[mgoetze]

---

Partner has shown 17-19 balanced without 4 hearts. Do you invite?

[gszes]

MP no real need to stretch so much
IMPS invite

Have no strong dislike of invite at MP but it
may be a tad too optimistic. Someday we will ask what
2n (v 1N) would have meant:)

[mgoetze]

 gszes, on 2014-October-02, 15:30, said:

Someday we will ask what 2n (v 1N) would have meant:)

3 hearts and 6 clubs.

[chasetb]

PASS. If partner has a good enough 19 count, (s)he will upgrade. While the tens are nice, we only have one guaranteed entry if partner needs to take any finesses.

[jogs]

PASS. Never invite in notrumps. 3NT or pass. Sometimes aggressive opponents balance, then you have a surprise for them.

[MrAce]

George read my mind on this hand. Being vulnerable would make it clear invite for me at IMPs. Non vulnerable it is still not a bad bid at all. MP pass all day long.

[mgoetze]

 jogs, on 2014-October-02, 16:22, said:

Sometimes aggressive opponents balance, then you have a surprise for them.

Well... probably not a huge surprise, given that I responded to 1♣. I do explain 1♦ as "3+ points, 4+ hearts" since by agreement it could be QJ9xx in hearts and out, but that is the exception, not the rule.

[yunling]

I counted to 7.5 so a direct 3NT for me at IMPs

[jogs]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-02, 17:04, said:

Well... probably not a huge surprise, given that I responded to 1♣. I do explain 1♦ as "3+ points, 4+ hearts" since by agreement it could be QJ9xx in hearts and out, but that is the exception, not the rule.

What do you bid with 3=3=5=2 and about 3 or 4 points?

[whereagles]

Lots of intermediates. I invite.

[mgoetze]

 jogs, on 2014-October-02, 21:49, said:

What do you bid with 3=3=5=2 and about 3 or 4 points?

Uhm... pass? Doesn't everyone?

[mikeh]

I invite at all scoring and vulnerability.

At imps, the game bonus, even nv, makes it worth while, tho it is close nv.

At mps, the key to me is that I would expect that on more than half the hands the field will have bid 1♣ 1♥ 2N

I can't imagine anyone passing 2N, showing 18-19, with 6 hcp and those 10's.

So passing 1N rates to be an anti-field action most of the time. I'd rather be in the field contract with my partner on play than not....actually, it doesn't really matter how good my partner is...if she is better than the field, we need to be in the field contract and if she isn't, then she needs the practice.

Now, 17 is more common than 18 which in turn is more common than 19, but 17 isn't as common as the combination. This means that passing will sometimes be the field action but usually won't.

Plus even if she has 17, so we are in 2N rather than 1. The odds are that we'll make 2N anyway. Heck, this is the type of hand on which 9 tricks roll in if the cards are friendly and partner has 17.

[nige1]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-02, 14:41, said:

Partner has shown 17-19 balanced without 4 hearts. Do you invite?

---

In the light of Mikeh's excellent arguments, IMO, Invite = 10, Pass = 8.. In the bidding, as in the play, the optimal action is often anti-field. Most of the field will face a similar decision, a level highe and will bid 3N on the "May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" principle. Nowadays players tend to upgrade a "good" 19HCPs. Hence, at MPs, you could settle for a comfortable plus score in 1N and save your adrenalin for later. Your economical auction has given you an edge over the field, however and I feel that you should take advantage by consulting partner. If partner is unsuitable, he can stop in 2N.

[jogs]

Quote

What do you bid with 3=3=5=2 and about 3 or 4 points?

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-03, 04:33, said:

Uhm... pass? Doesn't everyone?

Make it 3=3=5=2 with 6 points.

[mikeh]

 jogs, on 2014-October-03, 11:21, said:

Make it 3=3=5=2 with 6 points.

transfer walsh (usually) uses 1♠ for hands with long diamonds. Many (all?) use it for some notrump type hands that don't fit in the parameters for immediate notrump responses. Thus in the t-walsh style I play, as an example, 1N shows 8-10, 2N shows a good 12+-14, so we need 1♠ for diamonds, and notrump hands with 5-7 or 11-bad 12. Others may have differing approaches of course. There is no such thing as standard t-walsh anymore than there is a standard 2/1.

[mgoetze]

 jogs, on 2014-October-03, 11:21, said:

Make it 3=3=5=2 with 6 points.

I have no bid for that so I pass, though as Mike said I expect many will bid 1♠.

I really don't see how this is advancing your argument that I have a "surprise" for the opponents if they decide to balance.

[jogs]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-03, 12:08, said:

I have no bid for that so I pass, though as Mike said I expect many will bid 1♠.

I really don't see how this is advancing your argument that I have a "surprise" for the opponents if they decide to balance.

I thought 1♦ was negative to a forcing club.

[lrussell]

I bid an invitational 2NT all types of scoring and vul.
If partner has 18 or 19 I expect 3NT makes more often than not. (DealMaster makes game 62%)
If partner has 17 I would expect 3NT to go down more often than not. (DealMaster down 70%)

[mikeh]

 jogs, on 2014-October-03, 13:21, said:

I thought 1♦ was negative to a forcing club.

1♣ wasn't forcing....1♦ was explained as hearts...this is part of what is often described as transfer walsh (t-walsh)

[mikeh]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-03, 12:08, said:

I have no bid for that so I pass, though as Mike said I expect many will bid 1♠.

I really don't see how this is advancing your argument that I have a "surprise" for the opponents if they decide to balance.

you can't play a method where 1♣ could be 19 hcp and pass any 6 count...not if you want to win