from the women's international trial final
judyorcarl
A954; A42; J; 107532
and third hand had
Q6; KQ53; A102; AKQ9
At both tables, the auction was
P - 2NT; 3C - 3H; 3NT - P.
And one of these teams needed imps desperately.
Joey Silver commented on what a slam-killer the 2NT opening is.
This was not the only case in this finals when players acted as if
they thought they were playing matchpoints.
But the fact remains that after a natural 1C opening and a very strong
rebid, the weaker hand would have pushed hard for slam. Seems to me
if you're not willing to adopt elaborate methods for investigating
minors, you would do better to agree *never* to open 2NT.
On another matter, the recent anthology "The Dragon Done It" includes
a Randall Garrett alternate-history detective story from 1964. I had
forgotten that it includes reference to techniques of forensic magic:
the Kaplan-Sheinwold system and the Jacoby transfer method.
Carl
Otis Bricker
advanced that you NEVER show a 20 point hand. You either upgrade it to
21 or downgrade it to 19.
Since this one is short controls, it gets downgraded.
1C-1S
2N-3C
3D-3N If the 3C/3N sequence suggests a mildly slammish hand, Opener
should be happy to cooperate having a super-max, great trump and the
only loose Honor is the Q in partners other suit.
Otis
Bo-Yin Yang
I admit that I sort of like the idea that Truscott and Rosenkranz
advanced that you NEVER show a 20 point hand. You either upgrade it to
21 or downgrade it to 19.
I don't remember Dr. Rosenkranz having this problem anyway, and Truscott, well, we know how good a theoretician he is. In Romex, you open 1N with most 20 balanced and 20 count unbalanced hands that you don't want to force to game, and 2C with those unbalanced 20-counts that you DO want to force to game.
The biggest problem nowadays seems to be that people are opening so light that they have trouble finding enough bids for their no-trump ladder.
Judy & Carl Weisman
Bo-Yin Yang
Speaking of Rosenkrantz, his 1975 idea of 3S as Confi obliterates this deal.
I had the recollection that in Romex, CONFI(T) shows a balanced hand.
in fact in later Romex this hand has a problem: 1N (19-20 BAL or near-game unBAL) opening,
2D (positive without three honor cards) response, 2N rebid showing 19-20, and the responder
can't catch up. In the 1975 version of Romex, I believe that a 2D opening bid showing 19-20
followed some complex shape-showing responses that pinpoints the diamond shortness will
lead speedily to 6C.
judyorcarl
method applicable to any balanced-hand opening. You would establish
first that slam is in range, and then show suits with the agreement
that all suits below slam are forcing.
But this is **not** a problem of the range of the 2NT opening.
Suppose the range was 21-22 with the heart ace and king interchanged.
Or 22-24 with the heart ace and queen interchanged, Or . . .
No it's a matter of mindset and method.
Carl
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Judy & Carl Weisman <JudyOrC...@verizon.net>
Andy Latto
>
> I admit that I sort of like the idea that Truscott and Rosenkranz
> advanced that you NEVER show a 20 point hand. You either upgrade it to
> 21 or downgrade it to 19.
What does this mean?
Joe explains his 2NT rebids as 18-bad 20, and his 2NT opener as good 20-22
Fred follows the Truscott-Rosenkranz suggestion, and explains his 2NT
rebids as 18-19, and his 2NT opener as 21-22
It seems to me that Joe and Fred are bidding all hands in exactly the
same way, and are therefore playing the same system, even though one
is following the Truscott-Rosencranz suggestion and one isn't.
The only difference I can see is that Fred is giving misleading
information to his opponents about his system, unless "We never
evaluate a hand as worth 20 points" is written next to his 2NT range
on his convention card.
Bo-Yin Yang
>
> I had the recollection that in Romex, CONFI(T) shows a balanced hand.
It wasn't specific to Romex. It was presented in Bridge World as a
method applicable to any balanced-hand opening. You would establish
first that slam is in range, and then show suits with the agreement
that all suits below slam are forcing.
