[jdonn]

I'll buy the analysis, but not your conclusion about raising partner's 3♠ to 4♠. Also much of that 58% is superaccepts, so lets say hypothetically game makes 50% after transfer then 2NT when partner has 3+ spades. In fact if partner always superaccepts somehow with four (something I hate, but a number of people do) then this seems to suggest you just transfer and pass.

I also am interested in seeing how we do when partner has 3 spades versus 4 spades.

[jdonn]

SoTired, on Jun 12 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

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

This is exactly the sort of hand that declarer will do much better in real life than a double dummy analysis, for two reasons.

They will very often make the wrong lead, like the major where dummy has Qxx instead of xxx, or a major from the ace instead of a winning club.

You have a suit to run and force discards, which is a tried and true way of inducing misdefense.

[hatchett]

Quote

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.

That's far too simplistic a conclusion. I'm not saying that bidding diamonds is right but part of the reason to is to help partner decide between 3NT and 4S, and equally just because he's got diamond support he won't drive 5D.

[Kalvan14]

Transferring to S, and re-bidding 2 or 3N is not for me: IMO, this should show a balanced or semibalanced hand (5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2); I'd never anticipate a 5-5-2-1.

I can understand passing a 2♠ rebid: if opener cannot super-accept, game is likely to be marginal.

OTOH, I'd prefer to play 3any forcing up to 3♠ only (i.e., can show just an invitational, distributional hand).
Opener would rebid 3♠ with a minimum and 2-3 spades; 3N, max and 2 spades, with stopper in the round suits; 4♠ max and 3 spades; 3♥ or 4♣ without stopper in the bid suit, 2 spades and max (obviously good fit in diamonds).

[whereagles]

jdonn, you can evaluate the hand to 6 hcp, but that seems overly pessimistic because pard has a moderately strong hand. That strength increases the chance of pard being able to make use of your poorly-positioned assets. To devaluate 2 hcp on this hand and sign-off borders on weak-hand-masterminding and is bound to lead to some bad scores in the long run. You can't afford that at imps, unless you need a swing.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Jun 13 2006, 03:20 AM, said:

jdonn, you can evaluate the hand to 6 hcp, but that seems overly pessimistic because pard has a moderately strong hand. That strength increases the chance of pard being able to make use of your poorly-positioned assets. To devaluate 2 hcp on this hand and sign-off borders on weak-hand-masterminding and is bound to lead to some bad scores in the long run. You can't afford that at imps, unless you need a swing.

Well I'm assuming you are partner, so even after I sign off you will bid game for me anyway since that's your favorite thing to do when you are limited and not the captain. I expect 1NT p 2♥ p 3NT, making the whole issue moot.

[whereagles]

Don't be silly. If you don't want to discuss the issue you needn't bother reply.

[FrancesHinden]

SoTired, on Jun 12 2006, 10:23 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.

I don't understand this conclusion at all.

If you decide the hand is worth a game force, then surely it's right to bid diamonds?

You don't say how many of the 18% of the time 5D makes 3NT also makes, but if mentioning diamonds lets us get to 5D making instead of 3NT going off, say 10% of the time, then why not do so? Partner also knows that 5D needs 11 tricks. You can argue that they might lead diamonds if we don't bid them, but that seems not very likely with KJxxx.

As a slight side point, I think that hands with a source of tricks (either in the the 1NT bidder's hand or as responder) make 3NT more often single dummy than they should do, because the choice of opening lead becomes critical.

[jdeegan]

Transferring to spades, then bidding 2NT is a winner by a mile based on my simulation of 50 hands using Pavlicek's hand generator*. Using this method I created a statistically unbiased data base of the opening notrumper's possible hands and then used my own bidding and play analysis to evaluate the results.

Game was reached 28 times out of 50 hands. Seventeen of these were high percentage games (3-2 suit splits or better). Five more were worth bidding (50% plus or minus a little). Only six were anti-percentage games, but even these had some play. When game was not bid, the resulting part-score contracts all had excellent prospects. In addition, we missed four high percentage games and four marginal games. The high percentage games missed had some common characteristics. The opening notrumper held a 15 HCP hand with three spades to an honor and prime cards (aces and supported kings) in the side suits.

