[mikl_plkcc]

johnu, on 2025-January-11, 18:33, said:

Where is 3NT defined??? Why would a flat, 23 HCP hand jump to 3NT, taking up an entire round of bidding for absolutely not reason?


Sounds like your "system" has a lot of holes that need to be fixed.

I was a newcomer at the club and it was a first time partnership, so we hadn't defined many things. And there was no way for us to show a single minor after a 2NT opening as well (we agreed that 3♠ over a 2NT opening was minor suit Stayman).

[mike777]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:41, said:

I was a newcomer at the club and it was a first time partnership, so we hadn't defined many things. And there was no way for us to show a single minor after a 2NT opening as well (we agreed that 3♠ over a 2NT opening was minor suit Stayman).

How do you show gf long minor over 1Nt?

[bluenikki]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:37, said:

The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.

Then I decided not to bid 5♣ over 3NT because 3NT is almost always better than a 5 of a minor.

Both 6♣ and 6NT were makeable on other tables.

Do you think that, in general, traditional response to 2♣ (where anything other than 2♦ shows at least a good 5-card suit) is better than step responses?

The 33 points for slam absolutely positively did not mean highcard points when it was formulated. Which casts further doubt on pointcount steps.

[johnu]

mw64ahw, on 2025-January-11, 14:37, said:

Presumably ♥ are shown via 2N so you have to bid 3N to show the balanced hand?

Why would anybody want to bid like that?

[jdiana]

mw64ahw, on 2025-January-11, 07:25, said:

Classically 2♣-3♣
but I play
2♣-2♦
2N 22-23-3♠ puppet to 3N
3N-4♣ SI ♣

This is how I would have liked to start. My former partner and I hadn't quite gotten that far but it was on my list of things to add (see https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/225 ). But I think it's still a little tricky even with that start.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:37, said:

The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.

Then I decided not to bid 5♣ over 3NT because 3NT is almost always better than a 5 of a minor.

Both 6♣ and 6NT were makeable on other tables.

Do you think that, in general, traditional response to 2♣ (where anything other than 2♦ shows at least a good 5-card suit) is better than step responses?

5 cards in a Major, 6 in a minor is the flavour I originally learnt, but that was a long time ago.

[mikeh]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:37, said:

The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.

Then I decided not to bid 5♣ over 3NT because 3NT is almost always better than a 5 of a minor.

Both 6♣ and 6NT were makeable on other tables.

Do you think that, in general, traditional response to 2♣ (where anything other than 2♦ shows at least a good 5-card suit) is better than step responses?

To your last question: yes. But, as with most bridge notions from years ago, there are better mousetraps out there

I currently play a homegrown and quite complex scheme of responses, invented by my partner, but in my other partnership we play a method based on ideas from Fred Gitelman.

2D promises at least an ace or a king and is gf.

2H denies an ace or a king

2S is 8-11 hcp, balanced. Denies a five card major or 6 card minor

2N shows a 5+ major headed by at least 2/3 top honours. Opener can bid 3C on any hand with long clubs or any hand looking for the major. Responder transfers.

3 of a suit shows 6+, one loser suit, no side ace or king.

3N shows AKQJxxx in an unspecified suit (opener always knows what it is…it’s the only suit in which he has no high card)

[mycroft]

No system except steps? Don't jump around, then.

2♣-2♠; 2NT and responder basically knows what to do. I'm a full 9 (if it wasn't aceless, I'd say it was 10. I might anyway), partner has 22-24 (ish), why not 6♣? If partner's 22 only has two aces, oh well; if partner's 22 has only ♣xx oh well; if we had tools, we could find out.

Frankly, much as I hate it (and refuse to play it when I can), and it's 100% wrong here (3 aces won't actually make slam, you could be off ♦AK), if you have it (and most players playing steps do), if you're going to guess 6♣ anyway, might as well Gerber and stop in 4NT if you're off two aces. It at least clears up one of the "oh well"s.

Frankly, after 3NT (which *should be* stronger than 2NT), I'd be bidding 6♣ if not 6NT basically blind. If partner is "placing the contract because I know everything", and slam goes down, again, "oh well". Next time, they'll give me the opportunity to show a good suit that might make slam.