No, it wasn't specific to Romex, but CONFI(T) in any system shows
a balanced hand -- this is why the number of controls is so important.
> [A954; A42; J; 107532 facing Q6; KQ53; A102; AKQ9]
> unBAL) opening, 2D (positive without three honor cards) response, 2N
> rebid showing 19-20, and the responder can't catch up.
But this is **not** a problem of the range of the 2NT opening.
Suppose the range was 21-22 with the heart ace and king interchanged.
Or 22-24 with the heart ace and queen interchanged, Or . . .
Sure it is. If you have to show this general shape and range with 2NT,
before partner showed any distributional features, you don't have space
to find the club fit and the diamond stiff.
If you open 2C or 2D to show balanced 19-20, then you have lots more
space, ditto if you open 1N to show 17-20, or if you opened a strong club
and got to bid unimpeded, so ranges do matter on this deal.
No it's a matter of mindset and method.
> In the 1975 version of Romex, I believe that a 2D opening
> bid showing 19-20 followed some complex shape-showing
> responses that pinpoints the diamond shortness will
> lead speedily to 6C.
Yes, it's a matter of method. But I was trying to point out that the name
CONFIT applied to a convention that SHOWS a hand without shortness,
and agreeing with your initial post that opening 2N makes slam bidding hard.
Ron
if we can all agree on some basic common ground?
1= Of course 2N Openings eat up a lot of space and are therefore
often called "the slam killer".
2= But that is not the primary problem here since no matter how you
slice it sooner or later =some= hand type has to be opened 2N.
3= Widening the range of the steps in your NT ladder or removing
steps from it (say by using 2N to show a 55 instead of a flat hand)
will make your evaluation problems ATT more difficult. Not easier.
4= The more bids you allocate to a hand type, the less you have for
everything else. The cost to benefit ratio is not always worth it.
Hence using 2D! to show big flat hands has not become mainstream.
5= Whatever you Open Qx_KQxx_ATx_AKQ9 systemically, where We end up
on this board is a matter of judgement.
Sure you have more space after 1C-1S;2N-?? than you do
after 2N-??, but the bottom line is that Responder has to evaluate
their hand properly for Us to have any chance of reaching a slam here.
Frankly, holding 4 controls and 9 HCP opposite the average 7.5
control 20-21 HCP 2N opening is going to excite me more than it would
if i was opposite the average 6.5 control 18-19 HCP 2N rebid.
6= However, in =either= case if I am Resp I am trying for slam.
Why? Because in either case the expectation of the two hands is 10+
controls. Which as we all know, means these hands are in slam territory.
We certainly rate to have safety past 3N. There's no reason not to
at least make some kind of slam try.
The real problem here is that neither Resp bothered to even try for
slam. Not that the 2N opening robbed them of the chance.
Relatively "low tech" methods might lead to an auction like:
2N-3S+;4C-4S;-??
Oh look. Resp has shown 5 C's, 4 S's, and a hand strong enough for
Us to be safe at the 4N or higher level.
Better methods or a lower level start might make matters easier, but
the fundamental fact is that Resp has to make a push if We are ever
going to find the slam here.
Looks to me that if the auction starts along any lines where Resp
makes such a push, We are very likely to get to 6C with the given hands.
Ron Peacetree
At 07:49 PM 5/29/2008, judyorcarl wrote:
>In the final segment of the just-finished women's trials, dealer had
>
>A954_A42_J_T7532
>
>and third hand had
>
>Q6_KQ53_AT2_AKQ9
Otis Bricker
long since I read the book this came from but I seem to remember them
saying something to the effect that you simply never show that count.
Maybe someone has the T&R book handy. When you show 18-19 and have a bad
20, you are misinforming everyone including partner. Same when you show
21-22 and have a good 20. Hand evaluation is not exact. Several years
ago the ACBL Bulletin had an article arguing that a 14 HCP hand should
be opened a 16-18 NT. People often upgrade and downgrade hands. Partner
always bids assuming the stated range.
Though, as you say, it would be better to let opponents know that you
never show 20.
