[HardVector]

---

MP, club game. Assume you are playing 2/1 and 1n was forcing.

[TylerE]

Textbook 3♠ bid.

[smerriman]

Too strong for 3♠ for me, I'm bidding 3♦.

[hrothgar]

smerriman, on 2019-April-24, 19:01, said:

Too strong for 3♠ for me, I'm bidding 3♦.

I thought 3!D was stronger than 3!S

[Tramticket]

hrothgar, on 2019-April-24, 23:43, said:

I thought 3!D was stronger than 3!S

I think that this is the point that smerriman was making. For me, this hand is worth a game force and 3♠ is strong but invitational.

[Trinidad]

3NT. GF, solid suit. There is no reason to limit this treatment to minor suit openings.

The problem hand is the one where the spade suit is not solid.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-April-25, 02:57, said:

3NT. GF, solid suit. There is no reason to limit this treatment to minor suit openings.

The problem hand is the one where the spade suit is not solid.

Rik

Horrible bid, partner passes this with x, xxx, KQJxxx, xxx and you go off with 6♠ cold (if he doesn't pass reverse the minors and it's wrong to bid). I don't play WJS btw.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-25, 04:02, said:

Horrible bid, partner passes this with x, xxx, KQJxxx, xxx and you go off with 6♠ cold (if he doesn't pass reverse the minors and it's wrong to bid). I don't play WJS btw.

You do realise those are not the only two possible hands for responder? 3NT looks like a lot better description than 3D.

[sfi]

HardVector, on 2019-April-24, 18:41, said:

MP, club game. Assume you are playing 2/1 and 1n was forcing.

2NT game-forcing and asking partner to describe their hand. If you don't play it that way, it's worth considering.

[Tramticket]

sfi, on 2019-April-25, 04:54, said:

You do realise those are not the only two possible hands for responder? 3NT looks like a lot better description than 3D.

2-over-1 is not my system, but 3NT looks a pretty ugly bid to me.

How is responder to judge whether a random six-count contains useful values for NT (in this case a club stop) or wasted value and no club stop. I would rather bid 4♠ than 3NT - but a change of suit 3♦ at least gives some chances of choosing the right game.

May strong Acol-twos would get a better auction!

[hrothgar]

Tramticket, on 2019-April-25, 01:04, said:

I think that this is the point that smerriman was making. For me, this hand is worth a game force and 3♠ is strong but invitational.

thanks. misread the original post

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2019-April-25, 04:54, said:

You do realise those are not the only two possible hands for responder? 3NT looks like a lot better description than 3D.

3♦ has the big advantage that I get to find out if partner has 5+ hearts which may well be the spot to play.

I will add I missed the "1N forcing", I know very little about bidding over that, but if 2N is forcing and I can do that, may solve some of the problem

[nige1]

HardVector,writes 'MP, club game. Assume you are playing 2/1 and 1n was forcing.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With no special conventional agreements (e.g. Gazzilli), I rank
1. 3N = NAT. Reasonable game opposite typical weak hand e.g. ♠ x ♥ Q T x ♦ J x x ♣ J T x x x x.
2. 2N = NAT. but partner might pass with say ♠ x x ♥ x x x x ♦ K x x ♣ Q T x x.
3. 3♠ = INV. But partner might not expect 8 top tricks,
4. 3♦ = G/F. But a gullible partner might imagine that this shows 4+ ♦s.

---

[gordontd]

What would a 4C rebid show? Of course you can't play 3NT after that, though you could play 4NT, but it does clarify a possible search for a slam.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2019-April-25, 07:40, said:

What would a 4C rebid show? Of course you can't play 3NT after that, though you could play 4NT, but it does clarify a possible search for a slam.

Didn't think of Gordon's excellent auto-splinter, helping partner to evaluate the slam potential of hands like
♠ T x ♥ K x ♦ K Q x x ♣ J T x x x

[pescetom]

But I think that for most 2/1 players 3nt is not NAT (as discussed earlier) and 4C would be Gerber.

[HardVector]

sfi, on 2019-April-25, 04:55, said:

2NT game-forcing and asking partner to describe their hand. If you don't play it that way, it's worth considering.

2n would not be game forcing. Would show a balanced 17-18 pt hand with 5 spades.

[HardVector]

gordontd, on 2019-April-25, 07:40, said:

What would a 4C rebid show? Of course you can't play 3NT after that, though you could play 4NT, but it does clarify a possible search for a slam.

4♣ as a self splinter is reasonable, but you give up on finding a heart fit. Give partner --- KQxxx♥ Kxxx♦ xxxx♣ and you've missed a heart slam.

[HardVector]

My personal preference is for 3♦. After 3♦, your partner bids 4♦. Now what?

[gszes]

When u look at your hand what are the plausible game/slam contracts? Once you have done that see if there is a way you can successfully explore the vast majority w/o risking the obvious 3n 4M contracts. If your 1n bid is unlimited there really is no limit as to how many tricks these hands are worth so exploration is even more important than merely taking up bidding room. If we start with 3d we start to accomplish several things. 1. We inform p we have a GF hand (replace the spade J with a small one and I would much prefer a 3s bid) 2. We leave open hearts spades diamonds and right sided NT as game/slam level contracts. 3. We keep the bidding lower which allows for the greatest amount of exploration w/o the risk of being passed out with game almost a certainty.


For those that feel 4c should be gerber please concoct a hand or two where that makes sense. I would vastly prefer 4c as a self splinter setting spades as trumps. If I were a queen stronger 4c would be my bid of choice.


3d = 10
4c = 8 better have good partnership agreements in place though
4s = 7 only because it is probably our best spot
3s = 6
2n = 4
2s = 3
2d = 2
3n = 1 I like 3n better than 2h for ex:) and that's assuming both partner play it as solid spades.