By comparison, transferring, then raising a 3♠ super acceptance to four only happened six times (12% of the time). All six cases were virtual lay downs for 4♠. Unhappily, this method missed eleven high percentage games (and five more 50%+ or - games), playing them in 2♠ instead. In all of the six cases where opening notrumper gave a superacceptance, 4♠ was an excellent contract even if responder held a small club in place of the king. Finally, I noted that superaccepting with only three trumps and 17 HCP or four trumps and 15 HCP was a bit too pushy, leading to low percentage contracts.

In summary, standard hand evaluation methods worked much better than relying on the newfangled 'super acceptance' method alone. I got the feeling working through the 50 hands that it was the presence of the stiff club king that caused the traditional method to work so well. Using both tools, one can reach good games whether or not their hand has one small club or the singleton king.

*I allowed 5-4-2-2 hands to open 1NT, IF they had a rebid problem over a 1♠ response, and I excluded balanced six baggers.

[jdonn]

Hrm, I will try my own sim. I could certainly be talked into inviting, in fact in my very first post that's what I did at imps anyway. I have serious doubts I could be talked into bidding game.

To be edited...

(later) I ignored hands that superaccept, since then it doesn't matter what your original intentions were. I was extremely fair in both the bidding, play, and opening lead, but I was very formulaic in opener's actions over the invitation. That was by design so I wouldn't have to make biased judgment calls. So with 16 or 17 opener always accepted, or with 15 and four card support. And opener always prefered spades to notrump with three of them.

I did generation of all four hands, so some good games went down, a couple bad games made, etc etc, just like would happen at the table. I always made a realistic lead, even to the detriment of the defense (once a low diamond from QT9xx, once a club from AQJTx, etc). So for example, that explains hands 7-8-9, all of which would have had very different results with the defenders' hands switched.

I included partner's 1NT bid in every case.

1) 3NT -2, A9 AQT8 973 AQ95
2) 4S =, AKT9 A93 AT9 J94
3) 2NT +1, QT AT2 A73 AJ975
4) 3NT -1, Q4 KQ43 AQ A9842
5) 3NT -1, K6 AKQ7 Q4 QT875
6) 2NT -2, Q3 AJ3 A73 A9863
7) 2NT -6, AK Q84 AQT94 832
8) 4S -1, KT9 AQ9 96 AQJ83
9) 3NT =, AT KJ94 A64 A532
10) 4S =, AT6 AT9 A73 AT54
11) 4S =, KT94 AQ2 Q97 A64
12) 4S +1, KQT KJT7 A6 A972
13) 2NT =, AQ K974 AQ7 9532
14) 3NT +1, A4 QJ93 AT96 AQ5
15) 3NT -1, A6 AJ32 Q7 AQJ65
16) 4S +1, K63 AK7 Q97 A654
17) 2NT =, K9 AT42 AT4 AT43
18) 4S -1, AK3 A9 A64 JT742
19) 3NT -2, K3 QJ AQ763 AT64
20) 4S =, AK96 AQ8 Q76 T82
21) 4S =, AT6 A3 AQ93 Q876
22) 4S =, AKT6 T43 QT AQJ6
23) 3S +1, KT3 KT7 A3 AJT98
24) 2NT -2, A4 AKT2 AT43 743
25) 2NT =, Q4 AK2 AT97 Q762

Totals: 2NT seven times, -6 once, -2 twice, = thrice, +1 once. 3S once, +1 (but partner would actually have accepted so I'll count it as 4♠ =). 3NT seven times, -2 twice, -1 thrice, = once, +1 once. 4♠ eleven times, -1 twice, = seven times, +1 twice.

Conclusions: Better to invite than signoff at imps, though not by a mile. It got to game 18 times, making 11 of them. At matchpoints, still correct to invite based on this little study, but the sample size is too small to draw a matchpoint conclusion since about three hands going the other way would have swayed it.

Signing off was not quite enough. However, blasting game was also far too much. Game made 11/18 times partner would accept, 1/7 times partner would reject, so clearly lost over inviting.

Two side conclusions:
- When partner transfers and invites, accept with four card support no matter how terrible your hand is, even 15 with 4333. I have actually seen this work badly in person once that I recall, but it went 2 for 2 here (hands 11 and 20).
- Play 2♣ then 2♠ as a light unbalanced invite, it has a huge advantage on this kind of hand. You get to the making games, and also do much better in partscores as partner can play in your second suit if he chooses. I would guess this is far more valuable than other uses for the bid. You can see that 2NT did quite terribly, and almost always either 2♠ or 3♣ would have done better.

