[FelicityR]

I was watching a friend last night and this hand turned up. They play at Intermediate Level so it seemed a good one to illustrate how the bidding should go given that neither side were playing any advanced conventions. Please put yourself in the East seat primarily, and the South and North seats, too, and tell us how you expect the bidding proceeds after North's 2♦ transfer bid. (I think most North's would be bidding 2♦ here but if you feel there is an alternative...) Both sides can make game, so to me it's an interesting contest. And as usual thank you for your replies. (IMPs scoring on BBO)

---

Edit (after a few replies): I am curious how each side would bid up to the game level (if possible), or would sacrifice accordingly here. I feel it's a difficult hand to bid for both sides though North has probably the easiest option of advancing to 4♥ opposite a strong no trump.

[paulg]

Many intermediates, and quite a few advanced players, do not discuss what two hearts means in this auction. It is just a bid that they never really considered but there is a lot of value in playing this as Michaels, showing 5+ spades and a 5-card minor.

This would be a simple approach on this hand for East, planning to bid on and show more in diamonds.

An expert partnership might have discussed playing Leaping Michaels in this auction, so four diamonds shows 5+ diamonds, 5+ spades and a good enough hand. As this is easy to forget, and most probably don't want to think about continuations, it is not for everyone.

But the 2H cue bid is a memory jogger as you would not want to play in your six-card heart suit when your opponents have shown a minimum of seven hearts in their hands.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2020-August-06, 04:58, said:

Many intermediates, and quite a few advanced players, do not discuss what two hearts means in this auction. It is just a bid that they never really considered but there is a lot of value in playing this as Michaels, showing 5+ spades and a 5-card minor.

Do you really think that this is frequent enough to justify the normal takeout bid?

[Tramticket]

Paul's suggestion makes sense. I don't think that you need the cue bid to show a three suited hand - you can always pass and do that next time.

How do you play a double of 2♦? If a double shows diamonds, then another idea is to start with a double and bid spades at you next turn.

[apollo1201]

Tramticket, on 2020-August-06, 06:25, said:

Paul's suggestion makes sense. I don't think that you need the cue bid to show a three suited hand - you can always pass and do that next time.

How do you play a double of 2♦? If a double shows diamonds, then another idea is to start with a double and bid spades at you next turn.

Playing with an average player as described by the OP, that is what I would do, X then some number of S.

As regards the 2H cue, I was told a few yrs ago to use it for a TOX so 3-suited hand kind of. Now I think Michaels is more common, as you can always X if 2H is balanced out to you. Or stay away from the auction if responder continues the bidding with inv or GF (in that case you are probably happy not to have reminded every1 that you had 13 cards the round earlier).

N might have given you a nasty guess by jumping to 4H if that in his partnership just means I want to play it from my side. With no desire to go above game. To protect the 2K and honor the nice shape and honors’in long suits, in an IMP context.

[mycroft]

I would expect some Norths to bid 4♦ instead of 2, but apart from that, "what they said". I also don't know what 3♥ is directly (long runner looking for a heart stop? Against a weak NT, I can see it. Against 15-17?) but that could also be Michaels, before or after the transfer acceptance.

[nige1]

FelicityR "I was watching a friend last night and this hand turned up. They play at Intermediate Level so it seemed a good one to illustrate how the bidding should go given that neither side were playing any advanced conventions. Please put yourself in the East seat primarily, and the South and North seats, too, and tell us how you expect the bidding proceeds after North's 2♦ transfer bid. (I think most North's would be bidding 2♦ here but if you feel there is an alternative...) Both sides can make game, so to me it's an interesting contest. And as usual thank you for your replies. (IMPs scoring on BBO)"
+++++++++++++++++++
IMO,
- Over South's 1NT, North should treat his hand as 1-suiter and pre-empt to 4♥ (NAT) or better 4♦ (TRF) or 4♣ (SAT).
- If North bids 4♦ or 2♦, then East can double (lacking any special agreement). On the next round after North-South have bid 4♥, East can pattern out with 4♠. which East can pass; or, better, correct to the safer 5♦.

---

[mikeh]

Not much to add to what has been said so,far.

North should bid at the 4-level, using whatever they use for purpose. Texas is common enough that I’d expect some intermediates to know that, but a natural 4H works much better on this hand.

After 4D, east has an easy double, and is delighted to be able to,bid 4S next time. This shows that diamonds are at least as long, and usually longer than spades, so west has a clear 5D call. I think that south should at least consider 5H once 5D comes back to him. Partner has at least 6 hearts and rates to hold some club length and values...if not, he has 7+ hearts. In any event, south can’t expect to beat 5D.

