[mw64ahw]

One from the weekend - with the hand below I'm interested in
a) approaches for long minors opposite a 15-17NT
b) when to look for 3NT versus trying for 5+♣ and any decision making process
c) any tips on trick versus point/loser counting
d) other approaches with a non-strong NT and where you would end up?

3NT or 5+clubs

---

Our bidding went
1NT-2♠ (4-way transfers)
3♣ (super-accept)-?

P.S. Teams although I'd be more interested in the Pairs judgement

[Cyberyeti]

Pairs or teams, at pairs you don't want to play 5♣.

[jillybean]

Teams 6♣

[DavidKok]

a) I play regular old Stayman and 4-way transfers, nothing very special there. However, if you want a comprehensive and very good system over 1NT there is a system called 'Heeman' (an alternative to Stayman developed by Wim Heemskerk, based on ideas of Lindkvist, Nilsland, Wirgren ("Notrump bidding -the Scanian way") and the Italian player Leandro Burgay. Unfortunately my only sources are in Dutch). I know one very strong pair at my local club that play this, and my partner flat out refuses due to the complexity (and he's probably right). In this system it is possible to show mild SI with 6(+) in a minor suit on the following, entirely artificial, auction:
1NT - 2♣* (forces 2♦);
2♦* (forced) - 2♠* (either (54)+ in the minors, invitational(+), or 6(+) in a minor, SI);
2NT(min)(/3♣/3♦ natural, non-min, better minor)-3NT(to play opposite min hence mild SI with a minor suit)/(3♥ 6(+) clubs and SI opposite a min/3♠ 6(+) diamonds and SI opposite a min).

b) To be honest I would not be able to bid this slam at the table, we'd just bid 1NT-3NT. To properly evaluate the West hand I would count my modified losing trick count out of habit (8, yikes. Although ♥Qx may not be wasted) and then try to imagine what sort of minimum would give slam play. As a general rule it is wise to make a slam try only if a suitable minimum would make it good (some say 'cold' instead of 'good'). Since partner has no shortness we have problems in all four suits. I invite you to come up with a more fitting 15-point NT hand than the one shown, the best I could come up with is swapping the hearts and the spades. And even opposite the near-perfect East hand shown you need to find the jack of spades or have them drop 3-3 to make 6♣ on a diamond lead, as well as find the trumps 2-2 (however, if the clubs break 3-1 3NT is also down on a diamond lead). I would simply bid 1NT-3NT without a hint of slam, and would do the same playing Heeman.

c) I've only got two big tips for points versus loser counting. The first is that all of these counting schemes are only tools to help you make your decision, and give a general suggestion of whether you should be bidding more or less aggressively. I think it was one of Reese's books that said that there is no substitute for "imagining the hand partner may have, counting the tricks you have opposite that hand and bidding accordingly". If you combine this with the advice that you are worth a slam try only if it has a good chance of making opposite a suitable minimum (I think this gem dates back to Culbertson?) it should warn you not to make a slam try with the West hand (and if it makes anyway, tough luck). Furthermore asking for support in minors oppposite 1NT is awkward anyway, so even if partner has that 'suitable minimum' you may not get to slam (or you might end up in slam opposite a non-suitable hand).
The second tip is that I really do like a version of the MLT for high level (5+) suit contracts. Assign 1.5 to each missing ace, 1 to a king, 0.5 to a queen, capped at the length of each suit (so ♥Qx is 2.5, missing both ace and king, and ♥xx would also be 2.5, because the queen only counts in suits of length 3 and up). Again, it is not a substitute for bidding judgement, but can be a helpful tool to decide.

d) Over a weak (12-14) NT I play 2-way Stayman, and this hand would again just blast 1NT-3NT. There exist sophisticated relay methods over 2♦ artifical GF that are particularly useful over a weak NT, but I don't play them.

At pairs (matchpoints, right?) you 'never' want to play 5m - you quite literally only try for 5m if 3NT is out of the picture. My old partner used to joke that 5m at pairs was forcing to 6m. If partner opens 1NT (weak or strong, doesn't matter with this particular West hand) 3NT is very much in the picture so I wouldn't even dream of anything else.

[mw64ahw]

Thanks David for the detailed reply

a) that reminded me of a previous post New NT system, new online system notes - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com) which is based on Heeman (there is an English link to the Heeman system notes via snortingmaradonas.se/erik/mysystem/lakebeach_nt.html).

You end up in 3NT as a mild SI in the minor, but I'm still struggling with the NTrumper's criteria (to plug into some scenario analysis software) for taking this forward to a slam investigation. Perhaps it is a max., a super-accept and/or Quack adjustment? I also like the super-accept with 4-way transfers as it mean 3NT is often makeable with a weaker hcp count. I guess you could miss potential NT games without the super-accept in the 'Heeman' style approach

b) Yep the MLT is 8, but with 12hcp and a 6-card minor 5♣ should be safe when revalued on a total points basis.

