[awm]

Recently I've noticed a number of strong pairs playing methods over their natural 2NT opening where:

(1) 3NT is to play.
(2) 3♠ forces 3NT, after which responder describes a slammish minor-oriented hand.

This pairing of methods seems rather odd to me. Can it really be efficient to use a particular bid to force partner to make the next bid up? This seems to take up space without giving any useful information.

Suppose we've decided that 2NT-3NT has to be "to play" either for memory reasons (don't want to play it forcing and forget) or because we're concerned about lead-directional doubles. Can it really be "right" to play that 3♠ forces 3NT? Or should 3♠ instead be some kind of asking bid (a simple possibility would be that 3♠ asks about clubs, opener's 3NT denies four clubs and opener's 4♣ shows four clubs, after which responder bids 4♦ to show a diamond one-suiter or otherwise cuebids for clubs).

[kenrexford]

I agree. That's why I think Opener should be able to bid 4♣ as a "super-acceptance," a call that allows Responder to bid 3♠ and then pass if Opener bids only 3NT.

I have also seen uses made of 2NT-3NT, as you suggest, but many for the obvious reason fear this. Folks also don't like always giving the opponents a lead-director or a negative lead-director in spades (double, or do not double).

[helene_t]

Does sound odd but I don't think there is any simple theory that makes such an agreement ineffecient. Presumably the philosophy is that responder must describe his hand, so opener just relays.

[cherdano]

3N is forced? This will lose 3 IMPs per board where it comes up.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Mar 5 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

3N is forced? This will lose 3 IMPs per board where it comes up.

I'm writing in the minus three as I type

[Cascade]

What we play (which I wrote in another thread already this morning) is:

3♠ includes:

• single suited clubs
  
• single suited diamonds
  
• two suited minors with short hearts
  
• two suited minors with short spades
  
• two suited minors with no shortage

One problem with bidding something other than 3NT is that there is then insufficient space to show all of the hand types (admittedly i havent spent a whole lot of time on this).

Another problem is that opener could have a hand great for one minor but much poorer for the other minor. This makes it difficult to super-accept.

Given the number of hands put in 3♠ I am not convinced that the forced 3NT is inefficient. If there is inefficiency it is because we have devoted more ways to get to major contracts than minor contracts in our structure. And I am not at all convinced that is bad.

Nevertheless developing some alternative structure or system of super-accepts is on my to do list.

[pclayton]

I played last weekend with someone who wanted to try this:

3S forced 3N. Then: 4C / 4D were crisscross RKC. 4H /4S were 5-4 and 4-5 minor slam tries and 4N was a 55.

3N forced 4C. Then 4x = 6C / 4x.

4C forced 4D. Then 4x =4x.

Obviously it never came up but i thought it was a reasonable approach. It also adds some clarity to your stayman auctions.

[keylime]

I used to play 3S puppeting to 3NT and the direct 3NT being both majors. I enjoyed it immensely - the ability to uncork minor slam tries was excellent.

[Gerben42]

I like the method too if 3NT shows both majors, but I guess many rightly fear this is a convention you might forget. 2NT - 3NT looks awfully natural, you see.

[NickToll]

Gerben42, on Mar 5 2008, 03:07 AM, said:

2NT - 3NT looks awfully natural, you see.

How true!

If one wants to put some special meaning on 3NT, IMHO a balanced slam try (asking suits up the line, forcing to 4NT) has some merit. No one of you will ever forget it, of course... but if your partner does, maybe 4NT was your best spot anyway.

[gwnn]

pclayton, on Mar 5 2008, 02:54 AM, said:

I played last weekend with someone who wanted to try this:

3S forced 3N. Then: 4C / 4D were crisscross RKC. 4H /4S were 5-4 and 4-5 minor slam tries and 4N was a 55.

3N forced 4C. Then 4x = 6C / 4x.

4C forced 4D. Then 4x =4x.

Obviously it never came up but i thought it was a reasonable approach. It also adds some clarity to your stayman auctions.

you mean 4C forced 4D and then x=4x, 6D?

[jvage]

Gerben42, on Mar 5 2008, 03:07 AM, said:

I like the method too if 3NT shows both majors, but I guess many rightly fear this is a convention you might forget. 2NT - 3NT looks awfully natural, you see.

Our opponents in a recent team-match used 3NT as showing exactly 54 in the majors. Twice it went 2NT - (P) - 3NT - all pass. On the first board the opener forgot the agreement while responder got the promised 54 majors, but 3NT was a decent contract and made (as would 4♠ on their 5-3 fit). On the second (in the same half!) both had forgotten the agreement (in spite of being reminded a few boards previously) and 3NT once again made

John

[Gerben42]

Quote

Our opponents in a recent team-match used 3NT as showing exactly 54 in the majors. Twice it went 2NT - (P) - 3NT - all pass. On the first board the opener forgot the agreement while responder got the promised 54 majors, but 3NT was a decent contract and made (as would 4♠ on their 5-3 fit). On the second (in the same half!) both had forgotten the agreement (in spite of being reminded a few boards previously) and 3NT once again made

See, an excellent convention. Gets you to making contracts and all

BTW if you forget it in the Netherlands that costs a beer. This convention is part of the "Niemeijer" complex.

[joshs]

What I play with Marc is:
3S = Clubs or both minors
4C=Diamonds

Over 3S, opener can bid 3N (most common), can bid 4C (likes clubs), or 4D(rkc in clubs).



