[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

1♣-1♦!-(1♠)
2NT-??
 
1♦=transfer ♥
Partner showed 18-19 pts balanced hand, a stop in ♠, 3+c♣
He could DBL with a 3c♥, but with 3c♥ he can also choice to bid 2NT (eg with good double stop ♠ and balanced hand).
How do you evaluate your hand? Will you bid Game, invite slam, force slam?
You can now bid:
3♦=transfer ♥, partner will accept with 3c♥ (If partner does not accept then 4♥ shows slam interest, better hand then direct 4♦)
4♦=transfer ♥
4♥=slam force ♥
(No agreement what 3♥ iso 3♦ would be, without the 1♠ bid it would be transfer ♠, but here it is probably same as 3♦, but preference to play in own hand).
Remark: You can't show you shortage in ♣

[dake50]

Expect partner has significant C-values. So 3NT.

[kgr]

dake50, on Mar 27 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

Expect partner has significant C-values. So 3NT.

I never thought 3NT would play better then 4♥ opposite 18-19 balanced. It is possible that partner has no, or few, ♣ honours.

[gnasher]

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Mar 28 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

[jdonn]

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

If partner has xx or xxx in spades, his 2NT bid is at least questionable. What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

[cherdanno]

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 28 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

I hope this was typed at 6 am after a heavy party with lots of alcohol. With ♥KQx, I assume Stefanie would make a support double and later offer NT. And a simulation that ignores the fact that partner opted to bid 2NT when he had alternatives is worse than useless.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Mar 28 2010, 01:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 28 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

I would make one try but not force past game. If partner has xx(x) of spades he knows that is bad anyway if he will declare, even if I have the ace.

If partner has xx or xxx in spades, his 2NT bid is at least questionable. What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

Well I have to give you that one. That makes my hand better anyway so now I have no qualms about trying for slam.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

Lets first find out, if p has 3 card support.

If he has 3 card support I will investigate slam,
otherwise sign off.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[lamford]

cherdanno, on Mar 28 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 28 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

I'd just sign off in 4♥.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%.

Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support."

Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it.

I hope this was typed at 6 am after a heavy party with lots of alcohol. With ♥KQx, I assume Stefanie would make a support double and later offer NT. And a simulation that ignores the fact that partner opted to bid 2NT when he had alternatives is worse than useless.

The simulation stipulated that partner was 18-19 with a spade stopper and 2-3 hearts. And that West had a One Spade overcall.

I would suggest that a simulation based on somebody else's methods is even worse than useless. We are told that 2NT did not preclude having 3 hearts, and I think the right method to show the balanced hand with KQx of hearts is to bid 2NT and then break a transfer to hearts.

I would also say that a posting that imposes your views on how the hand should be bid, rather than the methods we are advised, is also worse than useless.

[lamford]

dburn, on Mar 28 2010, 01:52 PM, said:

What would it mean if I were to bid 3♠ at this point? Because if that would be a control-bid for hearts, I would quite like to bid it.

It might take the strain off the ox opposite a bit to transfer to hearts first and then bid 3♠. Quite a few partners might interpret that sequence as a control-bid for hearts.

[cherdanno]

I assume the methods given in the original post. If you have more information about the OP's methods, then you could have let us known.
It seems clear that the OP's methods gives you a choice whether to show 3-card support with 18-19 balanced. With an ace rather than a slow stopper and KQx support it would seem obvious to me stress the support rather than the stopper.

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

[lamford]

cherdanno, on Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I assume the methods given in the original post. If you have more information about the OP's methods, then you could have let us known.
It seems clear that the OP's methods gives you a choice whether to show 3-card support with 18-19 balanced. With an ace rather than a slow stopper and KQx support it would seem obvious to me stress the support rather than the stopper.

If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly. If that is useless to you, then don't bother reading it or commenting on it. I did not claim any extra knowledge of the pair's methods.

With a double stopper in spades and KQx support providing a source of tricks and a 4-3-3-3 shape, it seems obvious to me to stress the balanced hand and the stopper at the same time; there is still room to get to hearts. Why put all hands with 3 hearts through a support double?

The OP goes out of its way to indicate which hands might bid 2NT when they have three hearts: "eg with good double stop ♠ and balanced hand". Silly me! I decided to believe these were the methods, not the ones you think they should be.

[kgr]

---

1♣-1♦!-(1♠)
2NT-3♦!
3♥!-3♠!
4♣!-4♥
6♥-all pass
 
1♣=We open 5542
1♦=transfer ♥
2NT=18-19, mostly no 3c♥
3♦=transfer ♥, 5+c♥
3♥=3c♥ (my partner thought that KQ was enough support after not support DBL first
3♠=1st/2nd control
4♣=1st/2nd control (better hand then non-serious 3NT)
 
6♥-1 after a ♠ lead and a ruff. Should South convert to 6NT against not experts?

[lamford]

No

[lmilne]

Unless I'm missing something, 6NT rates to go down at least as many tricks as 6H.

[lamford]

and what did partner have that justified this leap to 6H after your sign-off?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 KQ is certainly reasonable support, but it is not a 3 carder.
Sry, he sells the hand as having a good stopper in spades
with 3 hearts, just ask him - does this bears any resamblance
with the hand he holds?
Did South promise a 6 carder? If South has only A to 5th,
you still need hearts to be 3-3 to avoid a heart looser, so
the answer is - no, KQ is not sufficient to be sold a 3 card support.
#2 Why should South convert to 6NT?
Does South know, that the partnership has both minor suit Aces?
Of course South needs to control the minors, but ..., and of course
6H is ..., sry if you play sophisticated method, the players should stick
to their agreements, otherwise it is just wildly guessing, and you are
better of without those agreements.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I didn't read all the trash lamford said, but I agree with gnasher, 28 balanced with no fit, and nowhere to hide the awful spades. Tempting to bid just 3NT, but 4♥ is probably sounder.