[skjaeran]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ - 2♦
2♥ - 2NT
3♣ - 3♦
?

---

2♦=GF
Are you worth a try, and if so, what's the best bid now?

[awm]

I'd sign off. This is a different auction than 1♥-2♦-2♥-3♦, which is much more forward going. On this bidding:

(1) Partner has a balanced hand or maybe short hearts. With a black suit singleton partner does not bid 2NT. This means we don't have "working shortage" anywhere and need a lot extra for slam.

(2) Partner may just be trying to get to 4♥ if we have a legitimate 6-4 or avoid 3NT opposite a spade singleton. Since neither of these is the situation, the hand argues for a 3NT call.

The prime values (aces/kings) and mild diamond fit are nice, but I can't see partner bidding any differently with some hand like ATx xx AKxxxx Kx which is a perfectly sound game force but doesn't offer any real play for slam.

BTW, what do our bids mean below 3NT? I would expect 3♥ to show a real 6-4, and 3♠ (4th suit) to show doubt about spades, something like a minimum 1525 or 1534 or maybe 2524 with a small doubleton and suggesting a diamond contract unless partner has strong/slow spade holding.

[pclayton]

3N.

I'm not sure this auction is any less forward going than a direct 3♦, but its a lot less definitive.

Pard definitely has short hearts and long diamonds. Pard does not have 4 clubs or 4 spades. I'm putting CHO on a 3=1=6=3, without spectacular diamonds. The range is still open ended, but at a minimum its AQx, x, KTxxxx, Kxx and could be something like: AKx, x, KQTxxx, Axx.

One of us needs to box our hand. My sequence so far has been non-descript, but with a slammish 2=5=3=4, I have the option of raisind diamonds at this point. With the 1st hand pard has a clear pass of 3N - as a matter of fact I can see a 3N call over 3♣, but with the 2nd, I think pard owes me one more move.

I suppose you could argue that 3♦ has to promise more like the 2nd hand, but I'd want to hear other's thoughts on this.

[kenrexford]

awm, on May 7 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

I'd sign off. This is a different auction than 1♥-2♦-2♥-3♦, which is much more forward going. On this bidding:

(1) Partner has a balanced hand or maybe short hearts. With a black suit singleton partner does not bid 2NT. This means we don't have "working shortage" anywhere and need a lot extra for slam.

(2) Partner may just be trying to get to 4♥ if we have a legitimate 6-4 or avoid 3NT opposite a spade singleton. Since neither of these is the situation, the hand argues for a 3NT call.

The prime values (aces/kings) and mild diamond fit are nice, but I can't see partner bidding any differently with some hand like ATx xx AKxxxx Kx which is a perfectly sound game force but doesn't offer any real play for slam.

BTW, what do our bids mean below 3NT? I would expect 3♥ to show a real 6-4, and 3♠ (4th suit) to show doubt about spades, something like a minimum 1525 or 1534 or maybe 2524 with a small doubleton and suggesting a diamond contract unless partner has strong/slow spade holding.

This is a good question -- what are Opener's bidding options after 3♦.

3♥, as you note, seems fairly obvious -- confirming a 6-4, especially if 2♥ is a normal call with 5♥/4♣ and not high reverse values.

What, however, is 3♠?

There are two logical interpretations, I think.

One is doubt expressing. This gains in finding the right contract when spades are open. This may be necessary if the 2/1 style is such that 2♦...3♦ (not through 2NT) is passable. It may also have merits if the style is such where 2NT is simply waiting.

The other option is for 3♠ to artificially agree diamonds and show slam interest, showing a 1534 hand, not inclined to bypass 3NT.

The problem with this latter interpretation is that Responder would normally bid 3♣ with 5♦/4♣, I would expect. So, why bid 3♣ with mild slam interest and not a simple 3♦? 3♣, itself, seems to be either preparatory for showing 6-4 or simply a method to show spade concern.

Of course, this then begs a question. If 3♣ makes little sense with 5♥, 4♣, and good spades for 3NT (just bid 3NT the first time), then would not 3♣-P-3♦-P-3NT imply distaste for the spade situation?

In the end, it seems to me that 3♣, in this auction, by Opener, should be the next step in handling one of three patterns:

(a.) 6♥/4♣ (will bid 3♥ after 3♦ or will raise 3♥)
(b.) 5♥/4♣ and spade distaste for 3NT (will bid 3NT next)
(c.) 5♥/4♣/3♦/1♠ (will cue 3♠ after 3♦)

But wait! There's more!

What if the style is such that 2♦...3♣ by Responder is very slammish, whereas Responder will bid 2NT, allowing Opener to rebid 3♣, on mild slam hands? This throws everything out.

So, I'm pretty sure that I will not "make a try," but the "best bid now" depends a lot on the partnership understanding as to what 2♦...3♦ shows, what 2♦...3♣ shows, what 2NT...3♦ shows, and what agreements the partnership has as to fourth-suit bids after an initial 2NT.

