[Zelandakh]

For me it is natural. That limits the usefulness of the club transfer over 2♥ for sure but the other benefits of using transfers here make up for it. If you know of a way to get as much space over a 2♠ response as over 2♥ then I would love to hear it!

[Coelacanth]

Wow, so much for a "simple" problem. Lots of opinions here, and not at all unanimous.

At the table, I bid 2♣ with the problem hand, and over 2♦, I bid 2NT invitational. (We play a direct 2NT over 1NT as natural, so we don't have to go through Stayman to invite in NT; thus, my sequence promised at least one 4cM.)

Partner bid 3NT and went down 3. As you might expect, the opponents found a heart lead and managed not to block the suit.

The winning action is to bid 2♣ and then pass 2♦. (Partner had ♦AKxxx). In discussion after the match, I suggested that I should have found this. Both partner and one of our teammates thought that I had an obvious pass of 1NT.

I think I'd bid 2♣ again. But I'd pass over 2♦ and correct 2♥ to 2♠, which we play as weakish.

[MrAce]

fromageGB, on 2013-May-29, 05:35, said:

Herein lies the problem. 22hcp does not play perfectly in 2NT if that is where you are heading when receiving a reply like 2♦.

No.

It has been very long time since people started to use the tools frequently that allows you to play other partscores than 2NT after starting stayman over a so called strong NT, and i am not talking about garbage stayman. Zel and Phil already gave examples of some versions of it. There are more similar methods.

I guess you are advocating transfer to clubs and pass, if not i do not challenge the idea of passing 1NT as i mentioned in my other post. I do not have any tool to make simulation but, IFwe decide to play only partscore, 1NT plays much better than 3♣ imo. Thats what i meant by "combined 22 hcp" It was not meant for 2NT despite the fact that playing 2NT with 22 hcp is not the end of the world. It may not play perfectly as you mentioned. Thus, imo xfer to clubs followed by pass is a bad idea. I would rather play 1 nt on any day with this hand.

If we add the possibility of finding a spade fit, and if can not be found, ability to play choice of 2 nt - 2 ♠ -3♣ + imps makes stayman very atractive imo.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-29, 07:00, said:

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

3♣ makes on 753 deals (75.3%) double dummy (West has at most 3 spades)
Average number of tricks are 8.51

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

I think I once agreed this with Shogi
1nt-2♣
2♥-2♠ (ostensionally invitational, four spades)
and now
2NT-3♣ (to play)
or
3♣ (accepts invite but without spade fit)

But you can also keep it simple and play one-fashioned stayman style in which
1NT-2♣
whatever-3m
is invitational. Then GF hands with a minor go through transfers even if they have a form-card major.

With this hand I would prefer to show a sign off in 3♣ if partner doesn't have four spades, but treating it as invitational is not that bad.

[Winstonm]

This is a hand to which a NT response system should cater because it can easily produce game in the major and a known fit exists in the minor. This hand should be able to play 3C when no spade fit is found. If your system does not allow that, IMO your system should be changed.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-30, 07:06, said:

This is a hand to which a NT response system should cater because it can easily produce game in the major and a known fit exists in the minor.

You are not allowed to open 1NT with 3442 shape?

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-31, 00:54, said:

You are not allowed to open 1NT with 3442 shape?

Certainly you can, but I am sure the point is that a 5-2 fit is known (of course may be better), and that is usually better than a risky 2NT when the 5 card suit is in dummy. So look for the major, and if it is not there, your methods should allow you to play in 3 of the minor. As we have said previously.

[rmnka447]

At IMPs, it pays to bid thin VUL games (approx. 35%+ chance of making is the break even point). That's because of the big IMP swing (+10 IMPs) for making versus the lesser loss for not making (- 6 IMPs).

So I'm bidding 2 ♣ with this hand. There is a possibility that either 3 NT or 4 ♠ could make. ♠ Q may be a possible entry to the ♣ suit at NT if a hold up in ♣ is made. The ♣ is a potential source of tricks at NT.

If rhm's simulation probabilites are correct (53% of the time game makes), then you should definitely make the try.

Make the hand 7 scattered points with a mangy 5 card ♣ suit and I'd pass.

[fromageGB]

rmnka447, on 2013-June-01, 08:40, said:

If rhm's simulation probabilites are correct (53% of the time game makes), then you should definitely make the try.

Perhaps you missed this rider : "But it is more likely that you will not find a spade fit."
Factor this in, and the probability is very poor.

[fromageGB]

rmnka447, on 2013-June-01, 08:40, said:

...There is a possibility that either 3 NT or 4 ♠ could make. ♠ Q may be a possible entry to the ♣ suit at NT if a hold up in ♣ is made. The ♣ is a potential source of tricks at NT.

So you seem to be playing in 2NT with the 70% of the hands that do not have a spade fit. Perhaps your rose-tinted glasses also blotted out this figure : "2NT makes 8 tricks on 327 deals 32.7%".

[yunling]

I will just pass, even if we have a spade fit, this will be a thin game, I think it is just not worth the effort.

btw, people does not defend 1/2NT contracts as good as they are against a 3C contract, so the advantage of 3C over 2NT may not be so big.

[rogerclee]

Surprised at all the strong votes for bidding, I would just pass, aceless 7 counts are not that good. I am surprised rhm's numbers are so low in terms of us being able to make 4S though when we catch a spade fit, but I guess it is what it is.

[rhm]

rogerclee, on 2013-June-01, 23:43, said:

Surprised at all the strong votes for bidding, I would just pass, aceless 7 counts are not that good. I am surprised rhm's numbers are so low in terms of us being able to make 4S though when we catch a spade fit, but I guess it is what it is.

I am a passer, but if you can stop in 3♣ if opener has no spades makes it is just worthwhile bidding vulnerable at IMPs.
You win when partner has spades and game in spades makes (about 50%)
You still secure your plus score in 3♣ when opener does not have spades most of the time.

A slight edge to PhilKing.

However, the advantage is small and I can not stop in 3♣ after Stayman.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

rhm, on 2013-June-02, 02:31, said:

A slight edge to PhilKing.

Au contraire, mon ami. Phil was bidding 3♣ invitational, not 2NT = 3♣ to play.
An edge to winston and fromage, you probably meant to write.

[MrAce]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-02, 03:41, said:

Au contraire, mon ami. Phil was bidding 3♣ invitational, not 2NT = 3♣ to play.
An edge to winston and fromage, you probably meant to write.

I guess i misunderstood what Fromage and Winston wrote, my bad. Winston was talking about xfering to clubs after stayman and if spde fit was not found, which i thought he was suggesting to xfer to clubs over 1NT directly and pass. And i was trying to defend the idea that "if we are gonna xfer to clubs and pass, i'd rather pass 1NT" Again misunderstanding was on my end. Sorry.