Help
highhood55, on 2012-March-23, 10:04, said:
Regardless of how you play transfers the the only real point that I am trying to make is that this hand is at best a inv hand. As the last 2 who posted on this have stated your head is in the clouds if you realy expect to make a gm on these cards.
Would you care to point out where I have suggested bidding game? As far as I can see only one poster did choose a game-forcing response to 1NT here and even then the possibility of stopping in 4m is given.
As it happens I play a system over 1NT (weak) that is based on 2♣ as Puppet Stayman. On this hand I would quietly play 2♦ unless Opener had a 5 card major in which case it would be 3♦. Funnily enough I did not assume that the OP plays my method. The point here is actually not that I was disagreeing with your evaluation but rather with the statement that you assumed nothing in your first post of the thread.
In the last normal Stayman structure I used the weak take-out in diamonds also went through 2♣ but now it is unlikely that we get to play there (partner almost certainly has a 4 card major) and I would prefer to show a weak hand with both minors instead. Playing 4-way transfers which include "weak, both minors" into the diamond transfer I would bid 2NT and pass partner's 3♣ response. In either case it looks quite possible to raise a 3♦ bid to 4 if this is defined as invitational.
The structure you assumed has a bid for an invitational hand with both minors included in it. Given that, we have a choice between starting 3♣ and raising 3♦ to 4♦ (as suggested by Mike), bidding a direct 3♦ (invitational), or simply signing off in 3. The numbers in johnu's simulation seem to suggest that the hand is worth an invite in diamonds but not clubs - this would suggest 3♣ followed by 4♦ but this seems to me to be much more a matter of judgement than your "the correct bid is 3♦" post suggests. Thus I do not believe the matter is as clear-cut as you have suggested. It probably depends as much as anything on what is expected for an "invite" in this context - are we inviting 3NT or 5m? Since this is a minority method I have never played it is difficult to really comment.
Also what matters is less whether Opener has 15/16 or 16/17 and more where those high cards are located. The big advantage of the 3♣ -> 4♦ approach is it gets partner to really focus in on the minors without worrying about whether 3NT is in the picture. The downside is being a level higher on the (not uncommon) case where game is not good.
John, would it be posible for you to run a further simulation specifying Hxx or better in diamonds in Opener's hand to better answer Antrax's second question?