[Quartic]

---

Playing matchpoints your partner opens a weak NT. Your agreements allow you to transfer to hearts or to diamonds. If you transfer to diamonds your partner will bid 3♦ with Qxx or better, and 3♣ otherwise.

Which do you choose, and what's your follow up plan?

[ahydra]

I think I'd rather play 4H than anything else if possible. But how much do we need for 5D? ♠A ♥AK ♦Qx I suppose. Hmm, not totally unrealistic.

I take it if I trf to 2H and then bid 3D that's GF? If I invite with 4D after 1NT-2NT-3D, is that game inv or slam inv? Perhaps I have to trf to H and bid 3D next, if 3NT comes back then 5D.

ahydra

[Quartic]

ahydra, on 2012-May-31, 11:11, said:

I think I'd rather play 4H than anything else if possible. But how much do we need for 5D? ♠A ♥AK ♦Qx I suppose. Hmm, not totally unrealistic.

I take it if I trf to 2H and then bid 3D that's GF? If I invite with 4D after 1NT-2NT-3D, is that game inv or slam inv? Perhaps I have to trf to H and bid 3D next, if 3NT comes back then 5D.

ahydra

Yes, transfer to ♥ then 3♦ is GF. 4♦ after 2NT would be a slam try.

[nige1]

Quartic says "Playing matchpoints your partner opens a weak NT. Your agreements allow you to transfer to hearts or to diamonds. If you transfer to diamonds your partner will bid 3♦ with Qxx or better, and 3♣ otherwise. Which do you choose, and what's your follow up plan?"

IMO it depends on your methods. And how frightened you are of competition. Opponents always seem to bid 4♠, no matter what they hold.
Some pairs have conventions that show 5+5+ at a low level. With no special understanding IMO...
4♦ (transfer) or 4♥ (natiural) = 10, 2N (transfer) = 9, 2♦ (transfer) = 7.
4♦ normally gives up on ♦ as trumps, but seems a practical effort at match-pointed pairs.
An advantage of 2N is when LHO bids the inevitable 4♠ you can try 4N, hoping that partner will interpret it as suggesting a hand suitable for play in another suit .

---

[ahydra]

Hmm, just spotted there's only 6 diamonds there, not 7...

It feels like you've just gotta guess. Either trf to hearts hoping partner has 3 of them (because if he doesn't you're playing a dodgy 3NT), or trf to diamonds and leave it at 3D. 5D will make opposite a perfecto but that feels very pushy at MPs.

I'll opt for the former because there's good odds on 3-card support opposite, and failing that, 3NT might scrape home.

ahydra

[gszes]

4h 3n and 5d are all possible here (slam rarely).
There seems to be little reason we dont start
with 2d transfer followed by 3d. If lho throws
in a 4 spade bid we can still bid 5d with a
reasonable degree of safety.

Using this method when opps dont interfere we
can trust p to choose hearts dia or nt. It is
just too unilateral to decide hearts is the
only way to go. Even if p has 3 hearts nt
might be better if they are cruddy hearts.

[Quartic]

This hand wasn't a success for us:

---

Even with a friendly defence, I (East) only managed to take 7 tricks, which was worth only 2/16 matchpoints. Most EW pairs reached 5♦ making.

Should we have found 5♦ even after I started with 1NT instead of 1♣?

[Antrax]

Presumably they got to the making 5♦ as a sacrifice against N/S 4♠?

[Quartic]

Antrax, on 2012-June-02, 12:07, said:

Presumably they got to the making 5♦ as a sacrifice against N/S 4♠?

Quite possibly, the other contracts were ♠ NS.

[steve2005]

is there anything wrong with 2NT(transfer to ♦) then bidding 3♥ to show ♥?
surely this would be 6-5

[mgoetze]

steve2005, on 2012-June-02, 16:21, said:

is there anything wrong with 2NT(transfer to ♦) then bidding 3♥ to show ♥?

If it indeed shows that, then no, but...

Quote

surely this would be 6-5

...this is not the standard interpretation at all. (Instead, 3♥ would usually show heart shortness.)

[Cyberyeti]

I would have bid 2♣ stayman over 1N, intending to pass if pd bids 2♦, raise 2♥ to 4 and bid 3♦ old fashioned NF over 2♠.

Would never ever open 1N on the E hand, auction would go something like 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♣)-2♦-(2♠)-4♦-(P/4♠)-5♦

[Statto]

As it's MPs, and I'm in no way convinced any game is making for us, I might have tried transfer to ♥ then 2NT, but it looks like we'd have gone 1 off too

[Antrax]

Quartic, on 2012-June-02, 15:18, said:

Quite possibly, the other contracts were ♠ NS.

So next question, do most people in the room play 12-14 NT?

[Quartic]

Antrax, on 2012-June-02, 23:42, said:

So next question, do most people in the room play 12-14 NT?

Yes. Though most won't open anything more offshape than 5322 (with 5 a major).

[fromageGB]

Hey, if you are going to open 1NT on a singleton, then you have to accept disasters when you get them.
I would have opener 1♦, and if south bid 1♠ as west I bid 4♦.

[Quartic]

fromageGB, on 2012-June-05, 10:22, said:

Hey, if you are going to open 1NT on a singleton, then you have to accept disasters when you get them.
I would have opener 1♦, and if south bid 1♠ as west I bid 4♦.

I understand this - I was just wondering if we could/should have avoided this one anyway.

I would never open 1♦ with this - I really don't want to play a 4-2 fit when I have a 5-3 available (for example).

[fromageGB]

Quartic, on 2012-June-05, 10:57, said:

I understand this - I was just wondering if we could/should have avoided this one anyway.

I would never open 1♦ with this - I really don't want to play a 4-2 fit when I have a 5-3 available (for example).

No, I'm sorry I confused the issue, my 1♦ is not standard. No, given the methods, I'd bid as you. If it was a club open, then you'd be in diamonds, but I wouldn't be in five unless pushed.

[han]

I play that a transfer to diamonds followed by a jump to 4M shows 5-6 and a choice of games. I thought that was standard but I could easily be mistaken.

I know that there are some (Frances?) that play a transfer to a minor followed by 3M is natural, but I think that shortness is more standard.

I think that starting with 2NT (assuming that you can show hearts) is much better because (1) you have more and better diamonds and this is the only way to show that, (2) 2NT is more preemptive, and (3) starting with 2NT will leave you better placed if the opponents end up bidding 4S anyway.

[mikl_plkcc]

I would transfer to ♦s first (though I like to play 3♣ as a transfer to 3♦ over 1NT), then bid ♥s, offering a choice of game.

I personally hates any kinds of artificial 2NT response to 1NT unless one never invite. I need an invitation available.

In the past, I left all 3-level responses to 1NT undefined (except 3♣ transfer to 3♦), now, I think of a usage of 3♥ and 3♠, indicating game-forcing minor 2-suiters and shortness in the named major suit.