[joshs]

What are honors worth?

Their values comes from a few factors:

a. Tricks. An ace is a trick no matter how you slice it.

b. Promotional value. When you have an honor, it immediately raises the rank of all the other honors in both hands. E.G. If you have the ace of spades, then the K of spades becomes like an ace. If you have the K then the QJT becomes like the KQJ. Note: promotional value is value on power. You lead your K forcing out the A, and then your Q becomes good.

c. Positional value.
If you don't have the ace, but you lead toward the Kx it will score half the time.
Having honors in combination (in the same hand) greatly improves their positional value. KQx vs xxx will take 2 tricks half the time (assuming enough entries) while Kxx vs Qxx will take 2 tricks only when the ace is singleton or doubleton and you guess who has it. You take a lot less tricks on average with this holding.

d. entries/communication. Being able to get from hand to hand without wasting tricks is valuable. If you can't get to the correct hand, the positional value of your holdings goes down and possibly the promotional value as well. For instance:
Picture K vs AQJx vs Kx vs AQJx. If in the first case you need to overtake the K, you have used the K to promote the QJ but have lost the trick taking value of the K.

e. timing and control. While KQJT are 3 tricks after you knock out the ace, this holding is still worse than the AKQ since you have to lose a tempo to set up your 3 tricks. If you have to give up the lead, the opps may be able to set up tricks of their own before you cash yours.

WHat is the value of a stiff K relative to Kx or K and more length?

1. is the almost the same. Its worth a trick whenever partner has the A (except when its a stiff A).

2. the promotional value is almost the same as the K with length but if partner has the stiff Q or the AQ it loses its promotional value.

3. this value is completely lost

4. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have 2 way communication, and if partner doesn't have the ace, you do not have an entry (while Kx is an entry 50% of the time) and you might have to give up the trick taking value (value 1) in order to use the K to get to partner's hand

5. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have either absolute control (and A or a KQ) or positional control (protected K)

Now what is Jxxxx worth?
It has very little value in all 5 measures. Its trick taking value depends on the probability that partner has enough of the higher honors... Since there are no good spots, it has little promotional value....
etc.

[jdeegan]

My head is still aching from trying to rapidly evaluate fifty bridge hands as to how many tricks are available at what odds for each hand. I may have made some mistakes. I do not think I erred in constructing a good random sample, though. The trick here is to use Pavlicek's hand generator to generate a random sample based on criteria looser than necessary but that covers all possible cases. Next, I cull out any hands in this group that would not open 1NT by using my special program Eyeballs 1.0.

The hands generated for the opening notrumper are shown below. The first 50 have been culled using Eyeballs 1.0 and were the basis for my aforementioned analysis. The suits are spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs

AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1
AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2
AQ64 AQ2 A4 J876 3
AQ9 Q843 AQT7 JT 4
AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5
AQT A94 Q6 QJ763 6
AT KQJT T9 AJ754 7
AT QJT2 QT4 AQJ5 8
AT AQ4 A73 QJT93 9
AT4 K2 AQT96 QJ9 10
AT9 AQ83 AT96 Q8 11
K3 AQ4 AQ4 QT962 12
K43 AK3 AQ97 J96 13
K64 K973 A4 AQJT 14
K9 AQ4 AT96 AT74 15
KQ QT87 AQT73 QJ 16
KQ43 AJ82 QT QJ9 17
KQ9 K742 AT6 A42 18
KQT AK84 A64 942 19
KQT4 T942 AQ6 AQ 20
KT AQT3 AQT74 64 21
KT9 AKJ2 Q6 Q854 22
Q3 AQ7 A964 A754 23
Q4 AKQJ 43 AJ762 24
Q6 AJ7 AT63 AQ83 25
Q63 A942 A9 AJT5 26
Q9643 AQJ AQ4 Q3 27
QT6 AKQ AT J8642 28
T63 AK84 A7 AJ63 29
AT63 42 AQ94 AJ6 30
AT96 QJ Q94 AQ62 31
K3 AQ7 AQ7 T9872 32
K43 AQ7 AQ6 Q963 33
K643 A8 Q63 AQ72 34
K94 AK82 Q3 A872 35
KQ AJ73 A643 QT2 36
KQ6 KT9 T4 AQJT5 37
KQ9 T942 AQT A82 38
KQT KJ8 QT AJT98 39
KQT4 AJ7 43 AQ53 40
KT AJ87 Q63 AQJ2 41
KT9 AQ94 A7 QT83 42
Q3 AK9 QT4 AJ952 43
Q4 AQ4 QT764 AQ9 44
Q64 AJ32 A76 A54 45
QT KJ98 QT AQJT3 46
QT63 KQT8 AQ A85 47
T64 AK74 AQ97 A3 48
93 AKQ Q43 A9632 49
643 AK82 A96 AT3 50
A4 AJ97 QT9 A632 51
A6 K94 AT64 A832 52
A6 KT72 A43 AT82 53
A63 AQJ7 A93 J42 54
A64 AJ7 QT4 A987 55
A93 A73 AQ JT954 56
A94 KQ9 Q764 A98 57
A963 AK7 AQ7 432 58
AK AK97 Q3 JT953 59
AK4 Q73 AQ763 82 60
AK43 T83 AT AQ87 61
AK6 Q98 63 AQJ76 62
AK94 AQ7 A976 72 63
AKQ3 KT92 97 A32 64
AKQ6 QT8 AQT T97 65
AKQT A8 AT6 T632 66
AKT 983 AQ64 Q96 67
AQ AK42 A9763 74 68
AQ KQJ8 AT JT864 69
AQ3 AJ7 743 AT64 70
AQ4 93 AQ76 A652 71
AQ4 74 AQ93 QJ82 72
AQ9 AQJ8 Q974 92 73
AQ9 A97 A9743 Q4 74
AQ96 A42 A964 JT 75
AQT4 K74 QT9 A95 76
AT AQ72 QT3 AJT2 77
AT AT98 AQ J7654 78
AT KQJ AQ93 T962 79
AT6 AJ97 AT76 A3 80
AT63 KJ98 Q3 AQ5 81
K3 AKJ T97 AT964 82
K4 T93 AQ93 AQJ6 83
K6 AKJ7 T4 A9653 84
K9 AQJT Q6 AJ652 85
KQ K74 A943 AJ86 86
KQ A97 AQ93 QT74 87
KQ6 QT92 AQ Q953 88
KQ9 KT82 A4 QJ32 89
KQT AJ9 AQ4 T863 90
KQT4 AT2 AT9 Q62 91
KT3 94 AQ74 AQ92 92
KT96 83 AQT AQJ8 93
Q4 AKQ9 QT97 A53 94
Q4 AK98 T6 AQJ52 95
Q6 AKJ2 A63 J543 96
Q93 KJ7 AQ QJ532 97
QT AQT8 64 AQJT6 98
QT9 A84 AT93 AQ2 99
T9 AKQJ T64 AQ74 100
