[ArtK78]

fred, on Sep 12 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

If you do have to go this route to invite, Passing becomes more attractive but you also might want to consider bidding Stayman and bidding 2NT next even if partner does show 4 hearts. That is kind of a psycho idea, but it could easily work well. Of course it is not safe to do this if Stayman promises a 4-card major in your partnership (since partner might bid 4S over your 2NT rebid).

Pardon me for going slightly off track for a moment.

Fred, in those partnerships which must go through Stayman to invite game (as 2NT is conventional), I thought it was standard - even universal - for an INVITATIONAL balanced hand with 4 spades but not 4 hearts to bid 2♠ over the 2♥ response to Stayman.

Are there really any partnerships out there which would bid 2NT over 2♥ to promise 4 spades and invite game, which have to go through Stayman to invite game?

[fred]

ArtK78, on Sep 12 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 12 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

If you do have to go this route to invite, Passing becomes more attractive but you also might want to consider bidding Stayman and bidding 2NT next even if partner does show 4 hearts. That is kind of a psycho idea, but it could easily work well. Of course it is not safe to do this if Stayman promises a 4-card major in your partnership (since partner might bid 4S over your 2NT rebid).

Pardon me for going slightly off track for a moment.

Fred, in those partnerships which must go through Stayman to invite game (as 2NT is conventional), I thought it was standard - even universal - for an INVITATIONAL balanced hand with 4 spades but not 4 hearts to bid 2♠ over the 2♥ response to Stayman.

Are there really any partnerships out there which would bid 2NT over 2♥ to promise 4 spades and invite game, which have to go through Stayman to invite game?

Hi Art,

The way I was taught "use Stayman to invite even if you don't have a 4-card major" (a long time ago), I was also taught that you should bid 2S over 2H if you actually do happen to have 4 spades. Not sure if this is considered "standard" or not, but I suspect that a significant % of people who use Stayman this way also use the 2S bid in this way.

Nowadays a lot of people seem to like to play Stayman then 2S is a mild unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. Probably some of the people who play that you must bid Stayman to invite think it is more important to use 2S in this way then it is to show 4 spades.

I would agree with this since, if I was playing that you have to bid Stayman in order to invite, I would never actually use this sequence if I did not have a 4-card major (I would either Pass 1NT or bid 3NT).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pclayton]

Two questions for those that are inviting here:

1. Imaging the universe of all 4333 eight counts. On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you assign this one?

2. What percentage of 4333 eight counts would you invite with Vul? NV?

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Sep 12 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

Two questions for those that are inviting here:

1. Imaging the universe of all 4333 eight counts. On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you assign this one?

2. What percentage of 4333 eight counts would you invite with Vul? NV?

I think it's about a 6 1/2 for NT, and about a 3 1/2 for hearts.

To the downside, no aces & 4333 distribution; to the upside, very nice intermediates and no jacks, either. Not interested in 4 hearts with the slow values, but at IMPs, I'd take a poke at 3NT. At matchpoints, I'd let partner play 1NT.

[NickRW]

pclayton, on Sep 12 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

Two questions for those that are inviting here:

1. Imaging the universe of all 4333 eight counts. On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you assign this one?

2. What percentage of 4333 eight counts would you invite with Vul? NV?

To answer your second question first - the answer is that it would depend on partner's preferences about upgrading 14 counts - quite a few if partner is very solid.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I guess this one rates about a 7 - though given that 10s would be as rare as hens teeth (AT9 T9x T9x AT9x), then maybe 8 is fairer.

Nick

Edit, as a PS to your second question, if partner upgraded a lot and we're playing MP - then I'd rarely invite with a 4333 8 if ever.

[bid_em_up]

I bid a direct 3N and expect to make more than the desirable ~40% of the time for it to be profitable.

[kenrexford]

On to a more complete analysis.

I have said before that I think of 3NT contracts as usually being "T" contracts or "cloud" contracts. A "T" 3NT is one with primes and a trick source, where we hope to cash our 9 tricks before the opponents cash their 5. A "cloud" 3NT is where we hope to find 9 tricks in various places before the opponents find five.

This hand is terrible for a "T" 3NT, but it looks great for a "cloud" 3NT. We probably are headed for a "cloud" 3NT in this sequence. That makes this a fairly good 8-count, because of the body.

However, I personally would not invite this hand because my usual partners upgrade 1NT openings at both ends (14's OK a lot, 17's too rich a lot). Hence, I already expect, in a sense, that he will not have half of the hands where inviters here would get an acceptance, and that he only has the worst half of those hands.