Interestingly running some probabilities 3NT has roughly an 80% chance, 5♣ 90% & 6♣ 74%.

c) I'm aiming to implement as many useful tools as possible so perhaps partner just overlooked 5♣ as an almost given with 6♣ as an outside chance.

d) I like the 5m forcing to 6m comment from your partner in pairs

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the English version of Heeman! The Dutch version has a few extra pages with example auctions, but other than that I think it is exactly the same.

On the Heeman auction where 3NT shows mild SI with an unspecified minor opener has already shown a minimum NT opening. If responder wishes to investigate slam despite the fact that opener is minimum they should bid 3♥/3♠ over 2NT, showing the suit. The 3NT bid orders opener to pass, as I understand it.

Also something to note is that the Lakebeach structure uses the 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠* auction to show exactly 4-4 majors, and the Jacoby transfers in that system show 5(+). Heeman transfers with 4(+) in a major with split strength ranges to conserve space, which allows some rare but interesting gadgets at the 3-level (I think Heeman might be superior to Lakebeach from a theoretical point of view, but it is more complicated). To show the club hand Lakebeach seems to transfer (with 2♠*), then repeat the clubs with 4♣ (so a few steps higher than Heeman's 3♥, crucially bypassing 3NT). Quite the commitment.
On this auction both systems have the same possibilities for a superaccept - that is, not really. In Heeman coincidentally opener shares some information about the minors with a maximum. Heeman does have more complicated superaccepts over the majors though, since you have to cater to 4-card transfers (I think in the default version you simply play normal superaccepts, the 4-card hands are all exactly of invitational strength so 3NT/4M will be fine).

The main problem of 5m at pairs is not so much your percentage of making (that's IMP thinking!), but the risk that the field is in 3NT+1 or 3NT+2. To borrow your numbers, an 80% chance of making 3NT may well be a better pairs score than a 90% chance of making 5♣, if 3NT happens to take 10 tricks a good fraction of the time that it makes. This is also why '5♣ is likely to be safe' is not a valid argument at pairs (but it is at IMPs) - you have to do your minor suit slam investigation below 3NT for a good pairs score.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-09, 07:38, said:

The main problem of 5m at pairs is not so much your percentage of making (that's IMP thinking!), but the risk that the field is in 3NT+1 or 3NT+2. To borrow your numbers, an 80% chance of making 3NT may well be a better pairs score than a 90% chance of making 5♣, if 3NT happens to take 10 tricks a good fraction of the time that it makes. This is also why '5♣ is likely to be safe' is not a valid argument at pairs (but it is at IMPs) - you have to do your minor suit slam investigation below 3NT for a good pairs score.

If you can't do your slam investigation below 3N, you need to be able to play in 4N on these hands at pairs.

[Winstonm]

In my view, the West hand is not interested in slam so my bidding would be 1N-3N.

As an aside, I believe it unwise to create or tweak a system to cater to outlier hands because it makes the normal hands harder to bid when bids can have multiple meanings.

[LBengtsson]

mw64ahw, on 2021-August-09, 02:16, said:

Our bidding went
1NT-2♠ (4-way transfers)
3♣ (super-accept)-?

I prefer 3♦ as super accept here. but it is still difficult to get to 6♣ after this imo.

though will also say hand as I play 'super=acceot' is not a SA imo. just minimum high points (15) and 4 card ♣ support. the three '10' cards are useful but not as useful as another Q.

[fromageGB]

On hcp count 12 opposite 15-17 looks marginal slam at best, so first I consider if I can envisage hands that are likely to make. My soft cards in all other suits do not augur well. AAAKK would be enough, but impossible as that is 18. AAAKQ is possible but only 11 tricks if the wrong K, so regardless of scoring style I am not looking for it.

At IMPS, I am happy in 5♣ as that is safer, so will simply transfer to clubs (2NT for me (1NT=15/16) but with your 15-17 I expect you bid 2♠. When I follow with a simple 3NT that gets across the message that I think clubs might be safer, as otherwise I would bid 3NT directly, so on this hand partner bids 5♣.

At MP, I do not want to be among the few not making overtricks in NT so just bid 3NT.

Should my hand be a bit better, such as major K rather than Q, then again I will bid 3NT in MP, but at IMP the slam is more of a chance so I will look for it. I can stop in 4NT or 5♣ if I need to. The way for me would be to bid 2♠ asking for a 4 card (or good 3 card) minor and over 3♣ affirmative then ace ask with 4♦. Over a 2NT denial or 3♦ then I bid 3NT.

Certainly envisage hands, and if in doubt downgrade Quacks.