94 AQ73 Q3 AQJT4 101
963 AQJ2 AT3 AT2 102
A4 QT87 A74 AJ64 103
A6 K874 A93 AJ84 104
A6 AK97 A96 J976 105
A63 AK3 A64 J932 106
A9 QJ74 AT74 A98 107
A93 AK94 A3 QT98 108
A94 Q3 AQ43 QJT3 109
A963 AK AQT4 962 110
AK QJ74 Q96 QJ63 111
AK4 Q84 AT64 A92 112
AK6 AQT9 QT64 53 113
AK6 AQT9 76 AT98 114
AK94 Q84 QT A984 115
AKQ3 A32 Q6 T542 116
AKQ9 KQ4 943 Q65 117
AKT QT7 Q6 AJ952 118
AQ K942 QT4 A963 119
AQ KQ82 QT9 QT93 120
AQ3 KQ93 AT4 Q95 121
AQ4 KJT7 76 AJ87 122
AQ6 A93 94 AJ874 123
AQ9 AJ74 AQ 9543 124
AQ9 AQT2 A9 T963 125
AQ96 KQ2 AT43 T5 126
AQT6 KT2 93 AQ73 127
AT A94 A94 AJT94 128
AT AQ42 AQT9 J97 129
AT3 AQJ T3 AJ942 130
AT6 KJ7 A974 A74 131
AT64 AKJ 43 AJ42 132
K3 AQ AQ43 J9854 133
K43 AQ AQ64 9865 134
K63 QJ8 A63 AQ62 135
K9 AK7 963 AJ653 136
KQ QJ92 AQT6 J62 137
KQ3 QT AQT4 QJ43 138
KQ9 AQ4 A3 87532 139
KQ96 T82 A43 AQ8 140
KQT4 A9 Q763 A76 141
KQT9 J9 AQ93 A83 142
KT4 K72 A4 AJT84 143
Q3 AK4 AQ93 9764 144
Q4 AQ82 AT6 A532 145
Q4 AKQ3 AT6 J432 146
Q6 KQJ9 AQ7 QJ72 147
Q96 KJ AQ93 A654 148
QT QJ94 AQ9 AT92 149
QT96 AQ AQ6 JT65 150
96 AJ2 A76 AQT98 151
A3 K94 AT4 AJ963 152
A43 KQ7 Q6 AT872 153
A63 AQJT 64 A985 154
A64 KQJ4 QT3 A53 155
A93 QJ4 A964 A54 156
A94 AKJ8 63 A942 157
A96 AJT3 AQ7 J63 158
AK QJ72 A9 J7542 159
AK3 AQ98 AT96 95 160
AK6 A984 Q64 A72 161
AK93 KQT Q9 JT98 162
AKQ Q7 AQ4 87543 163
AKQT AQ T743 QT3 164
AKT AKQT 97 J987 165
AKT9 T9 A3 AT932 166
AQ K32 AT3 AT964 167
AQ3 KJ72 97 AJ42 168
T93 AQJ2 Q6 AQ63 169
96 AQ72 A973 AJ9 170
964 AKQ9 A9 QT84 171
A43 AQT Q7 AT654 172
A6 AT94 T6 AQJ72 173
A6 AK98 Q76 Q974 174
A63 KT97 AQ9 Q62 175
A9 KQJ A73 QJ653 176
A94 AT A63 A7532 177
A94 AQ97 AQ9 T92 178
AK T983 A6 A5432 179
AK AK97 Q63 T732 180
AK4 AK7 43 J9876 181
AK6 KT74 AQT 874 182
AK64 AT7 T3 A854 183
AK94 74 AQ64 QT9 184
AKQ4 942 AQ9 T72 185
AKQT A94 A9 8754 186
AKT KJ2 74 AJ986 187
AKT9 A874 A6 873 188
AQ QJ83 Q3 AT632 189
AQ AK73 QT3 T852 190
AQ4 AK93 AT63 43 191
AQ4 AQ2 A3 J9752 192
AQ6 J98 AQ9 Q652 193
AQ9 A72 64 AQ653 194
AQ94 AKT8 94 A32 195
AQT AJ A9743 J72 196
AQT6 KT A643 AT5 197
AT KJ4 QT63 AQ82 198
AT KJT A973 QJT9 199
AT4 AQ74 AQ7 975 200
AT6 A7 QT3 AJ976 201

