[shyams]

Scoring: Any

We bid:
1NT - 2♣
2♠ - 3NT
Down 1 on a club lead

---

While not wishing to veer far from the standard Stayman sequences, how would one avoid such "routine" scores? The above was a push board at teams.

Yet our side had 10 easy tricks in spades (or even hearts) if we could find it.

Should we adapt our system to cater to such boards or just accept it as a rare enough occurence? Any advice welcome...

[billw55]

I think it just happens from time to time. I do not believe that any system can be perfect enough to cater to every small chance every time.

Just last week I opened 2NT and was raised to 3, down one when both hands had ♠xx. The entire field was in 3NT.

Sadly for us, half of them managed to block the suit and we got a bad score. But that doesn't change the fact that 3NT was the unanimous choice.

[Rossoneri]

It happens, on a good day, your opponent will not lead clubs and you'll be laughing all the way to your 9 or 10 tricks.

[ArtK78]

These types of hands which challenge routine bidding methods are the grist of bidding contests.

There have been many complicated response systems developed to respond to 1NT openings other than Stayman. And, no doubt, some would be able to diagnose the problem on this hand and arrive at 4♠.

Further, there are systems in which one would not bid the hand as a routine balanced 17 count (I don't have an example handy). Those systems might be able to diagnose the club weakness.

Whether you wish to adopt one of these methods is a personal choice. However, I suggest that the benefit of adopting one of these methods is going to be more than offset by the amount of effort required to learn and master such a method. Further, it is quite possible that the more complex method might not be able to handle routine hands as easily as routine methods.

[NickRW]

Assuming you start with 1NT, Keri responses don't do any better:

1N - 2C //15-17 / Various hand types
2D - 2N //Relay / Balancedish GF
3C - 3D //No 5 card major, not 4333 / Stayman
3S - 3N //Four spades, not 4 hearts / *

* At this point you know, ignoring the possibility of an off shape 1NT, P has a 4432 with 4 spades and a 4 card minor. You know that the doubleton could be clubs - but it usually won't be - and even if it is, it could be Ax or Kx - so - wtf - 3N like everybody else.

The only way I know of to possibly do better is to not start with 1NT - the hand is really quite a good 17.

Nick

[bluecalm]

Even if I had a partner who is willing to accept every piece of science in the system I wouldn't change it.
Imo there is value in bashing games here and not telling them exactly what I have in hands where 3NT is to be played anyway.

[billw55]

bluecalm, on Aug 16 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

Even if I had a partner who is willing to accept every piece of science in the system I wouldn't change it.
Imo there is value in bashing games here and not telling them exactly what I have in hands where 3NT is to be played anyway.

Exactly! Trying to "science this out" often will only reduce the equity of:

Quote

It happens, on a good day, your opponent will not lead clubs and you'll be laughing all the way to your 9 or 10 tricks.

[MFA]

Not worth the worries. Even if we deviced a gadget to handle this problem it would just tend to give the opponents too much information on all the ordinary 3NT deals.

The best solution would be, I think, not to open 1NT with a weak doubletonin the first place. But that would be bidding like in the 1950's, and it has been 60 years since that should be seen as a compliment...

[jjbrr]

Ya, bridge is hard sometimes. I don't think it's wise to change anything just because of a hand like this.

[pooltuna]

Accept it as just bad luck. I know of no bidding system that is not essentially probablility based at some level. This is probably unavoidable in spite of the great efforts to reduce this aspect of the bidding.

[nigel_k]

shyams, on Aug 17 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Should we adapt our system to cater to such boards or just accept it as a rare enough occurence? Any advice welcome...

You can adapt your system to cater for this and these hands are not so rare that you can just ignore them. In fact you can use a 3♣ relay to discover opener's exact shape without going past 3NT.

The problem is the cost of revealing information about the 1NT opener's shape on all the hands where you end up in 3NT anyway. IMO that is too high a price to pay. So you basically accept less accurate bidding in order to gain the benefit of keeping opponents in the dark. Once you view it that way, you can accept the jump to 3NT as a percentage action that happened to fail, rather than a bad result due to incomplete methods.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, although this specific layout is not conducive to a particular solution, I am occasionally of the opinion (occasionally because I am uncertain about my thinking in this area) and occasionally act on that opinion that there is something to be said for a Mysian-oriented response to Stayman.

For example, give me this hand:

♠KQ10 ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣Axxx

After I open 1NT and partner bids 2♣, I am prone to bid 2♠, for reasons suggested by this sequence.

Whether that principle should translate into bidding 2♠ and then 4♥ in this sequence is a tough one. This exact hand does not seem right for that (Q-empty in diamonds, J10 tight as the doubleton), but change the diamond to the Ace, and make the hearts K-Q-x, and there might be something to be said for 4♥.

The fact that partner did not bid 1NT-P-3NT has some tendency to push the "pull 3NT" thinking.

Of course, if you go into that rabbit hole, then I suppose you need a way to show 5♠/3♥ hands, as well.