[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Sep 21 2005, 01:46 AM, said:

To Richard:

I agree that it is rarely right to play in 2NT. I disagree that 2NT is useless as a showing bid instead of an asking bid. This argument (we don't want to play in 2NT so we don't need it as natural) is just wrong.

Note that I am disagreeing with the argument, not with the conclusion. I agree that there are many situations where 2NT can better be played as something artificial. I'm not sure if this is one of those situations. Given the large range for the 2C overcall you need some way to invite.

The 2NT advance uses up an AMAZING amount of bidding room. Accordingly, if it asks a question, it needs to ask a VERY specific question. So far, I've seen three suggestions regarding what question to ask

1) Do you hold a minimum or a maximum (for all intents and purposes inviting game opposite a max is an range ask)

2) Do you hold a running Club suit (Mike777 suggested that the 3♣ rebid denies AKQxxx in clubs)

3) Do you hold a Club suit that has a decent chance of running opposite Hx (or Hxx)

Me, I like option 3...

Option 2 seems too infrequent, especial if a jump cue bid is available as a stopper ask.

Option 1 seems flawed since information regarding range is less important than information about fitting honors.

[HeartA]

I voted to 3♥, suggesting ♣s were good but ♥s were short (stiff or void). If my pd had 2 stoppers with [CL} honor or solid stopper with [cl] honor, 3NT would be good. Otherwise, we have to play 4♣ (or even 5).

[pigpenz]

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis
on only 100 hands
results.
3nt make 35%
3nt down 65%
3♣ make 85%
4♣ make 50%
5♣ make 20%

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

[cherdano]

Richard, I think 2NT DOES ask a very specific question. It asks: Do you have a better than minimum hand for playing opposite a balanced ~11 hcp hand that can take care of the heart stopper? This is way more specific than min/max (min/max for what?).

Well, I grew up as and still am a natural bidder, and hence my intuitive guess is that the "balanced invite" is a way more useful question than the very specific questions you suggest. I suppose someone who is a scientist/relay bidder by heart would come to the opposite conclusion. Bridge is great!

Arend

[pclayton]

3♣ - which should guarantee a 6th club. Pard can still move.

3N seems presumptive.

[kfgauss]

hrothgar, on Sep 20 2005, 11:17 PM, said:

The 2NT advance uses up an AMAZING amount of bidding room.  Accordingly, if it asks a question, it needs to ask a VERY specific question.  So far, I've seen three suggestions regarding what question to ask

1) Do you hold a minimum or a maximum (for all intents and purposes inviting game opposite a max is an range ask)

2) Do you hold a running Club suit (Mike777 suggested that the 3♣ rebid denies AKQxxx in clubs)

3) Do you hold a Club suit that has a decent chance of running opposite Hx (or Hxx)

Your relay background is showing through. It's a bit more holistic than you make out. It suggests a group of hands (things like balanced 10 counts -- where if they don't have a club honor, they'll need a bit more strength and/or better stoppers) and basically asks the question: opposite this group of hands, should you be in 3NT (or should you pass or correct to 3C).

This is somewhat a combination of 1) and 3). Clearly it's still a question, but it's not a simple question (an example of its complexity is that different partners will bid 2NT with slightly different groups of hands and so you'll have to evaluate slightly differently opposite each group). There's somewhat of a standard for the group of hands 2NT shows, though, (one would hope this is based on some impression of what the optimal group to do this with is) and so we can come up with reasonable answers to this bidding problem. Examples of sorts of questions we need to ask ourselves are: if the clubs run, am I going to have enough side suit tricks quickly enough to make 3NT? if the clubs don't run, will I have enough extra strength to pull through?

Andy

PS Not that it's necessarily relevant to my comments above, but I bid 3C, but that was probably too pessimistic upon reflection, especially vul at imps. I have the impression that it's right to bid 2NT here with only 8 or so points with the club King, and a reasonable 10 without it, say xxx Kxxx Qxxx Kx or Kxx Kxxx Axxx xx. Even these hands have some play for 3NT though -- especially if the hearts have some spot cards.

[cherdano]

pigpenz, on Sep 21 2005, 01:40 AM, said:

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis
on only 100 hands
results.
3nt make 35%
3nt down 65%

My guess is that DD analysis is too beneficial for the defenders in that case -- with a running or almost running suit, it is absolutely critical for them to find the right lead, while the play is probably a one-way street. (Still, maybe my 3♥ was a bit of a stretch.)

Btw, what were your constraints exactly?

Arend

[mikeh]

I voted for 3N, although I recognized that it was an overbid.

I saw the alternative, 3♣, as a corresponding underbid (which makes this a good problem... well done, selectors )

I did not give 3♥ any serious thought and none of the posters have persuaded me otherwise. In fact, I suspect that this is yet another instance of choosing the meaning of a bid in order to fit my hand.

We would like to make a strong invitation to 3N: a bid midpoint between 3♣ and 3N. 3♥ seems like the obvious candidate and I am sure that one could logically play it as such.

But let me ask you what you would bid with, say, x Ax Axx AQJxxxx?