I suppose I'd call this a lousy 9-count for cloud play. 8 HCP, +2 for the multiple 10's and 9's, -1 for the shape. This is a 7-count for "T" play. 8 HCP, -1 for the poor control count.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Sep 12 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

On to a more complete analysis.

I have said before that I think of 3NT contracts as usually being "T" contracts or "cloud" contracts.

OK, say for the sake of the argument that you were playing with Mr. Walrus, who has never opened a 14 count 1NT in his life and always opens his 17 counts 1NT unless he has a void, singleton, or two doubletons. As far as actual card play goes, he's as good as you are.

I dunno, maybe your regular partner got called away mid-hand or something.

1. Would you invite with this hand?
2. If the invitation went through whatever Staymanish thing you use, and he showed 4 hearts, what would you do?

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Sep 12 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 12 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

On to a more complete analysis.

I have said before that I think of 3NT contracts as usually being "T" contracts or "cloud" contracts.

OK, say for the sake of the argument that you were playing with Mr. Walrus, who has never opened a 14 count 1NT in his life and always opens his 17 counts 1NT unless he has a void, singleton, or two doubletons. As far as actual card play goes, he's as good as you are.

I dunno, maybe your regular partner got called away mid-hand or something.

1. Would you invite with this hand?
2. If the invitation went through whatever Staymanish thing you use, and he showed 4 hearts, what would you do?

With Mr. Walrus, the cloud looks nice. Invite, without showing four hearts. WTP? LOL

[skjaeran]

I was playing with a not so strong partner and very few agreements. A direct 2NT would be invitational. 20 years ago I used to pass hands like this, after that I've invited with 8-counts I like.

But with this hand I just raised to 3NT. To me all the fillers in this hand is enough for game. I think 3NT will make on a lot of hands where partner will reject any invite. Of course we'll go down if opps find the lead of one of my 3-card suits and parter holds two small, unless we can rattle off 9 tricks. One of my teammates (Sam Inge Høyland) taught me to always bid game with hands like this one a couple of years ago.

I found partner with ♠AK53 ♥J53 ♦♦K6 ♣AJ72.
Not the best of games, but it made with ♥Q onside and a ♣ lead from QT98x. Without a club lead you'd have to guess spades - singleton J offside.

8 pairs out of 14 bid and made 3NT. Our opps played 2♠ -1!

[nige1]

skaeran, on Sep 12 2008, 12:10 AM, said:

IMPs, both red ♠T94 ♥KT98 ♦Q98 ♣K54
Partner opens 1NT (15-17)
What's your plan - pass/invite/bid game/search for heart fit or not?

IMO 2N = 10, 2C = 9, _P = 8.
But at pairs pass. Also it depends on whether your actual notrump range is what you advertise. For example, some top players write 15-17 HCP on their system card but evaluate

• ♠ Ax ♥ Ax ♦ Txx ♣ AJTxxx as a 1N opener.
  
• ♠ Axx ♥ Axx ♦ Axx ♣ AJxx as too strong for 1N.

Obviously high cards are not the only criterion but IMO, legislators should force players to hint at how much their advertised HCP range allows for other factors such as shape, texture, and honour concentration by specifying, say, 13-17; or even better use +- signs, or brackets, or decimals -- according to some standardised notation.

Nevertheless, 3N is playable opposite either of the above responding hands

[kenrexford]

I'm not seeing how bidding game directly could be argued as successful when partner shows up with that hand and it takes a finesse.

With a 16-count, 4432 with two decent 4-card suits at that, and 6 controls, partner has a maximum. Take away both Jacks, and some might open this. None would decline the invite.

Change the heart Jack to the Queen, and I'd open 1♣ myself.

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on Sep 13 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

I'm not seeing how bidding game directly could be argued as successful when partner shows up with that hand and it takes a finesse.

With a 16-count, 4432 with two decent 4-card suits at that, and 6 controls, partner has a maximum. Take away both Jacks, and some might open this. None would decline the invite.

Change the heart Jack to the Queen, and I'd open 1♣ myself.

Yeah - I was about to say the same thing. The decent controls etc in this hand make it a hand where I would accept the invite if given one. I could be holding a significantly worse hand even if I were a Walrus.

Nick

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Sep 13 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

I'm not seeing how bidding game directly could be argued as successful when partner shows up with that hand and it takes a finesse.

With a 16-count, 4432 with two decent 4-card suits at that, and 6 controls, partner has a maximum.  Take away both Jacks, and some might open this.  None would decline the invite.

Change the heart Jack to the Queen, and I'd open 1♣ myself.

Actually, I said it wasn't a great game. And I agree, one hand proves nothing at all. The point of this thread was to see how other posters would evaluate the hand.

Furthermore, we'd have reached game anyway, since partner would have accepted any invite.