[Poky]

IMP. Opps vul.

♠10x
♥A
♦Kxx
♣AK8xxxx

1♣ 1♥
2♣ 3NT
??

Do you agree with 2♣?

What do you bid on 3NT and why?

[whereagles]

2♣: a bit pessimistic, but ok.

After 3NT: 4♣. I got the best hand I could possibly have for this auction.

[Free]

4NT, invite with good suit. I don't want to play in ♣ because that would wrongside the contract.

[mr1303]

I would probably have bid 3C on a previous round. I initially bid 4C if the bidding had gone the way stated, but on reflection I think Free is right (shock horror!)

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, wtp?

Yes I agree with 2C, and I pass now.
We may miss slam, but than I may go
down in 3NT, if partner streched to bid
3NT, if he holds only a single club, and
so on, ....

With kind regards
Marlowe

[inquiry]

Poky, on Apr 6 2006, 05:28 AM, said:

IMP. Opps vul.

♠10x
♥A
♦Kxx
♣AK8xxxx

1♣ 1♥
2♣ 3NT
??

Do you agree with 2♣?

What do you bid on 3NT and why?

Yes I agree with 2♣, because I have no other suitable bid.

Yes I bid on. The reason is I have a great hand. Partner will have a reasonable hand, and the worse his fit is for ♣ the BETTER his hand will be. For the followers of ZAR points, let me put this in ZAR point perspective. I have 36 ZAR points. Partner promised at least 26 ZAR points at a minimum (and can have more). 26+36 = 62 ZAR points.

It just so happens Zar suggest (assuming controls are adequate) that 62 Zar points are needed for slam (assuming adequate controls, etc). I can't imagine passing a hand that is in slam ZONE if partner holds the minimum for his bid. How to continue is a horse of a different color. 4NT is out because partner will pass with some minimums and we want to more strongly encourage. And passing just is not an option. So it is a forcing 4♣ or 4♦ or blast 6♣/6NT.

[mikeh]

I agree with 2♣: indeed, any other bid would be a clear error in my view: I would need the ♣109 to consider 3♣.

As for bidding again: that is a violation of the partnership aspect of the game.

Do you have extras? Yes. Do you expect to make 4 or even 5 nt? Yes.

But slam will be good only on very specific hands or on hands where partner has made an error (or both). And on many more likely hands, bad splits may beat whatever contract you reach.

Pass: there is no sin in laying down a good dummy.

Only those who bid their partner's hands better than their partners would bid here. I'm not one of them. I respect my partner: bidders do not.

[bid_em_up]

If playing with a random pick-up partner, I might take another call. Who knows what they bid 3N on?

Yes, I agree with 2C.

In normal partnerships, I agree with Mike that pass rates to be the winning call.

[awm]

I would have bid 3♣ the first time. Seven card suits headed by ace-king are very powerful -- I expect to make game opposite many hands partner could produce with three-card support such as:

Axx
Kxxx
xxx
xxx

xxx
Kxxx
Axx
xxx

Neither of these hands seems like a clear-cut bid over 2♣, yet 3NT has excellent chances opposite the first hand and 5♣ is very good opposite the second. Even if partner has a singleton club, my clubs may well play for six tricks (and there are two possible side entries), and partner will know to bid game more aggressively over 3♣ with a club fit than with shortness. If partner passes 3♣ I pretty much have 7.5 tricks in hand and would feel unlucky not to make (not to mention opponents may have been able to compete in spades).

Having bid only 2♣, I've limited my hand and should really respect partner's signoff. The temptation to bid on is an indication that 2♣ was an underbid to begin with... but having bid 2♣ only it seems anti-partnership to re-evaluate now and start looking for slam after partner's signoff.

[mike777]

Poky, on Apr 6 2006, 05:28 AM, said:

IMP. Opps vul.

♠10x
♥A
♦Kxx
♣AK8xxxx

1♣ 1♥
2♣ 3NT
??

Do you agree with 2♣?

What do you bid on 3NT and why?

Very tough nothing clear cut for me on this one.

I guess I would bid 3c and then pass but in any event I can live with any of the posters auctions.

I could have so much less for 2Clubs.

[pclayton]

If you're tempted to bid on now, then you shouldn't have bid 2♣ the 1st time. As far as I'm concerned, 3N ends the auction; unless opener has a broken 8 bagger.

I would have bid 3♣ the first time, but I'm not a point counter either. AK-7th is worth a lot more than 7 points.

In the Open, a world class player on my left opened 1N on: Ax, Kxx, AKQxx, Jxx. The 1N opener's pard chided himself for not inviting with KQxxx, AQx, xxx, Ax.

Will they never learn?

[cherdano]

I agree with Adam and Phil. I don't think bidding on here is possible, and this is a 3♣ bid first time. Bidding on here seems comparable to the auction 1H-2H-4H-4S (cue).

Arend

[inquiry]

I have to admit that I generally follow the tenet that once I have made a limited bid that describes my hand, my partner is the captain, and I respect his decision. I follow this religiously with only one exception. That exception is when I have a huge surprize on an auction where my hands has just gotten better.