And I am not sure this is a widening the NT range as Bo-Yin says. It is
a discontinuity. You have removed the 20's from partnership consideration.
On a similar matter, I seem to remember our own AdamW making me play 2N
as 23-24 and 2C then 2N as 21-22 back in college. I think his argument
was that the 2C sequence allowed better development and should show the
more common hand.
Otis
Walt
Walt
Otis Bricker
FIt. It was intended to help determine if enough controls existed to
look for slam over NT bids. I found a writeup on it over 1N here
http://home.tiscalinet.de/k-wiese/konvent/CONFI.htm
It was also written up in his Romex books from the 70's I think. He
dropped it in his later methods.
judyorcarl
with 5431, mostly because you don't preempt finding a fit in your 3-
card.
I checked Rosenkranz's 1975 "Win with Romex." On the indicated hand,
he would have bid (in his range-independent "No-Trump Complex) 3C,
followed by 4C. He doesn't indicate in any examples how he would have
reached 6H if opener had had KQxxx.
Carl
Bo-Yin Yang
I can tell you that based on 20 years of experience, ConFi works great
with 5431, mostly because you don't preempt finding a fit in your 3-
card.
Ok, that's fine, if it works for you it works. We can agree to disagree.
showing 19-20 BAL, and I am not sure how it would go afterwards.
-- Bo-Yin
Adam Wildavsky
> On a similar matter, I seem to remember our own AdamW making me play 2N
> as 23-24 and 2C then 2N as 21-22 back in college. I think his argument
> was that the 2C sequence allowed better development and should show the
> more common hand.
That was something I learned from Edgar -- he used to play it with
Betty. Norman wouldn't go for it though. The exact ranges aren't
important, the trick is swapping the ranges for 2N openings and 2C
followed by 2N, in a system with KS control showing responses to 2C. I
didn't play the method often enough to get a feel for how effective it
was. I've tried something more radical with Brian Glubok, opening 2C
with balanced 19 counts or so, with a different set of responses.
Brian may also have gotten the idea from Edgar. I likewise haven't
played this one often enough to judge how well it works.
--
Adam Wildavsky <ad...@tameware.com> www.tameware.com
Chris
Per “Godfrey’s Stairways to the Stars,” 2D was changed to 21-22 or 27-28 HCP balanced or a strong 2D. So Rosenkranz would have opened 1NT and reached the slam on the following auction:
S-A954
H-A42
D-J
C-107532
S-Q6
H-KQ53
D-A102
C-AKQ9
1NT 2D …6+ HCP and 0-2 controls or 3-4 controls but only 2 cover cards
2NT 3C …Romex stayman
3H 3S …3H = 4 or 5 hearts; not 4 spades 3S = how many hearts
3N 4C …3N = 4 hearts, so opener is 3-4-x-y or 2-4-x-y and is likely to have a club fit 4C = slam try with 5 clubs
4D 4N …4D = RKCB for clubs 4N = 2, no queen
6C P
To be making a slam try, responder must have shortness, and it must be in either spades or diamonds. If it were in spades, then responder’s shape would be 1-3-54 and he would have responded differently. So responder’s shortness is in diamonds. You have 11 tricks off the top--5 clubs + 1 ruff + H-AKQ + D-A + S-A--with at least three chances for a twelfth (2-2 club split; S-K onside; squeeze in hearts and spades). So bid slam.
This Romex Stayman sequence is in “Bid To Win Play for Pleasure” page 351. Over the 4C bid, opener’s choices are:
- 4D = RKCB for clubs
- 4H = cue bid for clubs
- 4S = cue bid for clubs
- 4N, 5C = signoffs
I’ve always been amazed at Rosenkranz’s slam machinery.
From: kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com [mailto:kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bo-Yin Yang
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:56 PM
To: kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: from the women's
international trial final
Hello,
judyorcarl
way way too cautious.
A semi-regular partner of mine changed my mind.
The big hand should have foreseen her partner's problem and arranged
somehow to bid clubs naturally. After all, there are many many weak-
looking hands for partner where 6C is laydown and the club weakness
will prevent her from thinking of introducing them.
