[aguahombre]

3NT is even easier here on the forum, because nobody ever downgrades an 18 to open 1NT, but everyone likes to upgrade. However, MSS might uncover a magic hand. Or puppet might uncover a 5-3 spade fit, which could prove to be magic.

Since i don't know which to try, will stick with 3NT. Checking for the spade fit is free, since I have to go through the 3C jump to insist on 3NT anyway

[straube]

kenrexford, on Mar 17 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

straube, on Mar 17 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 17 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

1NT-2NT(relay)
3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

That's what one partner and I play.  Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

I'm not sure how you know this.

I mean, in general, overly specific meanings are a bad idea if you cannot cover other equally occurring hand patterns.

But, if you have a boatload of different options to handle a boatload of different patterns, how is that a bad thing simply because of the specificity?

I mean, would it be a bad thing to play a 1NT opening as showing 15-17 HCP simply because you limit the call to a 3-point range? Would it be bad to then have a 2♠ rebid after Stayman show 4-5 spades and 2-3 hearts simply because there are so many other patterns that need to be covered? Would it be bad for a 3♠ call after Responder in that sequence sets spades as trumps to show a spade control simply because there are three other suits, of which you have said nothing yet about their controls or lack thereof? Would it be bad to have a 5♠ response to 4NT then show two key cards plus the spade Queen simply because you might have a number of other holdings?

In other words, you cannot know whether this use for this sequence is "too specific" unless you also know what other options are systemically available.

I disagree.

Let's suppose that 1N was an opening that asked partner to describe different things...patterns for example but possibly other things. We have 10 steps up to and including 3N so...

2C-1
2D-2
2H-3
2S-5
2N-8
3C-13
3D-21
3H-34
3S-55
3N-89

which means that responder could describe 89 things.

Of course, this hypothetical is generous because 1N is not a relay and responder will need many sequences to sign off or make invitations or to ask questions. So responder can in reality show significantly less than 89 things. For sake of argument, say he can describe 50 things.

I looked up on BBO that 14+ hands of the 3-2-4-4 pattern occur 0.36% of the time. That's without the constraint that partner has 15-17 balanced, so 14+ 3-2-4-4 is likely occur much less often. For sake of argument maybe 0.1% of the time. One in a thousand hands or so.

So devoting a sequence which ought to show something like one of 50 things to show something like one in a thousand things is not likely to be worthwhile.

The other thing to consider is that a hand that is 3-2-4-4 and 14+ pts has likely more safety in a contract of 4N (for instance) than other more distributional hands. So if you wanted to show a 3-2-4-4 with 14+ pts, the place to show this hand is likely above 3N and not below it.

[kenrexford]

Huh?

I mean, here's how I look at it. If 2♣ and 3♣ (puppet latter) handle the vast majority of hands with some major holding, and if 3♦, 3♥, and 3♠ cover a few freak options, and if 2♠ and part of 2NT handle most minor options, then all that's left is the 2344/3244 hands. So, you toss them into an unused bid.

I mean, sure, you can get some sort of low percentage for how often that comes up, but I'd bet that 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ responses handle a BOATLOAD of hands.

I mean, if 0.36% represents a portion of the 5.72% of hands where 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, or 3NT does not handle the hand properly, then that's over 6% of the non-handled hands.

[hanp]

I agree with Ken that Straube's computation makes little sense.

I agree with Straube that Ken's agreement makes little sense.

As usual, I end up being friends with everybody!

[straube]

hanp, on Mar 17 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

I agree with Ken that Straube's computation makes little sense.

I agree with Straube that Ken's agreement makes little sense.

As usual, I end up being friends with everybody!

Ken says that his 2C, 2D, and 2H handle a boatload of hands. I would emphasize rather that 1N preempts responder from showing shape. These bids can only handle a certain number of patterns (etc) before 3N has been reached.

Now any NT structure has to collapse certain patterns because there is just not enough room. My argument is that showing such a specific pattern and qualifying that it has to show 14+ hcps is a waste of that sequence.

We don't know the rest of the structure that Ken's partner played. Can he handle 3-4-1-5 or 4-1-3-5 for example? Can he distinguish 4-5-2-2 from 4-5-1-3 below 3N? How about 3-2-3-5?
But 3-2-4-4 with 14+ deserves to be shown below 3N?

[Phil]

rogerclee, on Mar 17 2010, 06:06 AM, said:

4S is an infinitely better bid than 4N.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.

[kenrexford]

straube, on Mar 17 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

hanp, on Mar 17 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

I agree with Ken that Straube's computation makes little sense.

I agree with Straube that Ken's agreement makes little sense.

As usual, I end up being friends with everybody!

Ken says that his 2C, 2D, and 2H handle a boatload of hands. I would emphasize rather that 1N preempts responder from showing shape. These bids can only handle a certain number of patterns (etc) before 3N has been reached.

Now any NT structure has to collapse certain patterns because there is just not enough room. My argument is that showing such a specific pattern and qualifying that it has to show 14+ hcps is a waste of that sequence.

We don't know the rest of the structure that Ken's partner played. Can he handle 3-4-1-5 or 4-1-3-5 for example? Can he distinguish 4-5-2-2 from 4-5-1-3 below 3N? How about 3-2-3-5?
But 3-2-4-4 with 14+ deserves to be shown below 3N?

FWIW, I'm NOT saying that I think this 2344/3244 approach is ideal. I'm just saying that the argument against seemed silly. I find a lot of the really obscure notrump agreements to be so remotely applicable that they are not worth much of the trouble.

That said, I'm not sure I get your problem hands. Some of these have multiple solutions, depending on range, and some of the solutions have wild diverging developments depending on what happened.

