[awm]

Partner opens a 15-17 notrump. You hold:

♠QJxxx ♥Qx ♦JT8xxx ♣-

What would be your plan with this hand playing your preferred systems over strong notrump?

If you choose to game force and show both suits, partner will try 3NT. Do you pass this or insist on playing a suit contract?

[bluecalm]

I think I am transferring to spades and passing normal accept. Is it too weak tight ?

[gwnn]

Agree with bluecalm.

[Free]

2 Kings would've been better than these quacks. Transfer ♠ and pass a normal accept.

[MTSummit]

maybe i would risk a transfer to 2♠ then bid 2NT.
if partner bid 3♠ i would bid 4♠,
if partner bid 3NT i would bid 4♦

[the hog]

Transfer to S and then pass. Seriously, what's the problem?

[jdonn]

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Is your partner allowed to bid 3NT just becuase he has a maximum, or does the sequence imply that you need a fit to make game?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 25 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Is your partner allowed to bid 3NT just becuase he has a maximum, or does the sequence imply that you need a fit to make game?

The latter, I transfer then bid 2NT to imply the former. But even if you don't care for my methods I would not be nearly as happy as others seem to be to just transfer to 2♠ and call it a day.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

The latter, I transfer then bid 2NT to imply the former. But even if you don't care for my methods I would not be nearly as happy as others seem to be to just transfer to 2♠ and call it a day.

No, I like your methods (apart from the wrongsiding problem) - I was just trying to improve the definition of my own. I also have a way to show an unbalanced invitation with five spades, but I'd never really considered what opener needs to accept.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Perhaps you should change your nic to "Parsifal".

[Bende]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

After 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠, won't partner be worried that your second suit is hearts, or is it always a minor?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 05:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Perhaps you should change your nic to "Parsifal".

Please explain, by all means I wouldn't mind learning something about an opera I have never seen.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 25 2010, 03:49 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

The latter, I transfer then bid 2NT to imply the former. But even if you don't care for my methods I would not be nearly as happy as others seem to be to just transfer to 2♠ and call it a day.

No, I like your methods (apart from the wrongsiding problem) - I was just trying to improve the definition of my own. I also have a way to show an unbalanced invitation with five spades, but I'd never really considered what opener needs to accept.

With a similar hand and hearts I transfer to hearts, then bid 2♠ relay to 2NT, then bid 3♣/♦/♥ (with both majors). This frees up some auctions. For example I have played 3♠(+) on the heart auction as game forcing hands with both majors. Transfer to spades then bid 3♥ can be something too, like 5044, or invite with HHxxxx of spades and out (to find 3NT), etc.

I prefer to make sure all hands that start with heart transfer have hearts and all hands that start with spade transfer have spades, but you can do even more things if you don't care about that.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 05:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Perhaps you should change your nic to "Parsifal".

Please explain, by all means I wouldn't mind learning something about an opera I have never seen.

Parsifal went in search of, and eventually found, the Holy Grail. My point is that the hand you posted was so unlikely that you are searching for the grail. Then again, if you have the methods to do so, why not......................

(I am a Wagner fanatic.)

[MickyB]

I play 2C then 2S as any 5-card spade invite - now 2NT = max with doubleton spade, 3NT = max 4333

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 08:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 05:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 25 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

The problem is that you can be missing a slam opposite hands like Ax AJxx AKxx xxx? Or a game in diamonds opposite exponentially more hands? Or a game in spades opposite yet more hands?

In my prefered methods I bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show an unbalanced invitation with 5 spades. If partner bids game in spades I don't see how I can be unhappy with that generally. If partner bids 2NT to find out my other suit then I may strike gold there and at worst will be in a perfectly fine contract.

Perhaps you should change your nic to "Parsifal".

Please explain, by all means I wouldn't mind learning something about an opera I have never seen.

Parsifal went in search of, and eventually found, the Holy Grail. My point is that the hand you posted was so unlikely that you are searching for the grail. Then again, if you have the methods to do so, why not......................

(I am a Wagner fanatic.)

My point isn't that I would bid slam opposite that, in fact I doubt I would. My point is that if a very well fitting but utterly normal hand makes slam, just imagine how many hands make game. Therefore signing off without even inviting seems very worrisome.

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 08:26 PM, said:

Parsifal went in search of, and eventually found, the Holy Grail. My point is that the hand you posted was so unlikely that you are searching for the grail. Then again, if you have the methods to do so, why not......................

(I am a Wagner fanatic.)

My point isn't that I would bid slam opposite that, in fact I doubt I would. My point is that if a very well fitting but utterly normal hand makes slam, just imagine how many hands make game. Therefore signing off without even inviting seems very worrisome.

I have never developed continuations in any detail after 2♠ but I like jdonn's method. If finding the Holy Grail is comparable to being able to accurately bid two suited invitational hands opposite a 1NT opening, then I don't think this Parsifal guy did enough to have an opera written about him.

[the hog]

nigel_k, on Jul 26 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 26 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 08:26 PM, said:

Parsifal went in search of, and eventually found, the Holy Grail. My point is that the hand you posted was so unlikely that you are searching for the grail. Then again, if you have the methods to do so, why not......................

(I am a Wagner fanatic.)

My point isn't that I would bid slam opposite that, in fact I doubt I would. My point is that if a very well fitting but utterly normal hand makes slam, just imagine how many hands make game. Therefore signing off without even inviting seems very worrisome.

I have never developed continuations in any detail after 2♠ but I like jdonn's method. If finding the Holy Grail is comparable to being able to accurately bid two suited invitational hands opposite a 1NT opening, then I don't think this Parsifal guy did enough to have an opera written about him.

Well, there is a lot more to the Parsifal legend. Parsifal apparently was a total innocent - sexually and in terms of life experience - only an innocent could find the grail. he needed to bring the grail back to heal Amfortas who had been woulded by the spear that pierced Christ's side.

Perhaps I should have said that Josh should change his nic to Robert Langdon.