If you want to analyze them, be my guest. It took me a couple of hours to do 50 and then write up the results. Working through the sample is a very good way to get a feel for what is right and/or wrong with each bidding approach. I did not evaluate the game forcing sequence that Xfers to spades and then bids 3♦. It seemed almost self-evident that it led to too many instances of overbidding. My main feeling doing this was admiration for how well our traditional bidding system works.

[awm]

Without going through a full analysis (not that much free time on my hands) I did notice that 4♠ is excellent opposite all the openers which include four-card spades. This seems to vindicate the "bid stayman" approach to some degree. At least it seems clear that "bid stayman and raise to game if partner has spades" is better than "transfer and pass unless super-accept."

[1eyedjack]

Although not in the original list of options, in my methods I would respond 2D showing either a GF hand with more than 3 Spades (unbalanced) or a weaker hand (potentially very weak) with more than 4 Spades. Opener commits beyond 2S with more than 3 Spades, upon which as responder I commit to game. With fewer than 4 Spades opener distinguishes min v max according to 2H/2S rebid. If max I commit to game (3N opposite doubleton Spade, 4S opposite 3). If min I stop in 2S. I might miss the odd game but hope to gain on corresponding hands where 2S is the limit.

[Gerben42]

I would transfer then pass unless superaccepted at any scoring. This is not pessimistic, it's realistic.

You have another way to win, you see. It may not be the end of it, someone might come with a Dbl or bid 3C, in which case I can wheel out a non-forcing 3D.

[inquiry]

Glen Ashton, a frequent contributor here and the author of the ETM victory system, has written up his adaptation of inverted stayman for handling hands like this. You can find his right up at http://www.bridgemat...com/etmnt06.pdf

Let me quote a piece of what Glen says about inverted stayman in this document.

Quote

Almost all game invite hands make use of Inverted Stayman, a brilliant invention of the Bridge World’s Jeff Rubens. ETM decided to use this when our independent analysis determined that an invite hand with five of a major is better bid using 2♣ then a transfer.

Basically, he would start responders hand with 2♣, which allows him to make a game invite and stay at 2♠ or stop in 3♦. To illustrate his method, I took the first 10 hands from the list of jdeegan to illustrate the method.

♠ J8752
♥ 65
♦ KJ852
♣ K

AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1

1NT - 2C
2S! - Pass or 3♦

Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play.

AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♥ - 3NT
4♠

Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major,
2♠ is invitational with 5♠ or constructive with 5♠ and 4♥+
3♥ game invite values in both minors, maximum, and 4/5 ♥'s

AQ64 AQ2 A4 J876 3

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
4♠

AQ9 Q843 AQT7 JT 4

1NT - 2♣
2♠ - pass or 3♦, see hand 1

AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5

1NT - 2♣
3NT - 4♦
4♠

Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors
4♦ is transfer to 4♠

AQT A94 Q6 QJ763 6

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♠ - 4♠

3♥ = game try, values for both minors

AT KQJT T9 AJ754 7

1NT - 2♦
2♠ - pass


AT QJT2 QT4 AQJ5 8

1NT - 2♣
2♠ - 3♥
3NT - Pass

3♥ = maximum, 4/5 ♥ values in both minors,

AT AQ4 A73 QJT93 9

1NT - 2♣
2♠ - 2NT
3NT - Pass

2NT = maximum, less than 4/5 ♥, game try.

AT4 K2 AQT96 QJ9 10

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♠ - 4♠

Ok, overbid this one :-)

Anyway, for anyone thinking about these issues, take a look at Glen's pdf at the link above. I don't play these methods (yet, hehehe), but they do look interesting (as does almost everything else on his bridgematters website).

[1eyedjack]

Not yet had a chance to look at these in depth, and note to self to do so, but in the meantime:

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

♠  J8752 
♥  65 
♦ KJ852 
♣  K

AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1

1NT - 2C
2S! - Pass or 3♦

Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play.

So, at this stage, opener could have 4 card Spade support and minimum? Not sure I like that.

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♥ - 3NT
4♠

Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major,

Contrast with:

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5

1NT - 2♣
3NT - 4♦
4♠

Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors

So 2D is not "ANY MAXIMUM"?

Guess I will have to look at the detailed notes.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Jun 14 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

Not yet had a chance to look at these in depth, and note to self to do so, but in the meantime:

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

♠  J8752 
♥  65 
♦ KJ852 
♣  K

AQ4 KQ87 T64 A43 1

1NT - 2C
2S! - Pass or 3♦

Where 2♠ shows 4 or 5 ♥'s and a minimum hand. Pass and 3♦ are both to play.

So, at this stage, opener could have 4 card Spade support and minimum? Not sure I like that.

No, opener can not have 4♠ when he bids 2♠. In addition to promising hearts, 2♠ denies both maximum and 4 ♠'s.

Quote

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

AQ4 A743 AT6 Q94 2

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♥ - 3NT
4♠

Where 2♦ is ANY MAXIMUM, or a minimum with no four card major,

Contrast with:

inquiry, on Jun 14 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

AQ96 K973 A9 A84 5

1NT - 2♣
3NT - 4♦
4♠

Where 3NT is maximum, 4-4 in majors, likes both minors

So 2D is not "ANY MAXIMUM"? (any maximum except 4-4 in the majors, obviously.. This is not my method. I just returned to it when this discussion started.

Quote

Guess I will have to look at the detailed notes.

Me too.. I just shared this link because it seemed relevant to the discussion of this hand.