Responding to a 15-17 Notrump – Part III
A Reader's Contribution

How Good Is:   A . Kxxx . JT87x . xxx

After opening 1NT, your partner responds 2♦ over your Stayman inquiry.  I believe that most players would follow up with an invitational 2NT.  Let's see whether that is best:

Nope.  It appears that diamond contracts average nearly two tricks better than notrump.  Passing 2♦, therefore, is a prohibitive matchpoint favorite.  Of course, as has proved so frequently the case in other simulations, trying for the game bonus can be a substantial total-point winner — provided that your opponents donate their quota of tricks in the play!

Now suppose that opener responds 2♠ (denying hearts).  Again, I daresay that most would try an invitational 2NT.  An alternative would be to sign off in 3♦.  Let's test that comparison:

Even though the contract is a level higher this time, it still is better to play in diamonds at matchpoints.  And it remains far better to invite game at imps.

* At matchpoints, play in diamonds when opener has no major.

* At imps, invite game.

Of course, opener might cooperate by rebidding 2♥.  Now the question is whether we should invite game or simply bid it.  Here is the answer:

Okay, there is no news here: just bid the game, and come out ahead in the long run.

* With a 4-4 heart fit, go to game.

What about a general strategy for handling this hand?  The following chart details a number of options, with their total-point expectations:

What?  Sign off in 2♦?  What system could even do that?  The answer is: my own system supports such an exit (we don't play Stayman!); but that's another story.  Take the ace or king away from this hand, and ♦ becomes the standout contract.  The actual collection, however, is too good for such conservatism, as there is much game potential.  Note, however, that 2♦ outscores 1NT even when opener might be long in one or both majors.

It appears that the best overall strategy is the one that perhaps most players would adopt:

* Raise 2♥ to game; invite in Notrump otherwise.

My thanks to reader Ed Judy for submitting this problem.