[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

---

The vulnerability is purposefully left off as not to influence decisions. The basic question is: if partner opens a 15-17 NT, how good of responding hand it this?

A. Transfer and pass unless a super fit is found.
B. Transfer and bid 2N.
3. Transfer and bid 3N.
4. Other

Thanks.

[hatchett]

A for me.

But I think transfer to Spades and bid 3♦ is more reasonable than 3.(or should that be C?)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would transfer and invite,
which for me means B, since 3D
would clearly be forcing to game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Obvious game force at imps.

At matchpoints you can try an against-the-field B strategy.

(Incidently, in some non-standard NT structures you could show a hand like this without going to game.)

[jdonn]

Assuming you don't have some way (2♣ then 2♠) to invite on these hands without suggesting notrump, I guess I would sign off at matchpoints and invite at imps. But it's close to a signoff at both. Game forcing seems insane and suicidal to me, as much as I love doing it. Stiff K and Jxxxx?

[pbleighton]

Transfer then 3D (GF). I think its one of those hands which either performs very well as dummy opposite a NT opener, or badly.

I also bid too many games

Peter

[mike777]

2h and then 2nt uggg at IMps.

[Free]

Trf followed by 3♦

[toothbrush]

Difficult. I chose transfer and pass at matchpoints, transfer and 2NT at imps.
This is absolutely no GF-hand for me: you don't know about a fit and ♣K could be worthless.

[SoTired]

transfer then 3N. In NT this hand is worth 8hcp +1 for 5-card diam suit headed by 4-7 hcp. Close enough to 10 when you consider 2/3 chance that partner has 3+s. If partner has spade support, this hand is surely worth game. If partner does not have spade support, then the diam are likely running and we have little wasted strength in our non-running spades.

I won't transfer and bid 3D, because I don't want to play 5D. so why help opps with their opening lead?

[jdonn]

I am becoming increasingly dumbfounded at the people shooting out game. This hand is worth about 6 points if you want to assign it a number.

[pbleighton]

"I am becoming increasingly dumbfounded at the people shooting out game. This hand is worth about 6 points if you want to assign it a number."

Maybe 5, but then again maybe 10. I go to game, but I would rather transfer and pass than invite.

Peter

[MickyB]

Transfer-and-pass, looks obvious to me.

[SoTired]

jdonn, on Jun 12 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

I am becoming increasingly dumbfounded at the people shooting out game. This hand is worth about 6 points if you want to assign it a number.

Really? How pessimistic. Partner did open a 15-17 1N right? You have 8 HCP just in honors, which puts you in the invite range. If you discount your KC in spades, you can't discount it playing in NT.

I would bet that if you ran a DealMaster analysis of this hand opposite a balanced 15-17, it will produce game in more than 50% of the hands.

[jdonn]

SoTired, on Jun 12 2006, 03:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 12 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

I am becoming increasingly dumbfounded at the people shooting out game. This hand is worth about 6 points if you want to assign it a number.

Really? How pessimistic. Partner did open a 15-17 1N right? You have 8 HCP just in honors, which puts you in the invite range. If you discount your KC in spades, you can't discount it playing in NT.

I would bet that if you ran a DealMaster analysis of this hand opposite a balanced 15-17, it will produce game in more than 50% of the hands.

Jxxxx should be worth less than a point. You have terrible spot cards. And tell me why I shouldn't discount the stiff king in notrump? It has some value, but not full value. Besides you could end up in spades anyway, when it has even less value.

I am counting the suits something like .5, 0, 4, 2, and rounding down for the terrible spots.

I would certainly take a bet that game would make <50% in general, but we know random deal generation greatly favors declarer over the defense. I think game would make about 30% opposite this hand at the table.

[SoTired]

DealMaster Analysis: When opener has 2 spades, 3N makes 33% of the time and 5D makes 18%. When opener has 3+ spades, 4S makes 58% of the time.

So mentioning diam to get to a futile 5D contract is a loser.

It appears the best strategy is transfer and bid 2N. If opener passes with a min and doubleton spade... fine. If opener bids 3S, raise to 4.

[awm]

This type of hand is a good argument for methods where you can use 2♣..2♠ to show a five-card spade invite. In such an auction:

(1) Opener passes with two spades, or a lousy hand with three. In these cases game is not percentage. You get to play at the two-level, same as if you transferred and passed (okay, from the other side).

(2) Opener bids 2NT with a maximum and two spades, since with a minimum and two spades he can pass. Now you introduce diamonds at the three-level (non-forcing). Opener can pass with a misfitting max (3♦ almost surely better than 3NT here), or bid 3NT with a diamond fit or stoppers, or even bid 5♦ on rare hands with a big diamond fit and weakness in a round suit.

This avoids the silly 2NT contract, keeps the auction lower when opener has a bad hand, and helps opener make the right decision about whether to bid 3NT or not.

I think I'd try bidding stayman on this hand, planning to force game if partner happens to have four spades. Otherwise I'll bid 2♠. If our agreement is that this is weak (normally 5♠+4♥) then so be it (this has to be better than transfer and pass in that I can at least get to game opposite four trumps and a min); however as outlined above invitational would work nicely.

[kfgauss]

SoTired, on Jun 12 2006, 09:23 PM, said:

DealMaster Analysis: When opener has 2 spades, 3N makes 33% of the time and 5D makes 18%. When opener has 3+ spades, 4S makes 58% of the time.

So mentioning diam to get to a futile 5D contract is a loser.

It appears the best strategy is transfer and bid 2N. If opener passes with a min and doubleton spade... fine. If opener bids 3S, raise to 4.

Since 4S makes 58% of the time, we should probably respect partner's selection of 3S vs 4S. If your simulation had claimed that when pard has 15 to a bad 16 with precisely 3 spades (more on that below), then 4S makes more than half the time, only then should we raise 3S to 4S.

Another point to deal with is the fact that when we transfer, partner will superaccept with 4, so you should do separate analyses of 3 card and 4 card support and only use the 3 card support numbers.

This is definitely a hand for the 1N-2C;2x-2S = shapely invite with 5 spades treatment. Not playing that, I'm torn between 2H..P and 2H..2N. I'll probably go with the latter, even at matchpoints (2S could play poorly opposite a doubleton, which is a mild extra factor to convince me to make the invite).

Andy

[pclayton]

What does Dealmaster say about making game when pard has exactly 3 spades? I bet its not 58%. I think you should exclude 5♦ too; this seems unattainable to me.

I would signoff but I'm willing to listen to others and computer simulations.

[SoTired]

I don't own it... just asked a friend to run the simulation. So I hestitate to impose again.

One of the most fascinating things I learned from DealMaster analysis was this hand: Kxx Kxx AKQJx xx
You open 1N and partner bids 2N. Is this hand closer to 15 or closer to 17? The DealMaster analysis shows that it is closer to 15. Worth about 15.75 hcp. And you should pass 2N as 3N makes only 42% opposite a balanced 8-9 HCP responder.
FASCINATING