[mike777]

jillybean2, on May 14 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

I didnt double over 1♠ because I dont have 4♥'s and I think 2♣/3♦ describes my strength and shape accurately. Is it better to play in a 4-3♥ fit,and at what level than to find a minor game or nt?

For those saying 3♥ to play does not exist, I have had this auction with 2 (expert) partners recently who think it does.

My two cents worth.

1) If you got 3 suits and only 3 cards in the unbid major but excellent 13+hcp or more, make a takeout x.

2) If you really prefer 2club overcall, cool, just x when 2spades comes around to you. X shows stiff in spades, perfect.

[jdonn]

I hate when people try to find a logical reason why a bid can't show what it completely sounds like the bid shows. Partner bid hearts when you showed two other suits, so he has a lot of hearts and was too weak to bid them before. To think otherwise is to overcomplicate the simplest of matters.

I put arguing that 3♥ either doesn't show hearts or is impossible in the same class of arguments that a new suit in competition by a passed hand promises some kind of support for partner.

[jillybean]

Ok without my bad bidding:

P (1♠) 2♣ (2♠)
P (P) 3♦ (DBL)
3♥?

In this auction, the 3♥ bidder has long weak ♥'s
and wants to play there, holding something like Qxx, QJxxxx,xx,xx
(this is the hand my partner held)

The 2♣ bidder should have something like x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx

[Codo]

This is the problem for all the 3 ♥ = natural bidders. There is nearly no hand you can construct where it makes sense to play 3 Heart and not 3 Diamond or 4 Club.
I think you must have about xxx,JT9876543,x,x to construct such a hand.

In Jans example 3 Heart worked because pd besides strong minors has Qx in heart.
In Jills example, pd introduced a new 6 card suit instead of playing in a minor. SO if this was to play, t makes me shiver. Why play in a possible 6-o or 6-1 fit when you habe a 6 (7) 2- Fit avaiable?

I agree that a meaning for 3 Heart like: Is natural and will prefer Clubs to diamonds is the nicest way to play it, but I doubt that this is mainstream.

What makes me real wonder are the people who believe that 3 Diamond shows a 4 card suit.
Even if you do not use
P (1♠) 2♣ (2♠)
p p 2 NT
for this hand (primary clubs, secodary diamonds), I doubt that 3 Diamond is a good idea with a 7-4 hand which was not strong enough to double 1 Spade.

So I would still play my pd for a 6-5 hand in the "in between" range.

[han]

jillybean2, on May 16 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

The 2♣ bidder should have something like x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx

That hand is too strong. I'd start with 2NT followed by some number of clubs.

The hand I gave is weaker (x x AJxxx AKJ10xx) and the clubs are much better than the diamonds. That's what I'd expect for the bidding. A strong 4-6 is also possible.

In response to an earlier comment by you, we don't double because we think the 4-3 heart fit will play better, we double because we want to find a 5-3 heart fit or better.

[han]

Codo, on May 16 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

This is the problem for all the 3 ♥ = natural bidders. There is nearly no hand you can construct where it makes sense to play 3 Heart and not 3 Diamond or 4 Club.
I think you must have about xxx,JT9876543,x,x to construct such a hand.

How about a 7-card heart suit? Is it really impossible to have a 4-7-1-1 shape on this auction? Do I need to pass when I have a 3-7-2-1 shape?

Quote

So I would still play my pd for a 6-5 hand in the "in between" range.

Please take my reverses more seriously partner.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on May 16 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

The 2♣ bidder should have something like x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx

This hand should begin with 2N, not 2C.

[jillybean]

x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx if these hands are bid via 2nt, then a 2♣:3♦ bid does not exist at all? U2nt can cover such a wide range of 2155 hands, I use it mostly on weak hands. Why not use 2♣:3♦ to show a good, strong hand? If I bid 2nt we can't stop at the 3level , I must bid again to show this strength.
(1♠) 2nt (P) 3♦
(P) 4♦?

or

(1♠) 2♣ (2♠) (P)
(P) 3♦ (P) Pass/Correct


(edit:auction corrected)

[jtfanclub]

Quote

x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx  if these hands are bid via 2nt, then a 2♣:3♦ bid does not exist at all?

Why not use 2♣:3♦ to show a good, strong hand?

Because you'll end up playing in 2♣ when you can make 5 or 6. If partner has four diamonds, for example, your example hand is odds on for 5♦ even if partner's highest card is a 6. And partner could have a much, much more powerful hand.

Axx
xxxx
Qxxx
xx

Anybody feel supporting partner's 2♣ overcall with this?

Replace the king of diamonds with the two and I think there's a better argument for bidding the hand this way.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on May 16 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

<snip>
In this auction, the 3♥ bidder has long weak ♥'s
and wants to play there, holding something like Qxx, QJxxxx,xx,xx
(this is the hand my partner held)

The 2♣ bidder should have something like x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx

#1 your partner has a fairly normal weak2 opener,
unless you are red vs green
the req. that a weak does not have a 3 card mayor
on the side is common, but certainly non standard

#2 if you had your bids, you know what you wanna
play: 4C, which makes, 3H gets Xed and is down -2 / -3
on the most likely 4-2 heart split and because they will
force you in spades

=> 3H may be to play, but at least with the given hand,
it is the last option I would consider, assuming I would
believe 3H to be natural (what I do not).

