Re: Responding to the weak nt with a weak hand and a 5 card
major.
|
Steve Willner
|
Sep 01, 2007 17:21 PDT
|
[An old message but perhaps still of some interest, and it's not as
though the list has been over-active lately.]
| | From: jerome keslin <jet-@netvision.net.il>
I'd like to know what tactic the list uses when their partner opens 1nt
and they have a 5 card major with a weak hand, say less than 6 points
|
Personally I've always used natural signoffs of 2M, but for 12-14 NT, I
have no strong objection to transfers. As others wrote, 2M looks better
than 1NT on the hand type you describe.
| | the risk that partner may superaccept and get them to the 3 level
|
I've played various arrangements, but I don't think automatic super-
accepts on four-card support are right. This is especially true if the
suit is spades. Over 2H, the opponents are more likely to compete, and
you may have to reach the 3-level anyway, so freer super-accepts are in
order. By contrast, 2S may well buy the contract.
One responding scheme I've used is that 1NT-2C-2r-2S shows a weak spade
invitation. If you play that, super-accepting a simple 2S will rarely be
right.
A responding scheme I've never used is the "Three-puppet Script"
suggested in tBW a few years ago. (Google reveals it was 2003 Sep, and
the author was Bill Schramm.) I forget the details, but 2C, 2D, and 2NT
are each puppets to the next higher bid, after which responder either
passes or describes further. 2S is a natural signoff, giving opponents
no chance to double a transfer. There are at least three ways to bid 2H
and higher (counting puppet then pass), and this is enough to show all
likely hand types. I forget the exact scheme but am not sure Mr.
Schramm's assignments were optimal. Nevertheless, the basic concept
looks sound, and I'm wondering whether anyone has tried it. If so, what
assignments do you use, and how has the scheme worked?
|
|
 |
|