But yeah, don't play Johnny Steps(*). If they insist, play controls - at least partner knows if slam is a possibility after the response. I don't play it any more either, as I find natural bidding works better (barring some kind of spiral scan craziness I'm not going to learn for 3 hands a month), but at least it is useful to answer questions like "how do we get to slam like everyone else" (and, more so, "how do we avoid being in slam like those others did, off two cashers?"). Which is a step up.

(*)I mean, he lost to Téa, who doesn't even play a [children's] card game. In other words, I know tha

[mycroft]

No system except steps? Don't jump around, then.

2♣-2♠; 2NT and responder basically knows what to do. I'm a full 9 (if it wasn't aceless, I'd say it was 10. I might anyway), partner has 22-24 (ish), why not 6♣? If partner's 22 only has two aces, oh well; if partner's 22 has only ♣xx oh well; if we had tools, we could find out.

Frankly, much as I hate it (and refuse to play it when I can), and it's 100% wrong here (3 aces won't actually make slam, you could be off ♦AK), if you have it (and most players playing steps do), and if you're going to guess 6♣ anyway, might as well Gerber and stop in 4NT if you're off two aces. It at least clears up one of the "oh well"s.

Frankly, after 3NT (which *should be* stronger than 2NT), I'd be bidding 6♣ if not 6NT basically blind. If partner is "placing the contract because I know everything", and slam goes down, again, "oh well". Next time, they'll give me the opportunity to show a good suit that might make slam.

But yeah, don't play Johnny Steps(*). If they insist, play controls - at least partner knows if slam is a possibility after the response. I don't play it any more either, as I find natural bidding works better (barring some kind of spiral scan craziness I'm not going to learn for 3 hands a month), but at least it is useful to answer questions like "how do we get to slam like everyone else" (and, more so, "how do we avoid being in slam like those others did, off two cashers?"). Which is a step up.

(*)I mean, he lost to Téa, who doesn't even play a [children's] card game. In other words, "I know what I did here."

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2025-January-12, 10:39, said:

To your last question: yes. But, as with most bridge notions from years ago, there are better mousetraps out there

I currently play a homegrown and quite complex scheme of responses, invented by my partner, but in my other partnership we play a method based on ideas from Fred Gitelman.

2D promises at least an ace or a king and is gf.

2H denies an ace or a king

2S is 8-11 hcp, balanced. Denies a five card major or 6 card minor

Do you pretend 4441 etc are balanced?

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2025-January-12, 10:39, said:

To your last question: yes. But, as with most bridge notions from years ago, there are better mousetraps out there

I currently play a homegrown and quite complex scheme of responses, invented by my partner, but in my other partnership we play a method based on ideas from Fred Gitelman.

2D promises at least an ace or a king and is gf.

2H denies an ace or a king

2S is 8-11 hcp, balanced. Denies a five card major or 6 card minor

2N shows a 5+ major headed by at least 2/3 top honours. Opener can bid 3C on any hand with long clubs or any hand looking for the major. Responder transfers.

3 of a suit shows 6+, one loser suit, no side ace or king.

3N shows AKQJxxx in an unspecified suit (opener always knows what it is…it’s the only suit in which he has no high card)

Our current homegrown scheme is:

2♦ : none of the following
2♥ : denies an A or K
2♠ : a 5+ major or 6+ minor, headed by at least 2/3 top honours (2NT asks to bid suit in transfer) (*)
2N : minors 5-5
3♣: majors 5-4 (3♦ asks)
3♦: long hearts, headed by at most 1/3 top honours
3♥: long spades, headed by at most 1/3 top honours

That was enough for our memory load, but I like your idea for 3NT.

(*) will settle for a beer from whoever adopts it

[awm]

While I agree that the methods are not very good, I think the more important lesson here is about hand evaluation. The West hand is very powerful with the 6-4 shape and will make slam oppposite many minimum hands for partner. For example AQx Axx AKx Axxx gives you a good chance at a GRAND slam and this isn’t even really a 2♣ opening. Just calling the West hand “9 points” and letting partner play 3nt is very wrong.

Given that partner has bid all the way to 3nt without you showing your distribution at all, I’d think the best next call is 4♣ (slam try in clubs); if partner fits clubs you are probably making 6 if not 7 and the best way to find this out is to show your suit.

