[Coelacanth]

IMPs, 7-board matches

---

Is passing obvious here, or is this close to a 2♣ call? If you would pass, how much better would this hand have to be to get you to bid 2♣?

[gszes]

nice simple easy 2c bid if p bids 2d or 2h bid 2n if p bids
2s bid 4s not even that close of a decision vul at imps:))

[Winstonm]

I see an obvious 2C.

[ggwhiz]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-28, 11:09, said:

I see an obvious 2C.

I agree with the agreement that over a 2♥ response, 2♠ shows exactly 4 of them with invitational values.

[ArtK78]

I guess I am just more pessimistic than most. I see this as an obvious pass or transfer to 3♣ intending to play it there.

[karlson]

I can't imagine passing.

[broze]

Several very good players I know in England play the style that 1N-2C-2whatever-3m is non-forcing to play. Ergo 1NT-minor transfer-accept-3M is nat game forcing. This is a great hand for this treatment.

Playing standard I would always bid 2C with this, esp at IMPs vul with a game bonus to protect.

[fromageGB]

Not obvious, but possible. Having recently given up on stayman then 2NT to play, I wouldn't invite.
I prefer 1NT 2♣ 2♦/♥ 2NT transfer to 3♣ and pass. If opener has both majors he will bid 3♠ over 2NT.

[Codo]

I would pass. My partners always bid hearts in this situation.

[Zelandakh]

broze, on 2013-May-28, 13:26, said:

Several very good players I know in England play the style that 1N-2C-2whatever-3m is non-forcing to play.

One option is to play that 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2NT is a puppet to 3♣, which can be useful on some hands like this. It does require 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2♠ to promise 4 spades though, which in turn requires that you have an immediate response (eg 2♠) for showing an invite without a major (unless you think that this hand type does not exist).

[MrAce]

I would definetely bid 2♣

I can not critisize passers but i can not disagree more with those who considers transfer to clubs with only 5 card suit and a very suitable hand to play 1NT. Our side has at least 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff ♥. Why would i risk playing partscore at 3 level even if we have a ♣ fit, when i can play it at 1 level, once i gave up on game ? I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣ and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

[gwnn]

pass. I will bid 2C with another jack, I would guess.

[fromageGB]

MrAce, on 2013-May-29, 03:44, said:

I would definitely bid 2♣ ...
... 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff...

Herein lies the problem. 22hcp does not play perfectly in 2NT if that is where you are heading when receiving a reply like 2♦. And if opener fancies 3NT on his 16, 23hcp does not make a good 3NT.

Even if partner has a heart stop, it is a probable lead, given the missing length, and you do not have sufficient combined strength to stop them regaining the lead.

So if I take the gamble on trying 2♣, when it fails to come off I prefer the security of 3♣.

Quote

I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣

My partner won't.

Quote

and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

With 4 spades, my partner would bid 3♠ or 4♠, not 3♣.

[fromageGB]

duplicated

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2013-May-29, 05:36

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2013-May-29, 03:44, said:

I would definetely bid 2♣

I can not critisize passers but i can not disagree more with those who considers transfer to clubs with only 5 card suit and a very suitable hand to play 1NT. Our side has at least 22 hcp combined and plays 1 NT perfectly despite the stiff ♥. Why would i risk playing partscore at 3 level even if we have a ♣ fit, when i can play it at 1 level, once i gave up on game ? I am not even mentioning the possibility that pd may superaccept with AJx ♣ and we may go down when our side has 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit.

I think Pass stands out and bidding on is poor advice.
3NT is unlikely to fetch and partner will have 17 only about 25% of the time and 15 HCP nearly 50% of the time.
Game is an underdog even vulnerable at IMPs
4♠ in a 4-4 fit is probably slightly better, but not much.
However it requires finding a spade fit, a big if ...

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

2♣, then 3♣, mildly constructive over 2 red.

With a weaker hand and the same shape, 2♣ then 2NT, puppet to 3♣.

[rhm]

For those, who care I ran a quick simulation specifying for West balanced, less than 4 cards in spades, 15-17

DD result over 1000 deals:

3NT makes on 212 deals 21.2%
2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%
1NT makes 7 or more tricks on 830 deals or 83%

Average number of tricks per deal are 7.56

As expected chances for game in spades if West has 4 or 5 spades are better.

On 1000 deals game made on 537 deals (53.7%) and was down on 463 deals.
But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit.

Rainer Herrmann

[MickyB]

To Phil and Zel -

Is 1N:2C, 2S:2N natural or transfer? If the latter, how do you bid with INV with 4 hearts?

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2013-May-29, 06:58, said:

To Phil and Zel -

Is 1N:2C, 2S:2N natural or transfer? If the latter, how do you bid with INV with 4 hearts?

Bid 3NT. Haven't we been over this before?

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2013-May-29, 06:57, said:

For those, who care I ran a quick simulation specifying for West balanced, less than 4 cards in spades, 15-17

DD result over 1000 deals:

3NT makes on 212 deals 21.2%
2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%
1NT makes 7 or more tricks on 830 deals or 83%

Average number of tricks per deal are 7.56

As expected chances for game in spades if West has 4 or 5 spades are better.

On 1000 deals game made on 537 deals (53.7%) and was down on 463 deals.
But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit.

Rainer Herrmann

What number of tricks could we make in clubs when no spade fit was found?