[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ (p) 1nt (p)
3♦ (p) ?

---

Your bid please?

[P_Marlowe]

3NT

You cant pass, and 3S is also out,
this leaves 3H and 3NT, I will
go with 3NT.

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Ditto

[bearmum]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 25 2005, 08:44 PM, said:

3NT

You cant pass, and 3S is also out,
this leaves 3H and 3NT, I will
go with 3NT.

Marlowe

ditto

[Winstonm]

3S.

The same bid I would make with xx in spades. It is unclear at this point what contract is best but it seems certain that no matter what it is it is better from opener's side. Partner can hold a number of hands for this auction including balanced and semi-balanced hands. He or she should not get overly excited about what may be a false preference to 3S. If partner is unbalanced with a 6/4, the spade Q should be plenty of help. If semibalanced, partner can complete the description with 3N. If strongly unbalanced with 6/5 or 5/5, the next bid should be 4D after which I have a new problem - do I cue bid the club Ace or simply raise to 5 diamonds.

Winston

[Walddk]

3♠. No alternative. It doesn't show support, merely preference. 4♦ would promise support (4), 3NT would be the bid with

x
Qxxx
xxx
Axxxx

and finally, 3♥ would show a suit or values, depending on your agreement.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on Nov 25 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

<snip>

It is unclear at this point what contract is best but it seems certain that no matter what it is it is better from opener's side. 

<snip>

Hi,

this may be true, but you already did
bid 1NT, so NT will always be played from
your side, but partner may be missing a
club stopper ... or a heart stopper.

Marlowe

[helene_t]

3NT. Hamman's rule.

The only way to get to 3NT is to bid it now.

[jillybean]

I went searching for "Hammans Rule" and found this interesting site, The Bridge World Bridge Gloassary'

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossh.html

Still searching for more information on Hammans Rule...

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Nov 25 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

3NT. Hamman's rule.

Excellent rule, but 3NT is not one of the alternatives with that hand in my opinion, and I doubt that Hamman himself would bid it.

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

If you bid 3NT wouldn't that deny the preference doubleton S? 6 hcp opposite a J/S seems about right for 3NT and the C suit may produce a few tricks while the H babies will stop them from running off 5 H tricks to start.....I hope.

[mikeh]

3♠

3N is not a reasonable alternative, and I believe that Haman's Rule does contain some reference to 3N being at least a plausible possibility. It is not on this hand: or did I miss the ♥ card that 3N shows?

In the interim, there is no need to panic. 4♠ will often be a fine contract, and even slam may be fine: imagine partner sitting with AKJxxx x AKQxx x: how would the bidding have gone so far? And, in terms of hcp, that is not even a maximum for his hand. If he holds AKJxx x AKQxx Qx, he will pass 3N. Good luck!

As a previous poster noted, the Q♠ is easily worth xx, and would we not all happily bid 3♠ with xx xxxx Qxx Axxxx? (If not, you should )

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Nov 25 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

As a previous poster noted, the Q♠ is easily worth xx, and would we not all happily bid 3♠ with xx xxxx Qxx Axxxx? (If not, you should )

I would bid 3S with xx, and the Q is easily worth xx,
but only if you catch patrtner with a 6 card suit.

But he may have only a 5 carder, ... and he will
most of the time.

Marlowe

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Nov 25 2005, 05:25 PM, said:

I went searching for "Hammans Rule" and found this interesting site, The Bridge World Bridge Gloassary'

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossh.html

Still searching for more information on Hammans Rule...

Hamman's rule (n): A commonly used excuse for bad 3NT bids. Attributed to ->Bob Hamman, but often referred to in situations where he would never dream of applying it. Whereas it can end the discussion in many bridge circles, the contributors at a well-known bridge forum know better.

[jillybean]

very funny

[Al_U_Card]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 25 2005, 12:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 25 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

As a previous poster noted, the Q♠ is easily worth xx, and would we not all happily bid 3♠ with xx xxxx Qxx Axxxx? (If not, you should )

I would bid 3S with xx, and the Q is easily worth xx,
but only if you catch patrtner with a 6 card suit.

But he may have only a 5 carder, ... and he will
most of the time.

Marlowe

I can appreciate the preference due to the "value" of the SQ but will opener then bid 3NT with Jxx of H? (AKJxx,Jxx,AKJx,Q)

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on Nov 25 2005, 01:09 PM, said:

Hamman's rule (n): A commonly used excuse for bad 3NT bids. Attributed to ->Bob Hamman, but often referred to in situations where he would never dream of applying it.

The same can be said for most bromides and platitudes as well as numerous conventions and treatments....

[luis]

3♠ if somebody has to bid 3NT it's not me.

[han]

3♠, 3NT is not an option.


Good thread.

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on Nov 26 2005, 01:43 AM, said:

3S.

The same bid I would make with xx in spades.  It is unclear at this point what contract is best but it seems certain that no matter what it is it is better from opener's side.  Partner can hold a number of hands for this auction including balanced and semi-balanced hands.  He or she should not get overly excited about what may be a false preference to 3S.  If partner is unbalanced with a 6/4, the spade Q should be plenty of help.  If semibalanced, partner can complete the description with 3N.  If strongly unbalanced with 6/5 or 5/5, the next bid should be 4D after which I have a new problem - do I cue bid the club Ace or simply raise to 5 diamonds.

Winston

I'm for 3♠ too.

However this explanation ignores the problem opener will have with some very ordinary 5=3=4=1 and 5=1=4=3 hands.

These problems are quite likely as I would expect partner to bid 2NT with many 5=2=4=2 hands especially if the doubletons were strong.

I'll leave those problems for partner to solve.