[awm]

♠Txxxxx
♥xx
♦x
♣xxxx

Partner opens 2NT (20-21). IMPs, vulnerable. Your methods allow you to transfer at the three-level (to play 3♠) or the four level (to play 4♠). What do you think of bidding game on this hand?

[gwnn]

100% normal to me.

[aguahombre]

My better half would do it automatically, with the explanation: "I didn't think we were making 3S!"

[shevek]

Their is merit in transfer then 3NT.

Opener has
♠AKxx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣Qxx, right?

[rhm]

This is easy to simulate.
Assuming that opener would super accept with 4 cards in spades, 4♠ makes double dummy on 307 deals out of 1000 when opener has 2 or 3 cards in spades.
(Many super accept after 2NT also with suitable hands holding only 3 cards in spades).
I would call it aggressive. Normal is something else.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

Completely normal, not even close.

[mikeh]

There is no way, that I know of, to find out whether game is good, bad or indifferent. There are many, many hands wherein game is cold despite partner not being able to superaccept, so I think the idea of a 3-level transfer, intending to pass a non-superaccept is misguided.

In addition to the hands on which it is a good contract singel-dummy, there will be hands on which it is a bad contract singel-dummy, but they lead the wrong red suit and we get home anyway. I think this is a normal and reasonable game to bid. We are, after all, 6214, not 6223.

[Phil]

rhm, on 2012-April-16, 04:37, said:

Assuming that opener would super accept with 4 cards in spades, 4♠ makes double dummy on 307 deals out of 1000 when opener has 2 or 3 cards in spades.

I would estimate the extra tricks gained on the blind lead / hidden strong hand are enough to make it a biddable game at IMPs, in spite of the lead director advantages.

MPs is a different story.

[han]

How often will partner bid 3S with 3-card spade support?

I think it matters.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2012-April-19, 06:21, said:

How often will partner bid 3S with 3-card spade support?

I think it matters.

What do you mean? What else would he bid

[pigpenz]

no problem at all
had a hand like this against the Hog back in the seventies,
Ron doubles look at me and said what are you gonna do with the peice of cheese now?
partner redoulbed and took ten tricks....all of Barry and Ron kibbers got up from the table
after that.

It was just the HOG being the HOG

Justin: too bad you arent old enough to have played against those two!

[quiddity]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-19, 10:32, said:

What do you mean? What else would he bid

He can super-accept with good 3-card support?

[lalldonn]

It seems like an auction where if we bid game they will make the wrong lead a lot, like the wrong red suit and we get to discard losers in the other. I would say "normal" at imps for sure, I'm on the borderline between "normal" and "aggressive" at matchpoints.

[tolvyrj]

IMO this is a no-brainer, and its not wheter its going to make or not nor getting a blind lead or stuff like that.
Everybody else r going to bid it, question is do i want to gamble and bid just a part score, nope so howl with a pack and bid xfer and raise it to game.

[mikeh]

tolvyrj, on 2012-April-19, 12:12, said:

IMO this is a no-brainer, and its not wheter its going to make or not nor getting a blind lead or stuff like that.
Everybody else r going to bid it, question is do i want to gamble and bid just a part score, nope so howl with a pack and bid xfer and raise it to game.

In NA, this would be an enormous overbid for most: most players in NA have Texas available to them, so would bid 4♥ then pass.....they use 3♥ then 4♠ as a mild slam try.

[Fluffy]

If 2NT opener hesitates a bit before bidding 3♠ after transfer I think this hand has no rights to bid 4♠ no matter what agreements are in place except maybe mines, where 3♠ shows 3+ ♠.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2012-April-19, 12:16, said:

In NA, this would be an enormous overbid for most: most players in NA have Texas available to them, so would bid 4♥ then pass.....they use 3♥ then 4♠ as a mild slam try.

There is a happy byproduct of having Texas available, this time. We want to be in 4S, AND we don't want opener to be giving any needless information away with his different 3-card super accept toys.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-19, 14:02, said:

There is a happy byproduct of having Texas available, this time. We want to be in 4S, AND we don't want opener to be giving any needless information away with his different 3-card super accept toys.

Would you really want to be in 4♠ if you knew partner had only two of them, or a mediocre hand with three? Holding this hand, I'd be delighted to be playing that partner can superaccept with three trumps, because I could have something approximating to an invitational sequence.

[aguahombre]

[quote name='gnasher' timestamp='1334868198' post='631782']
Would you really want to be in 4♠ if you knew partner had only two of them, or a mediocre hand with three? (quote)
yes.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-April-19, 14:43, said:

Would you really want to be in 4♠ if you knew partner had only two of them, or a mediocre hand with three?

yes.