[mikl_plkcc]

mike777, on 2025-January-11, 19:33, said:

How do you show gf long minor over 1Nt?

We use 4 suit transfers over 1nt, but minor suit Stayman after 2nt.

[mycroft]

Heh, I see my "bad card holder" skills are showing.

These systems sound great - but I just don't get enough 2♣ openers to be anything but KISS.

I will note, though, that anyone playing steps is *very likely* do either show aces after 2♣-2♠; 3NT-4♣ (and reasonably so, IME) - or *pass*. Yes, I know it makes no sense to pull 3NT to a partscore as the weak hand. But as OP, with the constraints given, there's a big flashing neon sign saying "+170" in front of my eyes!

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-January-12, 17:22, said:

Heh, I see my "bad card holder" skills are showing.

These systems sound great - but I just don't get enough 2♣ openers to be anything but KISS.

I will note, though, that anyone playing steps is *very likely* do either show aces after 2♣-2♠; 3NT-4♣ (and reasonably so, IME) - or *pass*. Yes, I know it makes no sense to pull 3NT to a partscore as the weak hand. But as OP, with the constraints given, there's a big flashing neon sign saying "+170" in front of my eyes!

The Bridge World Standard used to be that the ace-asking bid over 3NT was 5♣. And that is far more reasonable.

Why doesn't everyone know that?

[mycroft]

Really, people have better things to work on than "best system after partner 'opens' 3NT". How often does it come up?

Also, how many Bridge World readers have played Step responses to 2♣, except when forced by a not BW-reader partner, in the last 40 years?

Whether it's right, or wrong, or better, or anything else; people who are still at the level as OP('s partner) or of the partnership from the OP are acres away from Super Gerber.

Again, whether it's right, wrong, or better, or anything else: find me a pickup partner who insists on playing HCP steps over 2♣ who will take 4♣ in this auction as natural and GF+. Not Gerber, not Stayman, but clubs (and not passable).

Frankly, as I thought Super Gerber was there explicitly so that 4♣ could be Stayman, I'm not sure I'd trust any pickup, even a BW-reading regular, to guess that right. I know I wouldn't.

Having said all that, by preference I play "Gerber is baby food", especially with pickup partners. I will admit I rarely get my preference on this count, but I do try...

[bluenikki]

♣

mycroft, on 2025-January-13, 11:04, said:

Really, people have better things to work on than "best system after partner 'opens' 3NT". How often does it come up?

Also, how many Bridge World readers have played Step responses to 2♣, except when forced by a not BW-reader partner, in the last 40 years?

Whether it's right, or wrong, or better, or anything else; people who are still at the level as OP('s partner) or of the partnership from the OP are acres away from Super Gerber.

Again, whether it's right, wrong, or better, or anything else: find me a pickup partner who insists on playing HCP steps over 2♣ who will take 4♣ in this auction as natural and GF+. Not Gerber, not Stayman, but clubs (and not passable).

Frankly, as I thought Super Gerber was there explicitly so that 4♣ could be Stayman, I'm not sure I'd trust any pickup, even a BW-reading regular, to guess that right. I know I wouldn't.

Having said all that, by preference I play "Gerber is baby food", especially with pickup partners. I will admit I rarely get my preference on this count, but I do try...

With a pick-up, if Gerber comes up, I specify only as jump.

I myself, regardless of agreement, would only use Gerber in response to the first natural notrump bid, and I would have a long suit with at most one loser.

That said, 30 years ago I was pickup partner with a lady who demanded that any 4♣ bid in any auction be ace-asking. Not as bad as it sounds. You just had to plan your bidding very carefully.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-13, 11:04, said:

Frankly, as I thought Super Gerber was there explicitly so that 4♣ could be Stayman, I'm not sure I'd trust any pickup, even a BW-reading regular, to guess that right. I know I wouldn't.

I read 3NT here as being a natural rebid, in which case 4♣ has to be clubs and slam interest (although many in my club would still Stayman it to death).

Agree that I never felt the urge to actually use Super Gerber, though. It's one of those things you impose on occasional partners to stop them doing worse, like 2♣ - 2NT as both minors 5-5.