[sceptic]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ QJ87 ♥ 3 ♦ 84 ♣ KQ7543

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♠
 Pass  3♣    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

[han]

I will force to game. If partner hsa 4 spades then we should do well. If not then my clubs might bring in the tricks.

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on Aug 25 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I will force to game. If partner hsa 4 spades then we should do well. If not then my clubs might bring in the tricks.

What he said

[whereagles]

3C should be a good spot in pairs. In teams I'd try stayman + 4S/5C

[paulg]

Hannie has been very succinct, essentially saying he is happy to play the hand in 4♠ or 3NT. This is very reasonable, especially at IMPs.

The auction 1NT-2♣-2♦/2♥-3♣ is problematic with a pickup partner. According to my SAYC booklet this shows a slam try in clubs and hence an overbid. Others might play this, as I do, as just game forcing with 5+ clubs and 4 spades, and then there are those who think that 3♣ is weak and a sign-off.

So Stayman and then choosing the appropriate game seems the highly practical approach.

Paul

[kenberg]

I think I would go for it ie start with 2C.


Let's look at your options. From the 2S bid I gather you are playing 4 suit transfers. Suppose it begins 1N-2C-2H. If you do not relish 3N or a presumably game-forcing 3C then you can bid 2S, showing four spades and invitational values. If partner bids 3N you know he is not on a minimum. If partner bids 2N then, if you want to settle for a partscore, you can bid 3C. Since 2S was passable this can hardly be forcing. But for me, I think I go 3N over 2H.

Of course the response to 2C could be 2D. Well, 3N has a chance. And maybe 5C makes while 3N goes down. I guess I try 3N over a 2D response.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me the justification for using Stayman is simple - you may have a four-four fit in spades, and majors take precedence over other strains. The real question is what to do when partner's reply is two of a red suit, and that depends on your partnership agreements.

OTOH, if I did transfer, I don't think I'd pass 3♣. What would 3♠ mean now, or 3♥?

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on Aug 25 2007, 05:40 PM, said:

Seems to me the justification for using Stayman is simple - you may have a four-four fit in spades, and majors take precedence over other strains. The real question is what to do when partner's reply is two of a red suit, and that depends on your partnership agreements.

OTOH, if I did transfer, I don't think I'd pass 3♣. What would 3♠ mean now, or 3♥?

To my knowledge transferring to a minor and then bidding a major (so trf to clubs, bid spades in this case) is played in either of two ways. The major suit bid shows the major, or the major suit bid shows shortness. Folks who play the first way (Bergen, I believe) can then play that Stayman followed by a minor is a sign-off. I prefer the second way, so Stayman followed by a minor is strong and implies an unbid major (1N-2C-2H-3C is strong and shows four spades and long clubs, while 1N-2S-3C-3S is a stiff spade).

Playing pick-up, I wouldn't place a heavy bet on being understood whichever I did. So trying for the major fit and, lacking it, gambling out 3NT seems the way to go.

[neilkaz]

I'd bid this hand differently as well. Stayman for me, looking for the 4-4 ♠ fit after which I try 4♠ and lacking the 4-4 ♠ fit I'll try 3NT and even if we can be set, maybe the opps lead the wrong suit based on minimal info.

.. neilkaz ..

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on Aug 25 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

To my knowledge transferring to a minor and then bidding a major (so trf to clubs, bid spades in this case) is played in either of two ways. The major suit bid shows the major, or the major suit bid shows shortness. Folks who play the first way (Bergen, I believe) can then play that Stayman followed by a minor is a sign-off. I prefer the second way, so Stayman followed by a minor is strong and implies an unbid major (1N-2C-2H-3C is strong and shows four spades and long clubs, while 1N-2S-3C-3S is a stiff spade).

Playing pick-up, I wouldn't place a heavy bet on being understood whichever I did. So trying for the major fit and, lacking it, gambling out 3NT seems the way to go.

That's pretty much how I understand it.

Agree with that last bit, too.

[1eyedjack]

Evaluation question for you all, relevant to this hand.
In my methods I have the option to find out that partner has a minimum without 4 Spades, and then sign out in 3C. If you have that option available, would you still drive to 3N having identified that, on the offchance that the Clubs are coming in?

1N - 2H (invitation with 4 Spades and fewer than 4 Hearts, or various GF hands)
2N .......(minimum, fewer than 4 Spades)
.....- 3C (to play)
... or- 3N (to play)

[skjaeran]

cardsharp, on Aug 25 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

Hannie has been very succinct, essentially saying he is happy to play the hand in 4♠ or 3NT. This is very reasonable, especially at IMPs.

The auction 1NT-2♣-2♦/2♥-3♣ is problematic with a pickup partner. According to my SAYC booklet this shows a slam try in clubs and hence an overbid. Others might play this, as I do, as just game forcing with 5+ clubs and 4 spades, and then there are those who think that 3♣ is weak and a sign-off.

So Stayman and then choosing the appropriate game seems the highly practical approach.

Paul

Stayman followed by 3♣ (over 2♦/♥) can't be slamivitational by a passed hand though.

Personally I play it as GF with a 4c major side suit (non-passed).

Transfer to a minor and bidding a major I use as slamtry with shortness in the major, except as a passed hand where I play it as natural (upon my partner's insistence). So with my regular partner I'd transfer to ♣'s and rebid 3♠ here.