[Cyberyeti]

---

If partner opens 2N, do you bid over it if:

a) 2N=20-22
b) 2N=21-22
c) 2N=22-23

and if so how ?

[billw55]

Interesting problem.

I think that the chances of scoring long cards in one of my two suits is pretty high. I will try 3NT in all cases.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-April-02, 10:12, said:

Interesting problem.

I think that the chances of scoring long cards in one of my two suits is pretty high. I will try 3NT in all cases.

I think that the chances of scoring long cards in one of your suits is much higher if that suit is trump.

I play 4-suit transfers over 2NT, so I would call 3NT (transfer to diamonds). If partner bids 4♣, which shows no interest in diamonds, I would pass, hoping that his lack of interest in diamonds implies that he has more clubs than diamonds. If partner bids 4♦, showing an interest in diamonds, I would pass that also.

I think that the chances of going plus in 4 of a minor are much better than the chances of going plus in 2NT or 3NT. As far as bidding 3NT to make, good luck.

[mikeh]

My first instinct was that if we were going to bid, we'd probably prefer to be in our better minor fit than in 3N.

I assume we have methods. Edit: unfortunately, none of the ones I currently use allow us to stop in 4m

I wanted to check my gut sense so ran a simulation based on S being balanced (4333, 4432, 5332) and 20-21 hcp.

I ran 600 hands.

Double dummy is flawed here, because defence is tougher than offence, and borderline games rate to be particularly sensitive to opening lead issues. I thought that 3N was likely to be more sensitive to the lead than 5m, since this sort of hand can often develop into a tempo-issue, in that declarer can often make 9 tricks if only he can do so before they cash 5+ winners. In an 11 trick contract, where we rate to not lose more than 2 tricks in any one suit, but have to develop more winners, the lead seems to me to be slightly less critical.

No game is good, but 5m is double dummy significantly better than 3N. 3N makes about 13% of the time and 5m about 20% of the time. The analysis gave some tepid support to my concern about opening lead: 3N was slightly more sensitive to the opening lead than were either minor contracts. I didn't try to see if either offence or defence beyond choice of opening lead was sensitive to double dummy (dropping short honours offside or always winning a 2 way finesse, etc) since that would have required actual human analysis.

2N failed quite often, tho it usually made. This impacts the game-pass decision at imps, but not mps.

At the end of the day the simulation suggests passing is best at imps or mps, at any vulnerability, but if one were to bid one should, if one has the methods, look for the minor game.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-02, 11:21, said:

I think that the chances of scoring long cards in one of your suits is much higher if that suit is trump.

I play 4-suit transfers over 2NT, so I would call 3NT (transfer to diamonds). If partner bids 4♣, which shows no interest in diamonds, I would pass, hoping that his lack of interest in diamonds implies that he has more clubs than diamonds. If partner bids 4♦, showing an interest in diamonds, I would pass that also.

I think that the chances of going plus in 4 of a minor are much better than the chances of going plus in 2NT or 3NT. As far as bidding 3NT to make, good luck.

I've not encountered that approach before.

I was doing the simulation while you were posting, so didn't include any effort to measure this approach's viability.

It seems to me, however, that if partner likes diamonds, you should bid the game. It has about a 20% chance opposite random opening hands, so must be much better opposite hands that like diamonds. How much better probably depends on whether the emphasis is that 4♦ shows strong liking, and 4♣ is all other hands, or that 4♣ shows an actual dislike, with 4♦ simply saying 'I'm ok with diamonds' rather than 'I love diamonds'.

If the former then I think one should bid the game at all scoring and vulnerabilities. If the latter, then only red at imps.

[aguahombre]

3S happens to MSS for us. We would get to 4m if she had a 4cm. The downside is that if she bids 3NT (no 4cm), 4c is not p/c like it would be after:

1NT-2S
2NT-3C (signoff, pick the minor).

Since 4C would be forcing after:

2N-3S
3N-4C...I would have to pass 3NT. Oh well, it probably wasn't making 2N either.

[billw55]

It occurred to me that 5m might be good, perhaps better than 3NT .. but also that 5m is more likely to be doubled when it is bad.

[Cyberyeti]

We defended this hand, but our option would be to play 2N, 3N or show 5-5 in the minors and play in partner's choice of 5m.

This is a sort of hard luck story.

Team mates played in 2N.
Opps played in 3N.

opener's hand was:

---

2N was slated to make as ♥Qxx was present onside. Unfortunately Q♣ dropped as well so 3N was easy. You also have losing options playing in clubs if they don't start with 3 rounds of diamonds as the Qx was offside. We lost the match by 11 IMPs.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 11:30, said:

Since 4C would be forcing after:

2N-3S
3N-4C...I would have to pass 3NT. Oh well, it probably wasn't making 2N either.

