Author Topic: 1m-1M-2NT and then ?  (Read 382 times)

kenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Karma: +4/-5
    • View Profile
1m-1M-2NT and then ?
« on: June 16, 2017, 02:30:16 AM »
I believe that the auction 1m-1M-2NT-? is in serious need of discussion. I will start with a hand I observed:


!S KJ94
!H T53
!D KT
!C AK87


!S AQ3
!H AK62
!D A4
!C J432


South  deals.
The auction was 1 !C - 1 !S  - 2NT - 6NT
Ok, there is a combined count of 32, just a point shy of 33, but unless the !C Q falls under the AK there is not much of a  play for this.


Is it any better in 6 !C?  Well, some.  Win the opening lead, whatever it is, play the AK of clubs/  Assume that  everyone follows but the Q does not drop. Play off the AK in !D, then AK in !H .  Assume everyone follows. Run spades. Either an opponent ruffs a spade or else  after the spades are played, throwing a heart on the fourth spade, you lead a !C. If the person who started with Qxx in clubs had two hearts, he is on lead holding only diamonds,  and has to give a sluff/ruff for the 12th trick. Maybe not a great shot, but a shot.

But the 2-2 fit in diamonds is unlucky.
I will vary the hands:


!S KJ94
!H T53
!D KT
!C AK87


!S AQ3
!H AK6
!D A42
!C J432



Your chances in 6NT have not improved, but your chances in 6C have improved dramatically.  Win the opening lead, play the AK of clubs and if everyone follows, claim 12 tricks. Or 13 tricks of the club Q was a doubleton.


One more example. Let's change the hearts and diamonds a bit in both hands.



!S KJ94
!H KT3
!D T5
!C AK87


!S AQ3
!H A4
!D AK62
!C J432


At least for most of us, the auction begins 1 !D - 1 !S - 2NT.

Just as before,  6 !C requires  only a 3-2 club split and 6NT is fairly hopeless  How do you get there if  1 !D - 1 !S - 2NT- - 3 !C is new minor forcing or some other artificial call?

I take a fairly practical approach, if partner agrees. After 1m-1M-2NT, I like to play that all three level calls in a suit are natural and forcing.  I certainly think that this is better than playing NMF, but I am more than willing to agree it is not optimal. I would not want a highly complex approach to solve problems that rarely arise, but I would be happy to hear what others like.








Ken