For example, K(x); AJ(x); xx(x); xxxxxx.
If partner thinks the big hand has 5 clubs, well, no law of nature
says this must lead to catastrophe.
Carl
henry...@yahoo.com
hope, in spite of what reputation may precede me rofl, that I can
constructively comment here.
On the hands in question:
A954; A42; J; 107532
Q6; KQ53; A102; AKQ9
one would think that since as weak a hand as
xx
KQxx
Axx
AKxx
might be enough for slam, if clubs break 2-2, that responder is worth
at least a natural 4c bid over 3h, assuming that such an agreement was
in place. After the 4c rebid, I would expect the auction to go 2nt
3c; 3h 4c; 4d 4h; 5c ?
and now responder has to take the push, but I can't see the long term
value of simply signing off in game.
Henrysun909
Barbara Allen and David Morgan
> A954; A42; J; 107532
>
> Q6; KQ53; A102; AKQ9
>
> one would think that since as weak a hand as
>
> xx
> KQxx
> Axx
> AKxx
>
> might be enough for slam, if clubs break 2-2, that responder is worth
> at least a natural 4c bid over 3h, assuming that such an agreement was
> in place.
Along those lines, the best test IMO is still Culbertson's rule as
described by Jeff Rubens in "The Secrets of Winning Bridge": if a
perfect minimum will make slam laydown then investigate. (My caveat
would be: provided that the investigation will allow you to find out if
partner has such a hand. Here, it's not clear that will be the case as
the key is the lack of duplication in D.)
> After the 4c rebid, I would expect the auction to go 2nt
> 3c; 3h 4c; 4d 4h; 5c ?
>
> and now responder has to take the push,
Hard for responder to do with a minimum and no C honours.
Note also that the auction is not quite as simple as it seems. Switch
O's ace from D to S and could he bid 4S to show that? Or would 4S show
4=4=x=y and be natural, to play, assuming responder, who doesn't have
4H, has 4S. Plenty to think about here and, surprisingly, little
addressed in KSU (by contrast to the discussion of analogous auctions
after a 1N opening).
David
judyorcarl
Carl
On Aug 6, 6:10 am, Barbara Allen and David Morgan <b...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
Otis Bricker
>
> Note also that the auction is not quite as simple as it seems. Switch
> O's ace from D to S and could he bid 4S to show that? Or would 4S show
> 4=4=x=y and be natural, to play, assuming responder, who doesn't have
> 4H, has 4S. Plenty to think about here and, surprisingly, little
> addressed in KSU (by contrast to the discussion of analogous auctions
> after a 1N opening).
>
>
Is it that surprising that a set of simple notes didn't spend as much
time on a 2N bid that comes up about 1/50 as much as 1N?
I don't mean that 2N auctions aren't worth discussing. Just that they
are less important than many other auctions based on Return On
Investment. So why invest as much effort in documenting these methods?
Otis
henry...@yahoo.com
analogously ambiguous to the 1nt 2c 2h 3m 3s auction.
One of the reasons I like puppet stayman over 2nt is that it removes
some of the major suit length ambiguities in these kinds of auction.
Having said that, if opener's hand had been
ATx
KQxx
Qx
AKQx
I would think that in the interest of avoiding ambiguity in an
undiscussed auction (this assumes no agreement on whether 3h/3s rebids
here are natural or control showing), that opener would simply raise
to 5c.
Henrysun909
On Aug 6, 3:10 am, Barbara Allen and David Morgan <b...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
Ron
Because this is a WC caliber event and anyone playing at the level
should be ready to deal with the fact that 2N openings are called
"the slam killer" for good reason?
Ron
Otis Bricker
I was referring to the lack of detail in the KSU notes about 2N
openings. I would imagine that anyone in a high level event would have
more details worked out than the notes provide for opening 2N and for
many other areas. Leo and I never were at that level and even we had
covered more than the notes did. But most of our discussions were on
other areas where there was more profit to be had.