Over 3nt= not great for club slam
4c=club slam try
4d= rkc for clubs
4h=both minors, equal or better clubs, slam try
4s=both minors, better diamonds, slam try
4nt=mild quantitative with clubs
5c=to play
5d,5h,5s=exclusion rkc for clubs
5nt = grand slam force

Over 4c = would accept a club slam try
4d = rkc for clubs
4h = both minors, equal or better clubs, slam try
4s=both minors, better diamonds, slam try
4nt=mild slam try with clubs
5c=to play
5d,5h,5s=exclusion rkc for clubs

[skjaeran]

Over 2NT we play:
3♣ = Puppet, old standard variation. Have to go via 3♣ to raise to 3NT.
3red = transfer
3♠ = both minors, slam try
3NT = 5♠4♥ game values only
4m = natural slam try

Not very sofiticated, I agree. But mostly it works out, eventhough there's definitely problem hands.

[mikeh]

responding to the original post: using 3N as to play and 3♠ puppet to 3N strikes me as silly... justifiable only for non-serious partners.

Almost anything is better!

Bidding space over our strong 2N is at such a premium that to waste 3N (wasted since one gets there after 3♠ by the simple use of the pass card over partner's forced 3N) is a crime.

I currently use 3♠ as a puppet to 3N with multiple meanings: to play, show weak suited single suit minor slam tries, 31 (54) or 13(54) slam tries, or quantitative notrump slam tries with 3N directly as CONFI (1st step shows controls, then Baron to find a fit if one exists). CONFI is rare but we handle almost every other problem with other permutations.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 5 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

responding to the original post: using 3N as to play and 3♠ puppet to 3N strikes me as silly... justifiable only for non-serious partners.

Almost anything is better!

Bidding space over our strong 2N is at such a premium that to waste 3N (wasted since one gets there after 3♠ by the simple use of the pass card over partner's forced 3N) is a crime.

I currently use 3♠ as a puppet to 3N with multiple meanings: to play, show weak suited single suit minor slam tries, 31 (54) or 13(54) slam tries, or quantitative notrump slam tries with 3N directly as CONFI (1st step shows controls, then Baron to find a fit if one exists). CONFI is rare but we handle almost every other problem with other permutations.

So you prefer to use a very rare convention for 3N that may or may not help than use 3N to play so you don't always have to go through 3S to get to 3N?

How often has CONFI come up for you? How often has it helped as opposed to bidding in some other way (people too often get normal results with a strange convention and mark it down as a triumph when they no doubt would have gotten there otherwise)?

How many times per CONFI coming up have you had a normal 2N-3N bid? Probably 200 times per time you use CONFI? How often have the opponents been able to X 3S, or not lead a spade with no X because of this?

My guess is that you are losing huge playing your gadget instead of playing 2N 3N to play. I would go so far as saying that using a very rare convention with little utility leaving you forced to allow them a chance to make a lead directing X on the MOST COMMON AUCTION you will have after a 2N opener is silly.

valid points

However, so far, I have not encountered a single auction in which the use of 3♠ to puppet to 3N, when 3N was passed, led to a double for a lead or, and this is more difficult to estimate since we rarely ask LHO why he didn't lead a particular suit, the opps stayed off a bad spade lead due to a non-double.

Clearly, the lead-directing positive and negative inferences associated with the possibility of a double or non-double exist and are non-trivial. So far, based on roughly 300-400 sessions playing this method over the past 7 years, it hasn't happened.

Admittedly, the CONFI sequence hasn't happened much either... maybe 4 or 5 times at most... and only once did we reach what I thought was a good contract missed by an expert pair in the other room... and our contract failed on a 4-1 trump break in the 4-4 minor we reached

I play CONFI to cater to my partner's wishes, not because I would prefer it. My preferred methods don't use 3♠ as a puppet to 3N: we bid 3N when we want to play there 3♠ has other meanings, and while opener may bid 3N in response to it, that conveys specific info rather than being forced.

My point wasn't that CONFI is wonderful.

It may be that the waste of bidding space generated by using 3♠ to puppet to 3N only when responder doesn't want to play in notrump, and 3N when he wants to play specifically in 3N, is justified by the denial of lead inferences. My experience is that such inferences rarely arise: yours may differ

[blackshoe]

"CONFI" sounds like a convention invented (I think) by George Rosenkranz, and used extensively in early versions of Romex. Interestingly, it is no longer part of that system (the last book in which it was described, if I"m not mistaken, was published in 1985). He called it "CONFIT", though, for "CONTROLS and FIT". I believe it was dropped because it's so rare that remembering it is a strain.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Mar 6 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

However, so far, I have not encountered a single auction in which the use of 3♠ to puppet to 3N, when 3N was passed, led to a double for a lead or, and this is more difficult to estimate since we rarely ask LHO why he didn't lead a particular suit, the opps stayed off a bad spade lead due to a non-double.

Wow. I am surprised by this.

We play a Mexican 2♦ a 18-20 and one of the most common auctions is 2♦ 2♠ puppet to 2NT. We have had this doubled a few times for a lead which has been awkward. And this is when one of the primary reasons we bid 2♠ is to initiate a Stayman like search for a major - I know it has the potential to wrong-side a spade contract. I would have thought that 2NT 3♠ would have created more problems.

Although as it happens we used to play 2NT 3♠ as a puppet to 3NT possibly to play and curiously I do not actually recall it ever being doubled.