After the 2D transfer, which I would choose were I holding,,say, xx KJxxxx xx Kxx, again double followed by some number of spades is pretty clear.

As mentioned above, a natural 4H, which few experienced players (in NA) play would cause enormous problems, I think most easts would bid 4S and that has no play on a heart lead. South would need not to double, lest east run, as I think he should.

[Zelandakh]

When I was young, the recommended defence to transfers in Acolland was along the lines of:-

X = diamonds
2♥ = good takeout of hearts
2NT = nat (you can play this as ♠+♣ if preferred but then you have to remember it)
others = nat
delayed action = competitive

Increasingly though one sees the defence that Paul suggests, which seems to have arrived from across The Pond:-

X = sound takeout of hearts (typically played lighter than 2♥ in Scheme #1)
2♥ = spades and a minor
2NT = minors
others = nat
delayed action = competitive (except 2NT is natural if you do not like passing that hand after 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - P)

There are plenty of variations around as well as additions. Paul mentions one that can usefully be added to both - 4m as Leaping Michaels. In Scheme #1, 3♥ is often played as ♠+♣, assuming 2NT has not been requisitioned for that. I cannot ever remember seeing the jump cue from a pair playing Scheme #2 but I would assume there it is a long minor without a heart stop. Someone please post if I am wrong on that.

Playing Scheme #2 you could also have a penalty double available on the second round if desired rather than as just competing for the part score. In Scheme #1 the delayed Double is required for takeout hands that were not quite good enough for an immediate 2♥.

In any case, on this hand you would double 2♦ and bid spades next time around playing Scheme #1, while playing Scheme #2 you bid 2♥.

As others have already pointed out though, East should be in the position of coming in at the 4 level, which Mike's analysis already covers in detail.

[msjennifer]

Sir,
It is a hand difficult to portray for unknown or new partnerships.We in our established partnerships play the transfer suit as MICHAELS.Thus 2♥ shows ♠ And a minor.In this hand if opener passes and responder bids ♣(forced response if no 3card ♠ fit)we correct it to ♦.A similar scheme over a 2♥ transfer to ♠.This does not affect our other defensive bids at all;
There is much more if the opponents are playing a weak NT..However this is n=ot the occasion for it.Just to quote an example our natural bidding after opponents opened a 12-14 NT,easily enabled us to bid 6♣ cold contract.
No other pair bid it..

[beowulf]

mycroft, on 2020-August-06, 09:52, said:

I would expect some Norths to bid 4♦ instead of 2, but apart from that, "what they said". I also don't know what 3♥ is directly (long runner looking for a heart stop? Against a weak NT, I can see it. Against 15-17?) but that could also be Michaels, before or after the transfer acceptance.

Yes, I was thinking that too. We have a shapely hand that should probably at least invite game. Maybe best to just bid it and make it much harder for E/W to intervene

[hensgv]

well in my view north should bid 4♦ TEXAS TRANSFER

EITHER WAY EAST SHOULD DOUBLE THE TRANSFER (THE DIAMOND SUIT)AT FIRST TO SHOW LEAD DIRECTING IN DIAMOND AND AFTER SOUTH WILL ANSWER TO THE DOUBLE, NOW EAST WILL BID SPADES.
IT WILL SHOW LONG DIAMONDS AND ALSO LONG SPADES.

[msjennifer]

hensgv, on 2020-August-08, 00:06, said:

well in my view north should bid 4♦ TEXAS TRANSFER

EITHER WAY EAST SHOULD DOUBLE THE TRANSFER (THE DIAMOND SUIT)AT FIRST TO SHOW LEAD DIRECTING IN DIAMOND AND AFTER SOUTH WILL ANSWER TO THE DOUBLE, NOW EAST WILL BID SPADES.
IT WILL SHOW LONG DIAMONDS AND ALSO LONG SPADES.

Sir,
Tell me will you really, true to your heart, bid 4♦ on this hand on the table? It is very very easy to suggest bids like 4♦ when you see all 52 cards.Such a person is usually called Mr/Miss/Mrs. 52. 4♦will shut out only novices and beginners.
Over 4♦ opponent has the easiest bid of 4♥ to show a violent distribution hand with 10+cards and strength concentrated in ♠and a minor.