I play the same but would bid it up to 4♣, asking for 3-card minor(s) and hoping to hear 4♦. I would float that but be propelled to 5♣ on the actual hand.

We play 20-21 for 2nt but whatever your range is, 3 AK's and a 5-bagger with a jack for backup is screaming for a serious upgrade

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-02, 12:20, said:

We defended this hand, but our option would be to play 2N, 3N or show 5-5 in the minors and play in partner's choice of 5m.

This is a sort of hard luck story.

Team mates played in 2N.
Opps played in 3N.

opener's hand was:

---

2N was slated to make as ♥Qxx was present onside. Unfortunately Q♣ dropped as well so 3N was easy. You also have losing options playing in clubs if they don't start with 3 rounds of diamonds as the Qx was offside. We lost the match by 11 IMPs.

What range was that hand shown as at both tables? I would call that a 22-23 2NT bid, which obviously hugely increases the odds on bidding as responder.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-02, 14:44, said:

What range was that hand shown as at both tables? I would call that a 22-23 2NT bid, which obviously hugely increases the odds on bidding as responder.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think 20-22 at one and 21-22 or 22-23 at the other (and the 20-22 bid on). We'd have shown it as 22-23.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-02, 14:44, said:

What range was that hand shown as at both tables? I would call that a 22-23 2NT bid, which obviously hugely increases the odds on bidding as responder.

A 400 deal dd simulation with 22-23 as the range (I would open 2♣ and rebid 2N to show that range) revealed that 3N made 30% of the time and 5 minor 40%, which is enough to persuade me to drive to game, since I would guess that the odds of misdefence and/or a helpful, non double dummy, lead would make this close to 50% for a minor game.

400 hands is a small sample of course.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2013-April-02, 15:58, said:

A 400 deal dd simulation with 22-23 as the range (I would open 2♣ and rebid 2N to show that range) revealed that 3N made 30% of the time and 5 minor 40%, which is enough to persuade me to drive to game, since I would guess that the odds of misdefence and/or a helpful, non double dummy, lead would make this close to 50% for a minor game.

400 hands is a small sample of course.

OP did not specify if the hand occurred at IMPs or at matchpoints. If at IMPs, then perhaps 30% to 40% is sufficient to bid a game, but it is marginal at best. Of course, as you state, the odds of misdefense of one sort or another may increase your chances, which would be sufficient to make bidding game right.

At matchpoints, however, you don't want to be in a game that needs defensive help to get you up to 50%. Sometimes, you just don't get help, and half the time that you do, it still doesn't make.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-03, 08:27, said:

OP did not specify if the hand occurred at IMPs or at matchpoints. If at IMPs, then perhaps 30% to 40% is sufficient to bid a game, but it is marginal at best. Of course, as you state, the odds of misdefense of one sort or another may increase your chances, which would be sufficient to make bidding game right.

At matchpoints, however, you don't want to be in a game that needs defensive help to get you up to 50%. Sometimes, you just don't get help, and half the time that you do, it still doesn't make.

Was IMPs, and 30-40% assumes you're only going one down, 3N is a potential 3 down on a bad day, maybe more.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-03, 10:00, said:

Was IMPs, and 30-40% assumes you're only going one down, 3N is a potential 3 down on a bad day, maybe more.

I was always driving to 5m, not 3N, and it would be a truly bad day if 5m went down 3!

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-April-03, 10:28, said:

I was always driving to 5m, not 3N, and it would be a truly bad day if 5m went down 3!

Partner gets dealt AKQJ, AKQJ, xxx, xx occasionally

[wyman]

I don't have a way to drop in 4m, so I'd probably pass. But if I were going to bid on this hand, i'd totally operate. 3C puppet stayman, then 3N.

[PhilKing]

wyman, on 2013-April-03, 13:38, said:

I don't have a way to drop in 4m, so I'd probably pass. But if I were going to bid on this hand, i'd totally operate. 3C puppet stayman, then 3N.

Pass 3♦.

[HeartA]

pass.

[johnu]

Based on Dealmaster Pro simulations, I would pass unless 2NT showed 23-24 or better. 5 of a minor isn't good enough if opener has 22 or less and the lower range of 2NT is much more likely than the maximum possible. The actual 2NT opener isn't close to a 20-22 NT in my valuation system, I would have shown 23-24 if that's in your system.

My initial impulse would have been to pass even a 23-24 2NT but 5 of a minor is quite good if you can find your best fit. If you don't have methods to find your best minor suit fit, you are probably better to just pass 2NT.