Which is the more profitable use of time? Providing great detail on a
common sequence and little for a rare one or providing less on the
common one but equal detail on both? I would think it quite likely that
the first strategy would win. Certainly, it would be better to provide
great detail on both sequences but this incurs higher costs. If your
time or memory is limited, focus on the common. I think that was the
case with KSU. It wasn't meant to be an epic.
Otis
Barbara Allen and David Morgan
David
Otis Bricker
Sorry if I am being dense but I am not sure what principles you mean. We
seem to be in very different situations when we open 1N as opposed to 2N.
After 1N we are most likely looking at a part-score and sometimes a
game. Slam will be very rare and it isn't that unusual for it to be the
opponents hand. After 2N, game is very likely, slam not too unlikely and
the opponents will never have the majority of the HCP. It seems that
methods would be rather different to cater to these.
In fact, I kind of the idea of playing Flint rather than transfers over
2N. It lets you tell parter in one bid that you are looking for game+,
leaving him space to cooperate. NOt sure it is best but I can see some
advantages.
Otis
Barbara Allen and David Morgan
Barbara Allen and David Morgan wrote:
I agree with that philosophy but was surprised given that the principles that apply after a 1N opening could just as easily apply after a 2N opening, allowing for the fact that stopper-showing for 3N is no longer relevant.Sorry if I am being dense but I am not sure what principles you mean. We seem to be in very different situations when we open 1N as opposed to 2N.
David
Otis Bricker
Now I start to understand!
But even with this limited understanding, I still have issues. For example.
1N-2C-2H-3D-3S shows spades is fine because responder can bid something
other than 4S. There is still room to clarify and explore.
2N-3C-3H-4D-4S is not so easy to deal with for obvious reasons.
And given that 2N could hold a 5c M and the style of 2N opening that
seems common on RGB, I'm not sure stopper showing is not still relevant
or at best replaced by more need to deal with original major length.
I do like similar sequences to have similar meanings. I am getting old
and forgetful. I'm not sure how to do that as much as you would seem to
like here. But I would welcome it whole-heartedly!
Otis
henry...@yahoo.com
the weak 1nt sequence 1nt 2c 2h 2s cannot be used analogously with the
2nt 3c 3h 3s sequence (note that KSU does not even discuss the latter
sequence). The former is "nonforcing; highly invitational, 5-card or
longer suit" which is obviously nonsensical after a 2nt opening bid.
So perhaps those who do not use some form of Puppet Stayman should use
3s here to show a 4-card spade suit and ask opener whether he is 4-4
in the majors (simple scheme:
3nt = no
4c = yes with a tripleton club
4c = yes with a tripleton diamond
Then, after 2nt 3c 3h 4m, it would be assumed that responder is not
interested in a 4-4 spade fit and hence a 4s rebid by opener would be
unambiguously a qbid. That doesn't solve the problem of the 4h rebid,
however, which leads me back to the idea that Puppet Stayman is an
improvement over normal Stayman if the 2nt opening bid can include a
5M.
Henrysun909
Adam Wildavsky
All that said, I don't like the 3S asking bid. As my partner Doug Doub pointed out to me recently, it is more useful to have the weak hand describe itself. I'll continue to use 3S over 3H as an artificial heart slam try -- how else would I make a try below game?
I don't play as often as some, perhaps 80 sessions a year, but I gave up Puppet Stayman over 20 years ago and haven't missed it.
AW
henry...@yahoo.com
(1) the ambiguity of which I spoke was 2nt 3c 3h 4m 4h - is that
affirming a 5 card heart suit, or showing top honors and inviting slam
in responder's minor?
(2) If one does choose to use 2nt 3c 3nt as 4-4 majors, then it seems
to me that the issue of minor suit slams could be solved thus:
4c = courtesy slam try in a minor. Opener rebid 4d, and responder
rebids 4h = clubs and 4s = diamonds. Opener accepts with a maximum
plus a fit.
4d = transfer to hearts
4h = transfer to spades
4s = serious slam try in clubs. Opener rejects with a minimum and a
misfit.
4nt = serious slam try in diamonds. Opener rejects with a minimum and
a misfit.