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on May 15 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

<snip>
I put arguing that 3♥ either doesn't show hearts or is impossible in the same class of arguments that a new suit in competition by a passed hand promises some kind of support for partner.
<snip>

It does. It is the same school of though.
You may exchange the word "support"
with the word "tolerance", but it is the
same school.
If partner comes in at the 3 level, out of
the blue sky, he need to have a security
blanket, else "no fit, no bid", fairly old advice.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on May 15 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

3♥ is to play. Partner has xxx-xxxxxxx-xx-x. Partner expects you to pass with a void hearts.
<snip>

which means partner makes a bid, expecting
to be -3 (3 spades and 4 hearts), while 3D
is most likely only -2, I should be able to ruff
a club.
If I dont have both minor Aces, hearts goes down
more as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on May 16 2007, 01:34 PM, said:

Quote

x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx  if these hands are bid via 2nt, then a 2♣:3♦ bid does not exist at all?

Why not use 2♣:3♦ to show a good, strong hand?

Because you'll end up playing in 2♣ when you can make 5 or 6. If partner has four diamonds, for example, your example hand is odds on for 5♦ even if partner's highest card is a 6. And partner could have a much, much more powerful hand.

Axx
xxxx
Qxxx
xx

Anybody feel supporting partner's 2♣ overcall with this?

Replace the king of diamonds with the two and I think there's a better argument for bidding the hand this way.

Im not sure how you end up playing 2♣ after a 3♦ reverse?

Remove the ♦K and you dont have a hand strong enough to reverse so you must bid 2nt

[jdonn]

P_Marlowe, on May 16 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 15 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

<snip>
I put arguing that 3♥ either doesn't show hearts or is impossible in the same class of arguments that a new suit in competition by a passed hand promises some kind of support for partner.
<snip>

It does. It is the same school of though.
You may exchange the word "support"
with the word "tolerance", but it is the
same school.
If partner comes in at the 3 level, out of
the blue sky, he need to have a security
blanket, else "no fit, no bid", fairly old advice.

With kind regards
Marlowe

My point was in the sense that what seems "logical" in theory can not prevent you from making what might seem like the only logical bid at the table. Tell me how you feel next time someone tells you 3♥ is not natural and you have xxx QJTxxxx xx x.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Im not sure how you end up playing 2♣ after a 3♦ reverse?

1♠ 2♣ P P
P

When you have 17 hcp, you can't assume the opponents will be kind enough to keep bidding.

Quote

Remove the ♦K and you dont have a hand strong enough to reverse so you must bid 2nt

Nope, that's the middle hand. Hands strong enough to go to the 4 level on its own bid 2NT then bid something. Weak pre-emptive hands bid 2NT and then pass partner's response. That's the idea of Weak-Strong 2 Notrump.

x x AJxxx AKQxxx is too weak for Strong 2NT, and too strong for Weak 2NT. So that hand overcalls 2♣. Should it then reverse to 3♦? I dunno, but I can see the argument for it.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on May 16 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

x,x,AKJxx,AKQxxx  if these hands are bid via 2nt, then a 2♣:3♦ bid does not exist at all?  U2nt can cover such a wide range of 2155 hands, I use it mostly on weak hands. Why not use 2♣:3♦ to show a good, strong hand?  If I bid 2nt we can't stop at the 3level , I must bid again to show this strength.

That's correct but if you have both minors there's an advantage of showing that immediately so that partner can do something inteligent after LHO has raised 1♠ to 4♠.

3♦ is an exotic bid but here's some inference:
- You don't have two appr. equal suits since then you've started with 2NT
- You don't have hearts support since then you've started with X or doubled now
- You don't merely want to show a diamond side-suit since you could have done that with 2NT, still offering partner to bid 3♣.
- You don't merely want to play 4♣ since then you'd bid 4♣ now.

Obviously, you have enough O/D to compete to 4♣ on your own, but
- You offer 3♦ just in case partner has diamonds
- You didn't overcall 4♣ at first because you're too strong. In fact you may still have some game interest
- It's interesting what the difference is between 2NT and 3♦. 3♦ forces partner to take preffence at the 4-level and it's unclear what advantage 3♦ may have. If opps play Bergen style, you know they have only 8 spades so they might very well let you play 3♣.

Maybe 3♦ shows five bad diamonds while 2NT shows 4 (or maybe 3) good diamonds. A useful agreement against opps who play Moscito so that partner is on lead.

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on May 16 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 16 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 15 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

<snip>
I put arguing that 3♥ either doesn't show hearts or is impossible in the same class of arguments that a new suit in competition by a passed hand promises some kind of support for partner.
<snip>

It does. It is the same school of though.
You may exchange the word "support"
with the word "tolerance", but it is the
same school.
If partner comes in at the 3 level, out of
the blue sky, he need to have a security
blanket, else "no fit, no bid", fairly old advice.

With kind regards
Marlowe

My point was in the sense that what seems "logical" in theory can not prevent you from making what might seem like the only logical bid at the table. Tell me how you feel next time someone tells you 3♥ is not natural and you have xxx QJTxxxx xx x.

I pass, ... I would open 2H or 3H or pass,
depending on vul., and after that ignore
my heart suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Quite often I make illogical bids, due
to lack of concentration and so on.