[Chamaco]

awm, on Nov 21 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

This sort of situation is part of why I gave up playing the methods you describe.

Adam,
could you elaborate on your preferred methods after opps interference ?

I switched to NF Freebids because I HATED to use the 5-7 cardshowing double especially when holding an unbalanced hand.

Is there an alternative, more efficient way to handle interference that does not use double with unbalanced hands (transfer responses perhaps? developments? how to handle balanced hands with/without stoppers ?)

[PMetsch]

mikeh, on Nov 21 2005, 07:45 PM, said:

My point was that we should not be deciding which of these hands partner has. We should cooperate by describing our hand and allowing partner to play a role.

I agree with your point, but there is a big difference between these hands:

♠Axx
♥AJxx
♦Axx
♣Axx

and

♠Axx
♥KQJx
♦Axx
♣KQJ

With the first hand I bid 2NT because I probably make the same number of tricks in ♦ and NT (it is MP afterall), with the right hand we make 3NT and the field probably plays NT. I realy like to play NT unless partner has a poor diamond suit.

With the second hand I bid 3♦, it is just the opposite. 3NT is not favourite to make unless partner has some spade stopper and I think a ♦ contract produces more tricks than a NT contract.

[whereagles]

Chamaco, on Nov 21 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

is a 2NT bid a "gross distortion" here ?

Of course not. 2NT to shows a balanced or semi-balanced 16-17, which is precisely what you have!

[adhoc3]

Robert,

Quote

What do you bid with KJxxxx diamonds and a side king?

2♦, hoping good luck. It's quite marginal, but the side K compensates. AJTxxx is acceptable too but less valued than KQxxxx. We agreed with 2 of AKQ.

Quote

What exactly do you 'define' as a 'fit' with your 2S cuebid?

At least Ax, Kx, or Qx. Better bid 3♦ later (if can) with JTx -- purely partscore oriental.

Quote

I suspect that you might want to play 2S*-2NT either asks or tells about a spade stopper.....

Right. 2NT confirm stopper, the cuebider dont promise that.

Quote

1C-(1S)-2D-2S*-2NT-3C might ask for a partial stopper, 3D would show a weak suit and 3NT would show a spade stopper.    or   ?

Never thought about that, sounds good. Maybe it's straight forward between long time partnership?

When will your Big Club System to be issued? May I have a copy?

Jack

[Winstonm]

Without knowing the intricacies of the system, I think the key issue here is to try to get partner to make another move with long, good diamonds all the while not overstating the strength of my hand. IMO, 3D is the way to do this. 3D should be non-forcing but encouraging. I could have passed but didn't. I could have cue bid but didn't. I could have bid NT and didn't. So why pick precisely 3D as a bid? I must be trying to get to something, and 3D isn't a strong enough call to put 5D into play so the only logical contract is 3N. If so, why not bid 2N? Because I need a source of tricks. IMO, if partner has bid 2D on KQxxxx he should bid 3S. He has limited his hand nicely with the 5-7 range, so all he can be showing is a good suit without a stopper.

Winston

[Chamaco]

I want to thank all the posters here

First of all, I am glad the hand was not so straightforward.

Secondly, it was interesting to hear the various ideas about the proper requirements of the 2D freebid.

Thirdly, equally interesting, the various opinions about how to "make a move" towards 3NT.

============

At the table my pard passed 2D and I had xx- Kxx- KJxxxx-xx, with diamonds dividing 2-2

But the main idea of the pst was not a "Who's to blame" thing, but rather to make use of this hand to refine the judgment in such situations (we moved only very recently to NFB after the overcalled big club).

Thanks again

[awm]

My current methods with Sam after interference with our strong club:

Non-jump suit bids, notrump bids = natural and game forcing

X = takeout; 5+ points unlimited; if minimal maybe a bit off-shape (tend to X with shortage); lebensohl applies to opener's rebid if it will be at the two-level

Pass = either a trap pass, or less than GF values and the wrong shape for takeout X

Cuebids and jumps = transfers to the next suit; this shows either a semi-positive with a decent 6+ single suit (i.e. KQxxxx and out) or a distributional two-suited semi-positive with game interest opposite a fit (i.e. a 5-5 hand). Generally opener assumes the former, and accepts the transfer with min values and no fit, bids a new suit naturally with no real fit, or cues/bids game with a good fit.

While I admit that these too are perhaps "not best" they have served us better than the "5-7" double or the "all game forces double" type approaches.

[Kalvan14]

My vote here is for 2NT: the hand has a good play in 3NT if partner has a decent diamonds suit (and before you ask, 2NT should promise a fit in diamonds). With the given hand, advancer would certainly accept the invitation to 3NT.

I believe that pass would be a very shy action, considering the 4 quick tricks (and - strange to say - the opener's hand is not really very strong in defense, even if there are the same 4 tricks).

To complete the picture:

• 2S should be either a GF hand with fit in diamonds and unbalanced hand or a balanced hand with diamonds fit but no stopper (or insufficient stopper) in spades. Clearly the latter option is the priority for advancer.
  
• 3D is an unbalanced hand, invitational in diamonds (the GF hand is included in 2S)

[FrancesHinden]

Chamaco, on Nov 22 2005, 10:39 AM, said:

But the main idea of the pst was not a "Who's to blame" thing, but rather to make use of this hand to refine the judgment in such situations (we moved only very recently to NFB after the overcalled big club).

We've been playing transfers after an overcall for years, but they (almost) never come up. A couple of weekends ago we had the auction

1S - (2H) - 3C ( xfer to diamonds) - (P)
3D - all pass

I was asked what strength partner had shown, and I said "constructive-ish, but expecting me to bid 3D unless I have extra values or a fit". I was rather surprised to see dummy hit with

K
xxx
K10xxxxx
xx

which didn't look very constructive to me.

It turns out we'd never really discussed what we meant by "constructive" in this sort of sequence.

(Irrelevant on the hand as I had a super-unsuitable 6304 10-count opposite and we lost 2 imps in 3D-3 against 2S-2)