For example, the 3415 hand is fairly easy, with two options (Stayman or Puppet stayman), depending on what you want to do with it. Completion of picture depends on what develops.

The 4135 hand also seems fairly easy after Stayman. I don't get that one.

The 4522 vs 4513 problem (describing this below 3NT) seems somewhat strange to me, because I don't know why i care about describing this before I reach that level.

The 3-2-3-5 hand is interesting, though, I'll agree.

Admittedly, some of these hand pattern bids end up used like the B that they are. Technically, for example, I would expect that a bid showing 3244 really shows 32(3+)(?). Similarly, I'd expect a hand showing 3145/3154 to really show 31(3+)(?).

[straube]

kenrexford said:

FWIW, I'm NOT saying that I think this 2344/3244 approach is ideal. I'm just saying that the argument against seemed silly. I find a lot of the really obscure notrump agreements to be so remotely applicable that they are not worth much of the trouble.

My intial criticism was...

straube said:

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

My argument against has been that the target pattern/strength is too narrow and that the bid could better be used for something else. I also pointed out that a balanced hand of 14+ can explore beyond 3N as it has more safety than other hands of lesser strength. Anyway, you're not defending this use so perhaps you agree that it isn't a good use for that sequence.

kenrexford said:

For example, the 3415 hand is fairly easy, with two options (Stayman or Puppet stayman), depending on what you want to do with it. Completion of picture depends on what develops.  The 4135 hand also seems fairly easy after Stayman. I don't get that one.

The key phrase here is "depends on what develops". It's easy to give a picture bid if partner bids your major. It's less easy if partner doesn't. There are methods to cope with this, but few players actually use them.

kenrexford said:

The 4522 vs 4513 problem (describing this below 3NT) seems somewhat strange to me, because I don't know why i care about describing this before I reach that level.

Because you might belong in a 5-2 major suit fit or a 5-3 or 6-3 minor suit fit. Responder can show 4513 (for example) and opener might hold KJx Ax Jxx AKxxx. It can also assist slam bidding as well as game bidding.

kenrexford said:

The 3-2-3-5 hand is interesting, though, I'll agree.

Imo, the balanced hands might as well ask as show because it keeps captaincy in one hand. Space below 3N should be conserved for distributional hands. Big balanced hands should ask strength with a 2S size ask and then subsequently relay opener for his shape (if responder is satisfied that opener's strength is sufficient). These relays can run very high but should be used primarily to find the best slam and not to decide whether to slam.

[kenrexford]

Fair points. I suppose that perhaps 3NT contracts that go down might be less a matter of bad luck and perhaps a matter of an unsound set of basic assumptions, namely that notrump auctions should be:

1. get out effectively with weak distributional hands
2. explore the major(s) for fit or 3NT, or
3. move effectively toward slam

A creep of "right strain for game" thinking might perhaps be improved by even more and more of that thinking.

Now, I'm undecided.

[straube]

I think with a very marginal GF hand that responder may do better not to disclose his full pattern but focus on finding major suit fits. I use 2N as a bludgeon tool to do this (also works for most of the balanced hands). Perhaps I'll be lucky and they won't find the opening lead that sets 3N. Perhaps not, but I'm not interested in gearing my system for bailing into 4m although sometimes that would be right.

I use 4m as slam tools so I'm not able to sign off there if 3N looks bad and 5m is too high. I don't think of it as a loss really. My rule is that showing shortness shows interest in a 5-level contract if 3N doesn't look good. It only requires a point or two more than a minimal GF depending on shape. I don't want opener bidding 3N for fear that 5m isn't a make when he has a suit poorly stopped.

But showing shortness can also result in 3N and 4M contracts.

[P_Marlowe]

4NT is very agressive, but it is not a hopeless bid.

It would be better to check for a possible minor suit fit.

If I cant, I would simply sign of in 3NT.

Bidding 3NT becomes obvious, if you regular upgrad hands
to be able to open with 1NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nige1]

Mbodell, on Mar 17 2010, 05:18 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1nt (15-17) - P - ??

---

IMO

• Explore for minor suit slam = 10.
  
• Lacking relevant agreements, 3N = 9.
  
• Opposite a good and lucky declarer, 4N = 8.

[Cascade]

Like others I want to be in slam if:

1 We have a fit

2 We have sufficient controls

3 Partner is maximum

Therefore I can only conclude if the options are 3NT or 4NT that the methods are woefully inadequate.

[Dirk Kuijt]

FWIW

I tried a simulation of this situation:

1NT = 15-17 balanced (includes a 5 card major if 5-3-3-2)
4♠ = 3=2=4=4 with 14+ or 2=3=4=4 with 14+

In 1,000,000 deals, dealer opened 1NT on 48535 occasions. The 4♠ bid occurred on 134 instances, which is about 0.28% of the time, or 1 in 362.

Whether that is frequent enough to justify this meaning for 4♠ I will leave to others.

[jmcw]

If 4N is quantatative then its too rich for my blood. If you cam make a minor suit enquiry and still get out at 4NT then thats the route I'd take. I have a 3♠ call available to show this hand type but admittedly some good fortune may still be required

[1eyedjack]

I am not that keen on either 4S or 4N because I believe that in a sensible method you can obtain a lot of helpful information about opener's hand (or describe yoiur own) below 3N

[nigel_k]

I would definitely investigate a minor suit slam if I had the methods to do so. This hand has pretty good cards for 6 of a minor.

Otherwise a direct 4NT is simply an overbid. You don't want to be in 6NT with two balanced hands and 32 HCP or sometimes 31. It's in all the books. Just bid your hand normally.