I don't like 3♣ here for the same reason most others don't like it.. the lack if club intermediates. But once partner jumps in notrump (not 5/6 ♥) I do have quite a lot of surprize extras. Now partner rates to have some clubs (I am not opposite void and probably not singleton either). So my hand is worth more with presumed fit. Further, with fit, I have 9 TRICKS (7♣, 1♥, 1♦) in my hand. And my values are all prime. This qualifies as a definiate, clear "SURPRIZE" and is exactly the kind of hand where you are allowed to share this good news with partner.

In fact, I think both 4NT and 4♣ express just such surprize values, but 4♣ places more emphasis on longer clubs. If partner bids 4♦, I bid 4♥, but if partner bids 4NT, I respect his decision and pass 4NT. To give up without exploring here just has to be wrong, after all, it is a very rare hand indeed that opens 1♣ and rebids 2♣ that has a great potential to contribute 9 tricks. Partner needs little more than: Axx Kxxx Axxx Qx to provide us with 12 top tricks. and this isn't asking too much. It is certainly worth one try. And this is nothing like 1H-2H-4H-4S....

[Joe de Balliol]

I'll go along with 3C the first round. If I'm bidding 2C [which is reasonable] then while bidding on seems silly, I do so anyway. My hand has just gotten so good opposite a few potential hands [Axx Kxxx QJx JTx makes slam excellent] that I can't bid 2C and pass. So 3C is my first choice, with 2C and 4C [right-siding it makes sense and partner will work out I have masses of clubs if I bid 4N, but I can always correct to NT and this is more descriptive, plus it leaves more room to investigate grand which isn't totally out of the question] as my second.

J

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Apr 6 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

If you're tempted to bid on now, then you shouldn't have bid 2♣ the 1st time. As far as I'm concerned, 3N ends the auction; unless opener has a broken 8 bagger.

I would have bid 3♣ the first time, but I'm not a point counter either. AK-7th is worth a lot more than 7 points.

In the Open, a world class player on my left opened 1N on: Ax, Kxx, AKQxx, Jxx. The 1N opener's pard chided himself for not inviting with KQxxx, AQx, xxx, Ax.

Will they never learn?

I think that the 2 situations are a little different: I am a 2♣ rebidder with the example hand, in part because my stiff A is in partner's suit. Had I AK109xxx of ♣, then that is enough of an improvement to overcome the 'stiffness' of the ♥A. The example you gave of 1N on 17 prime, control rich cards with a AKQxx suit is far different. My guess is that the 1N was a matchpoint distortion... an effort to win the board... I cannot imagine a true WC player valuing that hand as 15-17.

[han]

I definitely agree with Mike, Phil, Adam and Cherdano, bidding after 3NT is a breach in partnership discipline. We have had this discussion sooooo many times.

I also think that Ben should spell surprize as surprise. I'm sure that Roland is with me this time.

[Impact]

I believe 2C is a significant underbid, but generally accept Ben's valuation & comments with the only caveat being a possible 4-4-4-1 hand if your style is not to reply 1D on this hand.

Even then 4NT should be safe, and I think 4NT is the indicated bid for safety o fthe contract (wrongsiding etc) but 4C is a better bid if a slam in C is on as it gives more room to investigate controls.

The only danger to 4C is if partner is one who would not accept 4NT as terminal in such bidding.

Still - assuming I was a substitute (the original person who made the 2C bid having taken ill!!)_with a genuinely good player, the right bid is 4C as the location of specific controls may be the key to finding the right slam.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Apr 6 2006, 11:54 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 6 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

If you're tempted to bid on now, then you shouldn't have bid 2♣ the 1st time. As far as I'm concerned, 3N ends the auction; unless opener has a broken 8 bagger.

I would have bid 3♣ the first time, but I'm not a point counter either. AK-7th is worth a lot more than 7 points.

In the Open, a world class player on my left opened 1N on: Ax, Kxx, AKQxx, Jxx. The 1N opener's pard chided himself for not inviting with KQxxx, AQx, xxx, Ax.

Will they never learn?

I think that the 2 situations are a little different: I am a 2♣ rebidder with the example hand, in part because my stiff A is in partner's suit. Had I AK109xxx of ♣, then that is enough of an improvement to overcome the 'stiffness' of the ♥A. The example you gave of 1N on 17 prime, control rich cards with a AKQxx suit is far different. My guess is that the 1N was a matchpoint distortion... an effort to win the board... I cannot imagine a true WC player valuing that hand as 15-17.

Well she represented the US several times in international competition....I'll leave it at that, since she is one of the nicest I've ever played against.

I'd say she falls within the definition of W/C.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Apr 6 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

I have to admit that I generally follow the tenet that once I have made a limited bid that describes my hand, my partner is the captain, and I respect his decision.

You have to be a bit careful with this. A strong hand, because it is very independent, can have reasons to overrule partner, even if limited. For instance

Axx
AQx
AKx
xxxx

1NT 3♦ (sign off, 6+ cards)
3NT

Bidding 3NT is definitely overruling pard, but 3NT is a pretty good bet, especially red at imps. The reason you're allowed to do it is because your hand, albeit limited, is almost self-sufficient.

Sure, your hand does rate as a "surprise" for pard, but the point is these surprises happen quite often when the limited hand is strong.

[jdonn]

This hand is a totally clear 3♣ bid. I mean xxxx xxxx Ax xxx belongs in 3NT, come on. Wouldn't anyone rebid 3C with Qxx A Kxx AKxxxx, a hand that is clearly worse than this one?