[pigpenz]

Scoring: IMP

---

Maybe I am trying to be too delicate but what is your best bid over partners rebid of spades playing standard.


auction:
1♣ 2♦ 2♠ pass
you

[pigpenz]

i opted for 3♦ at the table partner bid 3♠'s i bid 3NT and then he rebid 4♠'s, maybe i should have just rebid 3NT to start with

[Walddk]

I would rebid 3NT as I would have if LHO hadn't overcalled 2♦. I know I don't have a heart stopper, but there is nothing that suggests that opps are able to take 5 heart tricks.

Agreed,

x
Kx
Axx
AKQJ1098

would have been better, but I've got to bid the hand I am dealt. 3♦ with 8 certain tricks doesn't do this hand justice. I would have had a much tougher problem is they had overcalled hearts. If they did, 3♥ would be my rebid.

Roland

[han]

3NT for me too. I hope that partner doesn't take this as a balanced 14-count. He may take it as a balanced 18-count, but that's ok with me.

[mikeh]

I agree with Roland: an imperfect 3N is a better description that the slow cue-bid route.

Whenever you have two ways to a destination, the slow way shows doubt, while the fast way sends a strong message that this is right.

Yes, you have doubt.... they may run ♥. But the more common reason for doubt is that you have some support for partner. Thus I think that partner may legitimately interprete your sequence as allowing him to remove 3N quite readily. A fast-arrival 3N can only be removed if he has a very good reason for doing so.

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Oct 21 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

I agree with Roland: Yes, you have doubt.... they may run ♥.

Glad to see that MikeH has come to his senses. Must be sea breeze off Vancouver. The fear of rebidding 3NT could be transferred to this simple example:

Axx
xx
KQxx
AQxx

Playing 15-17 NT, we would all open 1NT although there is a risk that opps may start with the first 7-8 heart tricks. One has to live with that and get on with things.

Roland

[junyi_zhu]

pigpenz, on Oct 21 2005, 04:34 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

Maybe I am trying to be too delicate but what is your best bid over partners rebid of spades playing standard.


auction:
1♣ 2♦ 2♠ pass
you

If you play transfers, you can bid 2nt to transfer to 3C then rebid 3nt over 3C(minimum response), so partner knows you hold long clubs and want to play NT, you give up natural 2nt here though.

[pigpenz]

junyi_zhu, on Oct 21 2005, 12:19 PM, said:

If you play transfers, you can bid 2nt to transfer to 3C then rebid 3nt over 3C(minimum response), so partner knows you hold long clubs and want to play NT, you give up natural 2nt here though.

nothing elaborate here, thats why i said we were playing standard.
prettymuch maybe the two choices on the poll should just have been 3NT or 3♦.

I think i was blinded by trying to get 3NT played from the right side but if partner has qx or qxx ♦'s shouldnt matter then.

[FrancesHinden]

If you give up on a natural 2NT bid, what do you bid on a 2434 12-count?

[tysen2k]

3NT for me too. Gamble it up.

[Al_U_Card]

3 NT is typical with 5C being one of those "it only makes game but at least it makes" shots that are hard to explain when they go down and 3NT is there.....

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Oct 21 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

I think the fear of bidding 3N is hearing 4H/4S from partner.

Well, that is exactly what 3NT means: "I am not interested in any contract other than 3NT"

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Oct 21 2005, 07:22 PM, said:

I think the REAL problem on this hand is that neither 2N nor 3C is forcing which overloads both the cuebid and the 3N bid. But I'm not really happy with this choice.

I agree.
BTW, junhi zu'z suggestion of artificial 2NT does not seem to me too much offtrack.

In many other auctions, where there is no room to invite, we just bid 3NT holding a good 11 and signoff in a partscore otherwise.

Even Buratti and Lanzarotti in their Nightmare system have altogether eliminated from the system game invitation: it's either game or partscore.
Perhgaps that is too extreme, however, doing so in a few sequences to improve others does not seem to me too big of a loss (and yes, I know sometimes it won't work, it's the same old tradeoff issue )

[pigpenz]

I think Justin is right, which bid does the hand more justice the 3♦ cue bid or the nebulous 3NT call.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 21 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

All that being said, I'll take my chances with 3N. I think the REAL problem on this hand is that neither 2N nor 3C is forcing which overloads both the cuebid and the 3N bid. But I'm not really happy with this choice.

I play that 2♠ promises a rebid: I had thought (mistakenly?) that this was common practice by an unpassed hand. Thus I do NOT see a problem with the balanced hands which so concern Justin: partner cannot pass 2N nor 3♣ Playing any other way puts far too much load on opener who has heard only one, unlimited, bid from partner.

For me, 3N does not involve 4 of a major unless partner has a very unusual hand.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Oct 21 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 21 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

All that being said, I'll take my chances with 3N. I think the REAL problem on this hand is that neither 2N nor 3C is forcing which overloads both the cuebid and the 3N bid. But I'm not really happy with this choice.

I play that 2♠ promises a rebid: I had thought (mistakenly?) that this was common practice by an unpassed hand. Thus I do NOT see a problem with the balanced hands which so concern Justin: partner cannot pass 2N nor 3♣ Playing any other way puts far too much load on opener who has heard only one, unlimited, bid from partner.

For me, 3N does not involve 4 of a major unless partner has a very unusual hand.

I believe Mike Lawrence suggests that 2s is forcing but does not promise a rebid, even by an unpassed hand. He wants responder to be able to bid with light hands like:

AJ873=83=KJ3=JT4

1) Responder can pass when the opponents compete and opener doesn't rebid.
2) Responder can pass when opener rebids 2nt.
3) Responder can pass when opener raises responder's suit.
4) Responder can pass when opener rebids her suit.

[Free]

3NT (also depends if 2♠ is forcing or not, and how weak it can be). Shows 15+HCP, no support for ♠, long ♣ suit and ♦ stopper. Perfect description (and yes, this sometimes turns out bad).