Many of us (me for sure) cannot double 1♥ here. If you could, then subtract the ♣J.

maybe you still double, and, if so, then my point is poorly taken and my rant can be ignored

However, if you do not double 1♥ without ♠ tolerance or a truly enormous hand, then you may want to have some manner of exploring for slam or avoiding the opps running the first 5 ♠ tricks after 2N by partner on xxx Kxx KQxx Kxx.

Opener, holding AKQx QJxxx xxx x will lead ♠.

How do we accomplish this? Well, to me, looking at my example, I think 3♥ seems like a good start (once you find out that partner claims no ♠ stopper, slam becomes attractive, and 5♣ is the least you will do). If you agree with me, then it seems tough to use 3♥ on the actual problem hand.

Hannie got upset with me when I posed a similar counter-example on an earlier post (one on which I actually agreed with the proposed interpretation of the bid, but suggested that not enough thought was given to other interpretations). However, I remain convinced that some of us who propose certain solutions to bidding polls may not always consider that the bid may be (correctly or at least reasonably) interpreted by partner as showing a different hand-type.

[hrothgar]

pigpenz, on Sep 21 2005, 02:40 AM, said:

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis
on only 100 hands
results.
3nt make 35%
3nt down 65%
3♣ make 85%
4♣ make 50%
5♣ make 20%

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

Of course, this begs the basic question...

How do we ensure that we reach 3NT on the appropriate set of hands while resting safely in 3♣ on the rest...

[luke warm]

i voted 3nt also, thinking pard has hearts stopped and hoping for Hx(x) in clubs

[pigpenz]

hrothgar, on Sep 20 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Sep 21 2005, 02:40 AM, said:

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis
on only 100 hands
results.
3nt make 35%
3nt down 65%
3♣ make 85%
4♣ make 50%
5♣ make 20%

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

Of course, this begs the basic question...

How do we ensure that we reach 3NT on the appropriate set of hands while resting safely in 3♣ on the rest...

when i put in constraints i put in
♠2-5
♥3-5 honors, 1-2 any comb akq
♦2-5
♣1-3
10-12 hcp

as far as how to bid only 3♣ when 3nt is wrong I think is prett hard to do. I was always taught that at imps we tend to bid the vul games that are around 35%. I assume that is from an imp table that we dont want to be -10 for missing game versus -5 for being down. Where if 3nt is down then most likely the opps will be there too for a push.

[mike777]

If I understand your post, you are making unilateral bid of 3nt because 3nt makes 35% of the time but will not partner bid 3nt over 3clubs enough and involve partner on some of those simulation hands to make 3club the winning bid?

[Echognome]

Am a bit late in replying. I bid 3♣. If we make game opposite this hand, then partner should bid it.

[karlson]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that hearts didn't get raised. We have 11 hcp, partner has around 10, therefore lho probably doesn't have a total yarborough. Most of the example hands given so far have about 4 hearts - is it that unlikely that partner has 6 of them? If he does, then we may well have a lot of trouble setting up side suit tricks.

Is this a weaker inference than I think?

Oh, I voted for 3c.

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Sep 20 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

Am a bit late in replying. I bid 3♣. If we make game opposite this hand, then partner should bid it.

So far, the votes seem to be going between 3NT and 3♣, with the theory that if you bid 3♣, your partner will be perceptive enough to carry onto 3NT with ♣King and "the right" cards.

But really, if 3♣ shows, as it should, some ~10 hcp and balance hand, if overcaller rebids 3♣ is that really an invite to continue bidding? Isn't it, (or should it be), omg, if you have only balanced 10 or so, we better not play in Notrump.

And 3♥, while forcing, really, is this hand 3♥ material? I mean, surely 3♥ will get you to game, but what the heck are you telling partner? Shouldn't 3♥ be more than game force, and be a slam try. Is this where you want go?

And 3NT, well seems very unilateral. The only thing it gots going for it is, you might make it. In the Brazilian Team Championship, Barbosa found the creative bid of 3♦ not mentioned yet in this thread. 3♦ keeps the door open for 3NT (unlike 3♣ in my opinion), without overstating the values with a 3♥ cue-bid.

So a question I think for the "hedge" 3♣ bidders, is this really a way to get 3NT? I think in real world, this is not the way to invite. 3♦ leaves 3NT, 4/5♣, and even a moysein 4-3 ♠ fit available. Seems the right bid for a difficult hand to me.

[Beto]

inquiry, on Sep 20 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

Beto's description agrees nicely with the actual hand held (10 hcp, balanced). This hand is from the Brazilian Team Championship finals. At one table the player with this hand faced a different problem when his RHO bid 3♥ over 2NT. This is the problem facing Barbosa in the closed room of the finals 3 of 4.


One of Beto's two hands is actually very close to the held hand.

I was Barbosa at the table and it took me some time to decide what to bid.

So this 2NT hands i post is exactly what me and
my partner have as an agreement...

(partneship style, we can bid 2♣ on ♠Axx ♥x ♦xxx ♣A109xxx)


At the table i bid 3♦ over 2NT and this was
one of my big mistakes in this match. It costs us 13 IMPs...
but we still won by 19...

[Beto]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 02:10 AM, said:

3♦ leaves 3NT, 4/5♣, and even a moysein 4-3 ♠ fit available.

Ben, this was exactly what i thought at the table !

[shoeless]

3nt (down 3 or making) - next!!