Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation #3

Do you try for game opposite a 12-14 1NT opening with either of these two hands?

I would answer “yes” in each case.  When I have a long major (five cards or more) and a seven loser hand opposite a weak notrump, I think about the chances for game.  Each of these two hands has only seven losers.  To ascertain whether to go ahead and make a game try, I invoke my favorite hand evaluation tool, Culbertson’s Rule.  Culbertson’s Rule says to invite game (or slam) whenever a “perfect minimum” for partner makes game pretty close to a lock.  (See two previous blog entries of mine for earlier applications, and further explanations, of Culbertson’s Rule.)

Opposite the first hand, so little as Axx, Kxx, KJx, xxxx (a flat eleven count) makes game an excellent proposition, and so I would not want to signoff in hearts but rather would choose to make a game try.  Opposite the second hand, I think the issue is a little less clear (even though the hand has more HCP than the first hand), but Kxx, Axxx, Axx, xxx (another flat eleven count) makes game pretty close to cold, and so again I would want to try for game.

In my weak notrump partnerships, the relevant bidding machinery is:

• 2♥, a signoff
• 2♣, game invitational Stayman
• 2♦, game forcing Stayman
• 3♥, a signoff, promising seven hearts (or 6 hearts with a side four card suit)
• 4♣, South African transfer to 4H
• 4♥, signoff

In each case, i would choose to bid 2♣ with the shown hand, and then rebid a minimum number of hearts next (unless partner bids 2♥ himself).  Of course, with this type of approach, opener has to be very careful of bidding 3NT at his third turn, because partner’s 2♣ response might be light on high cards.

At the club game on Monday, partner would have accepted the game try in hearts, making game as these were the hands of the partnership:

West ♠ AJ76 ♥ K64 ♦ K87 ♣ A74

East ♠ 92 ♥ AJ87532 ♦ QT4 ♣ J

West ♠ J964 ♥ J863 ♦ AK ♣ KQ2

East ♠ AQ5 ♥ KT7542 ♦ 74 ♣ T4

(Yes, on the first hand, I can see that West chose to show 12-14 when he actually held a flat, but control rich 15 HCP.)  The bidding on the second hand got a little complicated, because North overcalled West’s weak notrump with 2♣, showing an undisclosed one-suiter.  In my most sophisticated partnership, we could have handled the interference: East would pass 2♣, and then when South relays to 2♦ and North shows her suit with 3♣, East can bid 3♦, a transfer bid showing hearts and invitational or better values.  Perhaps the same sequence, but with 3♥ replacing 3♦ call, would inferentially communicate invitational values if not playing transfers (explaining why hearts were not bid on the first round), but those inferences seem to be clearer in the post mortem than they are at the table.