[Liversidge]

---

Our learning group play weak 1NT. Stayman and Transfers. This hand came up yesterday in a discussion group. Some said South should pass. Others said she should take it out to 3D (we play 2♠ relay to 3♣ and the convert to 3♦. What do you advise, and does the answer depend on vulnerability?
We all agree that you should have at least 6 cards including an honour, or 7 without an honour. The discussion was about where in general the threshold of shape and strength lies between passing and takeout into a minor.

[Tramticket]

With a weaker hand and this shape I tend to escape to 3♦. But with nine points, meaning that your partnership has the balance of points, I may well stay where I am - particularly at MP Pairs. We only need seven tricks so it probably isn't a disaster if the opponents run some spade tricks and there needs to be at least a two-trick difference to make 3♦ a better contract.

If west doubles, we can judge whether to run to diamonds - but now we are playing diamonds at the two-level.

[steve2005]

There is another alternative. Invite to 3N based on diamonds.
either 3♦ directly if played or transfer to ♦ 2 under then you have a way to show good diamonds.

Unfortunately this hand lacks the normal strength for diamonds with this bid 2 of top 3 honours. So is bad idea for this hand.

[johnu]

Tramticket, on 2019-April-11, 01:35, said:

With a weaker hand and this shape I tend to escape to 3♦. But with nine points, meaning that your partnership has the balance of points, I may well stay where I am - particularly at MP Pairs. We only need seven tricks so it probably isn't a disaster if the opponents run some spade tricks and there needs to be at least a two-trick difference to make 3♦ a better contract.

I've run simulations in the past and 3 of a minor is a safer contract than 1NT by a worthwhile percentage of the time.

[rmnka447]

I'd bid 2 ♠ and correct to 3 ♦ for a couple reasons.

First, unless you allow 1 NT with a 5 card Major, the opponents are guaranteed to have 8+ card ♠ fit. So getting to 3 ♦, is going to make it difficult for them to compete.

Also if 1 NT were passed out, it looks like ♠ could be a source of tricks in defense and a probable opening lead. You do have 9, but there's no guarantee that ♦ will be a source of tricks at NT with no spots. In 3 ♦, you know you'll have at least an 8 card fit and the long diamond cards are likely trick takers.

With your values, ensuring 21+ total in your partnership, you should have some decent chances defending against 3 ♠.

[GrahamJson]

I’m not so sure about the wisdom of taking out. For one thing it has to play three tricks better in diamonds as against NT in order to show a gain, and that is by no means certain. And like other posters I’m concerned about spades. But holding a moderate hand with a few spades it is far safer for fourth hand to double a 2S take out by you than it is to protect with 2S if you pass. In other words oppo are more likely to find a spade fit if you take out than if you pass. Of course partner could hold four good spades and they would regret finding their fit, but that’s just another unknown.

[johnu]

GrahamJson, on 2019-April-12, 03:23, said:

I’m not so sure about the wisdom of taking out. For one thing it has to play three tricks better in diamonds as against NT in order to show a gain, and that is by no means certain. And like other posters I’m concerned about spades. But holding a moderate hand with a few spades it is far safer for fourth hand to double a 2S take out by you than it is to protect with 2S if you pass. In other words oppo are more likely to find a spade fit if you take out than if you pass. Of course partner could hold four good spades and they would regret finding their fit, but that’s just another unknown.

1NT making is +90. 3♦ making is +110, and 3♦ makes more often than 1NT. That's only a 2 trick difference.

A 10 or 20 point difference is significant at MPs, but not IMPs.

Who bids 2♠ to get to 3♦???

[Tramticket]

johnu, on 2019-April-12, 04:57, said:

Who bids 2♠ to get to 3♦???

Liversidge in his opening post.

I would be interested in the parameters selected in your simulation. How do the results vary, depending on responder's point count, suit quality etc?

[StevenG]

johnu, on 2019-April-12, 04:57, said:

Who bids 2♠ to get to 3♦???

A common treatment is for 2♠ to show either 11 points or start a weak takeout into a minor. You may not like that, but it works fine for non-experts. Most intermediates local to me play only that 2♠ shows 11 points and 2NT 12, and this is a significant improvement on that.

[StevenG]

johnu, on 2019-April-12, 04:57, said:

1NT making is +90. 3♦ making is +110, and 3♦ makes more often than 1NT. That's only a 2 trick difference.

1NT with overtricks is +120 or more. How often does that happen?

[miamijd]

With the bidding system the OP gave, I would remove to 3D except non-vul at MPs. NV at MPs, it depends what the field is playing.

At IMPs or IMP pairs, it's very clear to play 3D, not 1NT. The key in IMPs is to go plus, and I am pretty certain you're more likely to make 3D than you are 1NT.

At MPs, it's much more complicated and depends on:
*Whether other pairs play weak or strong NT (your weak NT might preempt the opponents from finding a spade fit if it's their hand)
*Whether other pairs play 2S as the prelude to diamonds (2S is easy to X)
*Whether you are vul or not (you don't want to be -200)

If in MPs and everyone in the room were playing the same bidding system (not likely), I think I would transfer to diamonds if vul and pass if NV.

Cheers,
Mike

[johnu]

StevenG, on 2019-April-12, 05:56, said:

A common treatment is for 2♠ to show either 11 points or start a weak takeout into a minor. You may not like that, but it works fine for non-experts. Most intermediates local to me play only that 2♠ shows 11 points and 2NT 12, and this is a significant improvement on that.

It's not that I don't like that, but never have seen it played. Some US players use 2♠ as either a range ask (for 3NT) or clubs.