[mike777]

edit...
Just to be different, what happens if I pass with this opener hand as a new p/u partner and we have no long system discussion?

[cherdano]

mike777, on May 7 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

edit...
Just to be different, what happens if I pass with this opener hand as a new p/u partner and we have no long system discussion?

Someone might end up to tell you stop trolling.

[Fluffy]

4♦ for me, followed by 5 if posibble

[dcvetkov]

I dont really see why we should bid anything else then 3NT. Yes we have nice couple of aces and kings, but 3NT is bidding what we have and it should show 2-5-2-4 distribution and its probably the best contract. Partner can make one more try with a big hand, like
AKx, x AKxxxx Kxx

3♠ I believe can be one of the two mentioned above
- Still probe for 3NT, doubt
- Slam try agreeing diamonds, Cue bid

Not sure which one makes more sense or its more frequent.

[Fluffy]

dcvetkov, on May 8 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

I dont really see why we should bid anything else then 3NT.

Because it is sad to loose first 5 tricks when you have 11 (or 12) in diamonds, what is the correct meaning or 3♠, I don't know.

[skjaeran]

[QUOTE]There are two logical interpretations, I think.

One is doubt expressing. This gains in finding the right contract when spades are open. This may be necessary if the 2/1 style is such that 2[di]...3[di] (not through 2NT) is passable. It may also have merits if the style is such where 2NT is simply waiting.

The other option is for 3[sp] to artificially agree diamonds and show slam interest, showing a 1534 hand, not inclined to bypass 3NT.

The problem with this latter interpretation is that Responder would normally bid 3[cl] with 5[di]/4[cl], I would expect. So, why bid 3[cl] with mild slam interest and not a simple 3[di]? 3[cl], itself, seems to be either preparatory for showing 6-4 or simply a method to show spade concern.[/QUOTE]
3[cl] over 2[he] would show 5-5 in my methods. Thus we're able to quickly find a 5-3 fit (responder rebids 3[cl]) and a 4-4 fit (2NT by responder, 3[cl] by opener). I didn't play with my regular partner, thus this wasn't discussed, but I think his inclination is the same. 2[di] was GF, as posted. He could thus have rebid 3[di] over 2[he] with a hand suited for that.

[QUOTE]Of course, this then begs a question. If 3[cl] makes little sense with 5[he], 4[cl], and good spades for 3NT (just bid 3NT the first time), then would not 3[cl]-P-3[di]-P-3NT imply distaste for the spade situation?

In the end, it seems to me that 3[cl], in this auction, by Opener, should be the next step in handling one of three patterns:

(a.) 6[he]/4[cl] (will bid 3[he] after 3[di] or will raise 3[he])
(b.) 5[he]/4[cl] and spade distaste for 3NT (will bid 3NT next)
(c.) 5[he]/4[cl]/3[di]/1[sp] (will cue 3[sp] after 3[di])[QUOTE]
As we could be heading for a slam in a possible 4-4 [cl] fit, I'd always bid 3[cl] on a 4-card suit here. See above.[/QUOTE]

An important point is which minor suit opener bids over 2NT if his holding is 3-4. With weak [di]'s and strong [cl]'s, I'd probably rebid 3[cl]. And with equal strenght or better [di]'s I's rebid 3[di].

Thus, I can still be 1534. My thinking is that I'd raise 3[di] to 4[di] with that hand, and therefor 3[sp] should be a bid showing uncertainty with regards to final contract. Probably 2524 with weak [sp]'s.

[whereagles]

Nice tactical problem here.

1. If pard's bidding is slammish and he can be trusted to have his bids: 4♦.

2. If pard overbids (or is from category 1 but his bidding is not slammish) and can understand that 3♠ now is a stopper ask: 3♠.

3. If pard does not fall into the categories above but is a decent player: 3♥.

4. Finally, if pard does not fall into category 1, 2 or 3: 3NT.

[SoTired]

sorry - I don't understand why we did not bid 3N last round? I would expect the 3C bid to show extras. We better bid 3N this round for sure. How much are we going to sell our 5422 ordinary min opener?

[jdonn]

Easy 3NT, all my bids have been automatic. Partner bids in this order not to show extra strength, just to show hand type. So he is something like 3163 or 3262 with black suit stoppers, and it's obvious where I probably want to play.

[mikeh]

SoTired, on May 8 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

sorry - I don't understand why we did not bid 3N last round? I would expect the 3C bid to show extras. We better bid 3N this round for sure. How much are we going to sell our 5422 ordinary min opener?

If you are of the school that requires significant extras to have bid 3♣ over 2♦ (as I am) then it is, in my experience, entirely possible for responder to hold something like 3=1=5=4 with good ♣s and ♠ values, and to be unlimited. This 2N bid is space-saving and allows opener to better define his hand: thus 3♣ now shows Hxxx (I wouldn't show Jxxx as an example, and would strain not to show Qxxx).

Given that responder is unlimited, I would permit 2N on Axx x AKxxx KQJx as an example... I would not bid 3♣ because my hand may be difficult to describe and/or may give opener a problem if he has, say, KJx AQxxx x Axxx... should he raise ♣s (beyond 3N) or should he bid 3N, since he may hold the only ♠ values we own?