[mycroft]

Really? I'm not supposed to texas on this hand because it might push the opponents into a 4♠ game they otherwise wouldn't get to? And what stops East from bidding 4♥ over 2♦, showing 10+cards and strength concentrated in ♠ and a minor? Note, I've never heard that agreement over 4♦ (I have heard "takeout", which would be fine here, I can easily correct 5♣ to 5♦, so your argument still holds), never mind 2♦ (but it seems to be a perfectly reasonable meaning for that call), but I certainly have heard of 4♦ over 2♦ to show this hand - even in this thread.

Also, if you do that, what's the chance partner will pick the 7-carder over the known 8 or 9? Sure, this time it works, because you can ruff out the spades. But if partner's second suit was clubs - who's resulting now? Notice that 4♦ over 2♦ avoids this problem - west knows which minor, and knows it's a better fit than if partner could have clubs.

Yes, another options is hitting 4♦, then bidding 4♠ over 4♥. Doesn't work with the blacks, though.

But this deal is unusual. Most of the time, with this hand, you're making 4♥, they're not making 4♠; or you're going down 1 in 4♥ and that beats -140. At this vulnerability, even down 2 beats -140.

Yes, I know, weaker players (and by that I am including me, I know it's a failing) sometimes won't bid these kinds of games unless forced to. But more often than this hand, they have a heart loser and slightly less-focused values, and are afraid of 4♠, and I beat a lot of -170s, never mind the odd -420.

[mikeh]

msjennifer, on 2020-August-08, 09:57, said:

Sir,
Tell me will you really, true to your heart, bid 4♦ on this hand on the table? It is very very easy to suggest bids like 4♦ when you see all 52 cards.Such a person is usually called Mr/Miss/Mrs. 52. 4♦will shut out only novices and beginners.
Over 4♦ opponent has the easiest bid of 4♥ to show a violent distribution hand with 10+cards and strength concentrated in ♠and a minor.

I recommended North jump to 4D (unless 4H would be natural for that partnership).

Why?

Because game rates to usually have play opposite a random 15 count. Note that opposite a (most unlikely) Axx Axxx Axxx Ax, which is everyone’s strong 1N opening, 7H is a very good contract (not that anyone is bidding even small slam).

Yes, 4H will sometimes go down but short auctions make defence tough, especially the opening lead, and many games that, on paper, should go down in fact make, with just an unlucky lead.

As for worrying that the opps will bid and make a game of their own' well it is (obviously) possible, but it is extremely rare for the opps to make game when our partner has shown a strong balanced hand and we hold 7 hcp and not a freak. yes. We have shape (which is why I drive to game) but it’s not a freak


In fact, it is ironic that you suggest that those who choose to drive to game are resulting, looking at all 52 cards, because in the real world, nobody is going to think that the hand belongs to the opponents when we hold the North hand. We wouldn’t claim that it was impossible , it we’d think it. Very unlikely, as indeed it is. I don’t know the odds, but the chances of holding AKxxx AKxxxx after a strong notrump and a game bid (bid to make) is low enough. The chances that partner has a hand that meshes well further lowers the chances.

[miamijd]

A few thoughts:

1. North should bid 4D Texas. Two reasons. First, North has a 7-loser hand. That ought to make game far more often than not opposite a 1NT opener (indeed, I would wager it would make 5 as often as it would go set). As Grant Baze used to say, "With 6-4, bid more."

Second, if you want to keep the opponents out of a 4S contract (whether a make or, more likely, a good sacrifice), which do you think is going to do that better? A 2D bid, which gives them room to come in on the 2-level? Or a 4D bid, which makes them bid at the 4-level when you could have anything from a preemptive hand to one that is borderline slammish?

2. After a 2D transfer, "standard expert" is that:

X shows diamonds (primarily lead-directing, but West is entitled to bid 3D over 2H if he has a little something)

2H is a STRONG takeout. I say strong, because with a minimum takeout double, you just pass 2D, X for takeout if responder passes the 2H response, and remain silent if the opponents try for or bid game (no point bidding here, and this way you hide the fact that you have most of the stuff)

3H isn't a bid you see very often, but logically, it is probably a strong Michaels hand with spades and a minor.

I think any of three strategies are fine with East's hand:

1. X diamonds and then bid spades later
2. Bid 3H as a Michaels bid (hope partner will understand)
3. Bid 2H and then correct clubs to diamonds

Any of them ought to work out fine.