That's not a symmetrical solution since the transfers intervene, but
it seems workable to me.
Henrysun909
> This is an interesting idea. By the problem of the 4H rebid do you mean 2N
> 3c 3S 4m 4H? That could be solved if opener always bid 3H with 4-4 in the
> majors. Alternatively, some of the issues in this thread could be addressed
> by having opener respond 3N with 4-4 in the majors. One problem with that is
> that we'd like for responder to be able to transfer into his major over 3N,
> but that makes it more difficult for responder to show a one-suited minor
> hand.
>
> All that said, I don't like the 3S asking bid. As my partner Doug Doub
> pointed out to me recently, it is more useful to have the weak hand describe
> itself. I'll continue to use 3S over 3H as an artificial heart slam try --
> how else would I make a try below game?
>
> I don't play as often as some, perhaps 80 sessions a year, but I gave up
> Puppet Stayman over 20 years ago and haven't missed it.
>
> AW
>
Barbara Allen and David Morgan
Henry is right about a 3S-rebid after 2N-3C-3H and his suggestion is a reasonable one but suffers from a number of flaws IMO:
1. It makes responder declarer when there is a S fit, which is usually less advantageous than having the strong hand hidden.
2. As Adam notes, it takes away responder's below-game slam try agreeing H.
3. It's almost always better for the UNBAL hand to describe itself to the BAL one than have the (in this case potentially) UNBAL one ask the BAL one about its shape. Reason: the BAL hand can tell whether partner's shortage is opposite xxx or KQx, the UNBAL hand can't. (For that reason, if I were to use 3S as Henry proposes my 4m (and 4H) rebids would show values that would be wasted opposite a SPL -- an antiSPL. Often a more effective method of determining how well the hands fit.)
4. As Adam notes, it is often better for the strong hand to ask rather than the weak one (although my research suggests that, unless the strength discrepancy is huge, then the BAL-hand rule still applies).
David
henry...@yahoo.com
For that reason, if not playing Puppet Stayman, I prefer that 3nt =
both majors with the courtesy/serious minor suit slam tries and
transfer rebids by responder.
Henrysun909
On Aug 9, 9:23 pm, Barbara Allen and David Morgan <b...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
> > <mailto:henrysun...@yahoo.com> <henrysun...@yahoo.com
>
> > At the risk of displaying my non KS tendencies, it seems to me that
> > the weak 1nt sequence 1nt 2c 2h 2s cannot be used analogously with the
> > 2nt 3c 3h 3s sequence (note that KSU does not even discuss the latter
> > sequence). The former is "nonforcing; highly invitational, 5-card or
> > longer suit" which is obviously nonsensical after a 2nt opening bid.
>
> > So perhaps those who do not use some form of Puppet Stayman should use
> > 3s here to show a 4-card spade suit and ask opener whether he is 4-4
> > in the majors (simple scheme:
>
> > 3nt = no
> > 4c = yes with a tripleton club
> > 4c = yes with a tripleton diamond
>
> > Then, after 2nt 3c 3h 4m, it would be assumed that responder is not
> > interested in a 4-4 spade fit and hence a 4s rebid by opener would be
> > unambiguously a qbid. That doesn't solve the problem of the 4h rebid,
> > however, which leads me back to the idea that Puppet Stayman is an
> > improvement over normal Stayman if the 2nt opening bid can include a
> > 5M.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve Willner
> Henry is right about a 3S-rebid after 2N-3C-3H and his suggestion is a
> reasonable one but suffers from a number of flaws IMO:
I think you can improve Henry's suggestion by a relatively simple
change: use 3NT to promise four spades and no slam ambitions (at least
in hearts or notrump, though possibly in spades). Opener can pass
without spades or with them bid 4S or perhaps bid 4m with an extra-good
hand. Responder bids 3S for everything else, puppet to 3NT, and then
continues to describe. Thus all bids above 3NT have two routes to get
to them; you can separate slam tries in hearts from other meanings. I
am far from sure this scheme is worth the memory trouble, but it seems
workable.
