, but I'm going to sit this.

Reason: LHO probably has ♠KQJxx and didn't overcall. The inference is he's weakish and it should be easy to shut him off during the play.

If pard happens to have a slammish hand, well tough luck. He should have made his intentions clearer.

[rhm]

whereagles, on 2011-December-21, 04:25, said:

The auction is funny, but I'm going to sit this.

Reason: LHO probably has ♠KQJxx and didn't overcall. The inference is he's weakish and it should be easy to shut him off during the play.

If pard happens to have a slammish hand, well tough luck. He should have made his intentions clearer.

Pard made his intentions quite clear:

a) He has a game forcing hand
b) He has no major
c) He does not think it clear that 3NT is the right contract, or else why embark on a long journey in the auction?
d) He was interested in a diamond slam missing 2 aces at least, else why bid 3♦?

The only issue is what to do with this information in light of this hand. It is close between pass and 4♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Rainer, the question is: how far can you trust pard to be on the same wavelength to bid 4D now?

[rhm]

whereagles, on 2011-December-21, 04:39, said:

Rainer, the question is: how far can you trust pard to be on the same wavelength to bid 4D now?

I usually trust my partners, even though this is not always a success.
And mistrusting them has its own perils

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

"Knowe thy partner and you shalt knowe thyself"

[Phil]

Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦.

Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was:

Pass -1♦
1♥ - 2♣
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ (x) - 6♦

Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost.

Unfortunately they did not call the director

[Free]

rhm, on 2011-December-21, 04:24, said:

When you play two-way Stayman, all game forcing bids go via 2♦.
Accordingly, absent of any further artificiality, which the opener would have announced, when you are interested in slam with a long minor your only way to bid is 2♦ followed by your minor. Is that not obvious?

I thought there were also possibilities to describe responder's hand when he's GF. Therefore it's useful to know the difference between going through 2♦ and showing ♦ in some other way...

[ArtK78]

I play a 10-12 1NT opening non-vul in 1st and 2nd seat. However, after 2♦ forcing Stayman, opener would bid 3♣ in my methods to show 4-4 in the majors.

Still, I can't imagine that responder would want to allow partner to play in 3NT at IMPs. For all that responder knows, partner's spades are 98xx.

The auction would probably go:

1NT* - 2♦**
3♣*** - 3♦
3♠**** - (x) - 4♣
4♦ - 4♠
5♦ - ?

* 10-12
** Game Forcing Stayman
*** 4-4 in the majors
**** Something in spades. Not clear if this is a NT probe or a cue bid.

Responder has to decide whether to bid one more. He assumes that opener has the ♠A and Axx of diamonds (to justify the forward going moves) and another card. Opener presumably does not have the ♣K since he did not cue 5♣.

I don't know if responder can count on opener having Axx of diamonds on the auction, so his best move is probably to stop in 5♦. But it is certainly very close, and it turns out that slam is pretty good.

[Free]

Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often.

[Cascade]

Phil, on 2011-December-21, 05:54, said:

Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦.

Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was:

Pass -1♦
1♥ - 2♣
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ (x) - 6♦

Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost.

Unfortunately they did not call the director

If 3NT is slow then Pass is 100%.

3NT is also 100% - 100% crazy with spade void. How on earth is partner supposed to judge - unless you bid it slowly.

[ArtK78]

Free, on 2011-December-21, 09:39, said:

Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often.

That is also part of my structure.

[Cascade]

Phil, on 2011-December-21, 05:54, said:

Thanks all. This was the auction at our teammates table, except 3N was slow. This hand pulled to 4♦ and they scored up +400 in 5♦.

Partner held void AKx KTxxxx AJxx. Our auction was:

Pass -1♦
1♥ - 2♣
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ (x) - 6♦

Losing 11 when trumps were 3-1 and the club hook lost.

Unfortunately they did not call the director

I don't think that it is too late to call the director at the score-up.

You may have lost some of your rights and it may be hard to establish the facts but the director is still responsible for equity.

[jallerton]

Free, on 2011-December-21, 09:39, said:

Btw, if you're playing mini NT, why don't you reverse the meanings of 2♥ and 2♠ (so 2♥ showing 4♠, can have 4♥ / 2♠ shows 4♥, less than 4♠)? This way the unknown and stronger hand gets to play more often.

By the way, if you are playing a mini NT, why use your two cheapest bids in response to ask for the same information?

[rhm]

jallerton, on 2011-December-21, 13:31, said:

By the way, if you are playing a mini NT, why use your two cheapest bids in response to ask for the same information?

You don't ask, you tell.

2♦ is more about telling opener that you got a strong hand, but where the final contract needs investigation, and that further bids below game are forcing.
Now what do you suggest opener should do when he has a 4 card major over 2♦? 2♦ allows you to play any other start as natural (except 2♣), non forcing and preemptive.

Rainer Herrmann

[jallerton]

The idea of using 2♥ and higher bids as to play is fine, but if 2♣ asks for 4-card majors, you should use 2♦ to ask for something else, for example 3-card majors. Gerben's "condensed transfers" make a lot more sense than so-called "forcing Stayman", in my opinion.