Help
awm, on Feb 19 2008, 04:23 PM, said:
To Ken Rexford, I agree that 3NT by south is an excellent contract. Unfortunately your (and most other) auction reaches 3NT by north.
Oh yeah -- missed that.
I'd still decide to play 3NT, though. From Opener's standpoint, Qxx works well. From Responder's standpoint, he has no reason to fear the diamonds, as Axx from Opener works well.
If the auction were standard, I would still respond 1NT. A 2♣ does not promise any hand with 10 points. It promises 10+, but some 10-counts respond 1NT. I think that this is one of those hands. If 1NT was still forcing (like old K-S), then the auction would be identical. If 1NT was non-forcing, then Opener is pinched and has a problem. This is actually a good argument for a forcing 1NT, strangely. A forcing 1NT is traditionally argued as a means of helping a wildly unbalanced Responder. However, a forcing 1NT also strangely helps a "wildly balanced" Opener who has extra stuff but not enough for a JS or reverse.
If the auction were such as to allow a 2♣ response with this hand, I'd still end up in 3NT, I think. Opener would hear 2♣ and bid 2♠. This is GF. It seems that Responder should now blast 3NT with the actual hand, passed out. This seems like a fast arrival hand.
However, let's assume no fast arrival and a 2NT rebid. I don't understand why Opener would imply 4513 pattern when his clubs are Qx and he has the diamond Ace. I think the chessehead auction should be ...2NT-P-3NT.
So, how about the insane reverse auction? Opener decides, after a (forcing?) 1NT, to reverse into 2♠, showing a much better hand than he has. Responder bids 3♣ to suggest clubs (imagine that -- natural) and imply diamond concern (very weak inference). Opener now bid 3♦ as a "punt bid." Why would Responder show 10x heart support when he had J10x in diamonds? That looks like help to me. I think even in this auction 3NT is the call.
If there is any real question on this hand, it is whether there is a plausible way to bid where Responder's usual first call is not one that grabs notrump declarership too frequently. The only decent ideas I can think of are that inversion business (don't know how this hand would be bid) and some weird thing called a "Toddler 2♦" response (http://www.firesides.net/toddler.htm). I actually played a modified Toddler 2♦ in another guy's homespun canape system, but I cannot remember how effective it was. But, the idea is to have a technique that minimizes the use of a forcing 1NT response.
Auction 1.
1NT - 3NT
(3NT by south), all it takes is off shape 1NT