As it is, my slow sequence to 3♣ has still not defined my hand very well: I cold easily be 1=6=2=4, as an example, so I cannot read too much into partner's 3♦ other than that he doesn't have a clear 3N nor a clear ♥ preference (Hx would fetch an automatic 3♥).

My job is to limit my hand, by way of shape and values: hence 3N.

Frankly, I think this is the kind of hand that is problematic only if you try to think too deeply into the hand: I am not claiming that 3N will be the right contract, but I fail to see why I should not bid it. Maybe someone will enlighten me

The comment about losing the 1st 5 tricks doesn't do the job: partner will rarely, if ever, have xx in ♠s for his 2N: he MIGHT have xxx, but then the suit will break 4-4 some of the time... a far more common holding on this doubt-expressing auction is Qxx... now I'd be a moron not to bid 3N... any other call should deny ♠s as good as Jx in my view (or promise a far better overcall hand)

[whereagles]

mikeh, on May 8 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

I am not claiming that 3N will be the right contract, but I fail to see why I should not bid it.

Pard would have bid 3NT over 3♣ if he wasn't interested on slam. So 3♦ should be slammish and in that context I have a good hand: moderate support and top controls. Hand is min but I've already shown that with 2♥+3♣.

Of course, all this holds if I can trust pard's bidding. If I know he's just bidding for the sake of it, 3NT would hit the table 10 secs before I wrote this

[mikeh]

whereagles, on May 8 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 8 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

I am not claiming that 3N will be the right contract, but I fail to see why I should not bid it.

Pard would have bid 3NT over 3♣ if he wasn't interested on slam. So 3♦ should be slammish and in that context I have a good hand: moderate support and top controls. Hand is min but I've already shown that with 2♥+3♣.

Of course, all this holds if I can trust pard's bidding. If I know he's just bidding for the sake of it, 3NT would hit the table 10 secs before I wrote this

I am sorry, whereagles, but your post is nonsense...

3♦ may be based on slam values, but it may equally be (and, on the whole, is more likely to be) based on a desire to reach the best contract.

Consider Qxx xx KQJxx KQx

partner opens 1♥, rebids 2♥ over 2♦ and then bids 3♣. What kind of hand does he have?

We know (from the OP) that 2♥ was a noise... showed no extra length, and 3♣ was either a weakish (no significant extras) 5-4 or almost all 6-4 hands.

So we do not yet know if partner holds, for example, Kxx KJxxx x AJxx... no game is great but 3N is best (and we can't stay out of game) or x AKQxx xxx Axxx on which a red suit contract is best or x AKxxxx xx AJxx in which case 4♥ is best.

These are just a couple of quick examples: responder cannot just blindly bid 3N with a single or dubious ♠ stopper without knowing more about opener's hand. He has to make a bid that maximizes the ability of opener to make a descriptive bid, and 3♦ is perfect for that. BTW, don't respond merely by taking potshots at the sugested hands... if you disagree that these hands would logically be bid to 3♣ in this way, tweak them to where you'd agree with the bidding, bearing in mind the constraint that we know that the correct rebid over 2♦ is 2♥ with the actual hand.

One of the joys of being in a good partnership is the ability to hold subtle auctions like this and to reach, say, a decent 5-2 4♥ rather than the lemming-attracting 3N. Committing the 3♦ bid to be a slam try is no way to bid intelligently.

[jdonn]

Actually whereagles does have a point in that our hand is very slam suitable. Of course we have to bid 3NT now since partner could be looking for the best game and we are very balanced. But if partner really has slam interest (something his bidding has not at all promised but still could have) and makes any further move, say 4NT over 3NT, I will like my hand so much in context I'll just bid 6♦. It would indeed be hard to picture a hand of this strength that would be better for diamonds on that or a similar auction, and I would then place partner with something like AQx x KQTxxx KQx or Kx xx AKQxxx KQx.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 8 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

Actually whereagles does have a point in that our hand is very slam suitable. Of course we have to bid 3NT now since partner could be looking for the best game and we are very balanced. But if partner really has slam interest (something his bidding has not at all promised but still could have) and makes any further move, say 4NT over 3NT, I will like my hand so much in context I'll just bid 6♦. It would indeed be hard to picture a hand of this strength that would be better for diamonds on that or a similar auction, and I would then place partner with something like AQx x KQTxxx KQx or Kx xx AKQxxx KQx.

I don't disagree with this point at all: but game before slam, and re-evaluate if and when partner invites us to do do

[Winstonm]

I don't understand the auction - opener made his hand sound much more distributional than it is. I'm not sure what responder is doing in this sequence with the 3D bid.

I bid 3N, which is what I would have bid over 2N instead of 3C.

P.S. I agree with MikeH's comments except on this hand with a card in every stall and flattish shape I wouldn't try for the 5/2 heart fit. I just bid 3N over 2N.