Cheers,
mike

I don't mind

[mmerz]

mikeh, on 2020-August-07, 01:20, said:

After 4D, east has an easy double, and is delighted to be able to,bid 4S next time. This shows that diamonds are at least as long, and usually longer than spades

I agree with this plan, but not with the implication. Wouldn't you make the same calls (X followed by 4S on next round) with this same hand but with spades & diamonds reversed? Or would you give up on diamonds and insist on spades? That would be hard to explain to pard, who passes out with the same hand when five diamonds makes.

At high levels, you don't always have the luxury of patterning out. I think you have to show Spades & Diamonds as convenient, whether they are 6-5 or 5-6.

-- MM

[mikeh]

mmerz, on 2020-August-08, 21:28, said:

I agree with this plan, but not with the implication. Wouldn't you make the same calls (X followed by 4S on next round) with this same hand but with spades & diamonds reversed? Or would you give up on diamonds and insist on spades? That would be hard to explain to pard, who passes out with the same hand when five diamonds makes.

At high levels, you don't always have the luxury of patterning out. I think you have to show Spades & Diamonds as convenient, whether they are 6-5 or 5-6.

-- MM

AKxxxx void AKJxx xx is 4S over 4D.

There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, partner needs at least two more diamonds than spades for diamonds to be the better trump suit, and even then that is not necessarily true. Give him xx xxxx Qxxx xxx and I will be happy enough in 4S, needing only a 3-2 trump break. Make it xx xxxx xxxx xx, and if spades are 3-2, I’ll make 4S any time 5D makes.

Secondly, a 10 trick game is easier than an 11 trick game.

Thirdly I don’t want to give the opps anymore info about my hand than is necessary, unless there is a significant upside. When I bid 4S, I will often be holding nothing more than a raft of spades. I’d really not like the opps to infer a double fit if they have one, nor to be worried that I have a side source of tricks.

Also,some expert opps will have an agreement about the difference between a pass by south and an acceptance of the transfer. My hand suggests I don’t really want them bidding 5 H if south has a good fit. Now, with 5=6, I’ll pay that price so as to get my diamonds into play.

Finally, and most importantly (for me), it is useful to have the agreement that double then spades does promise better/longer diamonds than spade. This actual hand is a good example of that. Were I holding 6 spades, a pass by partner would be reasonable, but on this hand it is imperative that he pull to 5D.

[rq4mulae]

I think you've mostly got off the track of what an "Intermediate" knows as much of your suggestions are beyond the average Intermediate.


Reverses: YES
Jacoby Super-Accepts: yes as a jump rebid in transfer suit, but not likely using control-showing super-accepts.
Lead-directing Doubles:yes
Texas Transfers: doubtful
Michaels and/or UNT in NT sequences: NO
Takeout Cue Bids: NO

To start with, I don't think the N hand qualifies as Texas, except for gamblers. Opposite Axxx=xx=AKxx=Axx, for example, you have duplicated values. So N bid should bid 2D. X by E would not necessarily show a long suit but should be expected to win opening lead. 2H & 2NT are out, but E is worth a 3D bid, which works even wiith a super-accept, and is even better for heading off control-showing super accept like 3C.

S qualifies, so bids 3H. Now a 3S bid by E should be apparent as good values with longer D's and removes any ambiguity about which minor is held. Now, white vs. white and at IMPs, N should raise to 4H and W to 5D and play there.

[Zelandakh]

rq4mulae, on 2020-August-09, 02:01, said:

I think you've mostly got off the track of what an "Intermediate" knows as much of your suggestions are beyond the average Intermediate.

I self-rate as intermediate and can assure you that Mike's comments do not go over my head - perhaps you underestimate BBF intermediates . You may not realise this but Mike H is the most experienced member currently posting at BBF, having played at the very highest levels of international bridge competition. His comments here are held in the highest regard and are always worth studying, particularly if your own judgement differs from his on a given topic.

In terms of typical intermediate-level agreements over a transfer, I posted earlier the most popular bases. I am not seeing anything written here that is not a useful way of implementing Scheme #1. I suspect many players would come to similar conclusions if they thought it through but as a large portion of intermediate players do not analyse beyond their basic agreements, it is extremely useful to have it spelled out like this.

To take your specific point for this hand, you point out that there may be duplication. That is usually the case. The question is whether going slowly, presumably planning 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 3♥, would be helpful. What Mike is saying here, and what I will reiterate to you, is that if you follow this sequence you will miss too many good games to make it worthwhile. In addition, you will still not be able to identify duplication meaning that many of the bad games, including your example hand, will get bid anyway. In other words, inviting rather than just going directly to 4 is EV-.