An entirely different scheme is the triple puppet idea published in TBW
some years ago. The method was intended for use over weak NT, but I
don't see why a similar scheme wouldn't work over 2NT. The basic idea
is that 2C, 2D, and 2NT responses to 1NT are all puppets to the next
bid; responder can pass or bid further to describe various hands.
Direct 2S is signoff; spade invitations and game forces go via one of
the puppets. Obviously there are an enormous number of sequences
available to reach bids above 3C, probably far more than actually
needed. Has anyone used this scheme or thought about whether it's good
or bad? Or whether it will work over 2NT (perhaps with minor
modifications)?
What I'd really love is a scheme that would work over all NT bids,
including 1NT and 2NT rebids. That's probably impossible or someone
would have suggested something by now.
Adam Wildavsky
From: Barbara Allen and David Morgan <ba...@bigpond.com>
> Henry is right about a 3S-rebid after 2N-3C-3H and his suggestion is a[2NT-3C-3H-?]
> reasonable one but suffers from a number of flaws IMO:
I think you can improve Henry's suggestion by a relatively simple
change: use 3NT to promise four spades and no slam ambitions (at least
in hearts or notrump, though possibly in spades). Opener can pass
without spades or with them bid 4S or perhaps bid 4m with an extra-good
hand. Responder bids 3S for everything else, puppet to 3NT, and then
continues to describe. Thus all bids above 3NT have two routes to get
to them; you can separate slam tries in hearts from other meanings. I
am far from sure this scheme is worth the memory trouble, but it seems
workable.
One disadvantage of the scheme is that it gives the opponents help on opening lead. 3N is our most frequent destination, and on every deal where 3S is bid the opening leader knows whether or not his partner doubled it.
Steven Willner
Adam Wildavsky wrote:
> One disadvantage of the scheme is that it gives the opponents help on
> opening lead. 3N is our most frequent destination, and on every deal
> where 3S is bid the opening leader knows whether or not his partner
> doubled it.
When 3S is bid, it tends to _deny_ spades; thus the usual destination
_in 3S auctions_ will be hearts (and less commonly a minor, rarely slam
in spades). This is not to deny Adam's valid point about the
disadvantage. Another one, perhaps more severe, is that the opponent's
double of 3S may lead to a profitable sacrifice over the eventual heart
contract. Whatever the disadvantages may be, they exist at some level
every time responder bids 3S in this auction.
One thing this suggests to me is that the 3S bid should be reserved for
strong hands. That will make it less common, and light or short lead-
directing doubles will risk a business redouble.
Fred Curtis
FWIW if you play
2NT - 3C as some form of modified puppet Stayman
?
the obvious answer is to shuffle the responses to provide useful information ie 3D still no 5M but some 4M,
3H= neither 4 nor 5M – which ,leaves room for responder to bid 3S with 5S & 4H without any necessity to hold values above game
3S= 5S
3NT= 5H with a retransfer available
Assuming immediate responses of 3D & 3H as transfers to the respective Majors, that leaves 3S/NT and 4-level available.
Although I am in favour of utilising 3S as a puppet to 3NT (and 3NT as a puppet to 4C to allow most slam-oriented hands with C to be explored) in theory my experience with any partner has been that regardless of experience they will pass in the 2NT-3NT sequence!!!
Thus one may be reduced to 3S as a minor 2-suiter with at least some potential slam interest but frequently a 3NT rejection is sufficient to stifle it; 4any as next suit up transfers showing at least 6 cards in the suit above and opener may accept the transfer below game as an ask, or respond with a non-game bid in the suit to show Keycards or a game bid in the suit as a rejection…the latter ideas shamelessly stolen (if slightly modified) from ROMEX
Regards,
Fred
From: kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Barbara Allen and David Morgan
Sent: Sunday, 10 August 2008 2:23
PM
To:
kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: from the women's
international trial final
Hmmm -- the trouble with making imprecise suggestions is that one spends much longer clarifying than if one had taken the time at the beginning.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1603 - Release Date: 8/10/2008 6:13 PM