[gwnn]

1NT (12-15)-3♥-?

Scoring: BAM

---

3♥ promises minimum GF values (that is, about 12-14 points) and exactly 5 hearts, it also denies 4 spades. It could have a 4 card minor side suit, but only 5422. It's basically a standard 1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT bid. Would you go for the extra 10 points?

(sorry, my initial explanation was a smaller disaster)

[whereagles]

Soft values in the minors, no ruffing value and quick tricks in spades gear me to where the world ends: THREE NO TRUMPS

[keylime]

3NT. 4333's tend to play slightly softer.

[pclayton]

3N; and not just at BAM.

[flytoox]

What about 3S?

[Echognome]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

3♥ promises minimum GF values and exactly 5 hearts, it's basically a standard 1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT bid. Would you go for the extra 10 points?

More importantly does it show 5332 shape? or could responder have 54 or 55 shape? impossible to know what to do without more info.

However, not to cop out, I will bid 3N if responder is known to be some 5332 shape. If responder can have more shape than that, then I need to know if responder can have 4♠ (bid 3♠) or not (bid 4♥).

[kgr]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

1NT (12-15)-3♥-?

Scoring: BAM

---

3♥ promises minimum GF values and exactly 5 hearts, it's basically a standard 1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT bid. Would you go for the extra 10 points?

Need to know more to answer this.
Why did responder not transfer with 2♦?
Does 3♥ show a balanced or not-balanced hand with 5-card ♥? (3NT if it shows a balanced hand by agreement)
Can 3♥ be a slem invite? (3♠ shows max with ♠ control and ♥ fit)
Can we have a 5-card M for opening 1NT? (3♠ is not, This should show a cue with ♥ fit then).

[gwnn]

He didn't transfer because we don't have transfers.

Basically he could be 5332 or 54 with a minor.

With 4 spades he bids 2♦, looking for a fit (a sort of strong stayman).

[kgr]

gwnn, on Feb 4 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

He didn't transfer because we don't have transfers.

Basically he could be 5332 or 54 with a minor.

With 4 spades he bids 2♦, looking for a fit (a sort of strong stayman).

3♠ then to show ♠control and a max with fit.

[han]

Echognome, on Feb 4 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

However, not to cop out, I will bid 3N if responder is known to be some 5332 shape. If responder can have more shape than that, then I need to know if responder can have 4♠ (bid 3♠) or not (bid 4♥).

Same for me. I'm not bidding 3NT if partner is reasonably likely to have a stiff in a minor.

[Double !]

Perhaps I have misread or misinterpreted the explanation of the 3 heart bid in the posting. But, I interpreted the explanation of "minimum GF values" as meaning at least GF values, possibly more. If this interpretation is INCORRECT, then please ignore the following. If my interpretation is correct, then I respectfully disagree with the 3NT bidders and, to a lesser degree, with the 3S bidders.

I would rebid a very pedestrian 4 Hearts.

Back to basics including back to the Captaincy principle. In standard Jurasic - Neanderthal bidding, before the advent of transfers and, of all things, pre-acceptance bids, dinosaurs like me played the sequence 1NT - 3M as asking opener to bid 3NT with 2 trumps, and to bid 4M with 3-4 trumps. Perhaps there were other, more expurt, options way back then that I never learned at the time. (Heck. There was even a times when my wife and I played Gladiator responses and had fun with them.) I often found that 4M often, not always, made an extra trick, even when responder was 5332.

My point is, given the limitations of the bidding structure and options available, my opinion is that opener's first responsibility is to somehow answer responder's questions regarding the number of trumps held. (3S is fine if it suggests spade values and also promises 3 or 4 hearts.) I elect to answer my partner's question rather than to make a unilateral decision because my distribution is flat or with soft values. Partner's hand is unknown to me.

If this works out to be the wrong decision, then my partner and I can revisit our bidding structure and sets of responses after the session or event..whatever. But, I feel it's a bad habit (and I see it happen a lot both on BBO and in the forums) to fail to answer when partner asks you a specific question. In further discussion you might decide that one member of the partnership might have made different bids, but it usually blows up in my face when I fail to comply with the captaincy principle.

I shall now seek out the relative safety of my cave where there don't appear to be any tar pits or lava pools.

DHL

[jtfanclub]

Double !, on Feb 4 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

I would rebid a very pedestrian 4 Hearts.

Back to basics including back to the Captaincy principle. In standard Jurasic - Neanderthal bidding, before the advent of transfers and, of all things, pre-acceptance bids, dinosaurs like me played the sequence 1NT - 3M as asking opener to bid 3NT with 2 trumps, and to bid 4M with 3-4 trumps.

When I was taught Neandethal, an exception was made for 4333...4333 tends to be more like 2 card support than 3. This is especially true across a 5332, where the odds of a ruff are around zero. And then there's that whole declarer thing...my soft values want protection. If I had Axx in both minors, I'd feel more like bidding 4♥.

But that's just me.

[helene_t]

Hey Don, the Neandertals lived from 350,000-40,000 years ago, some 140 mio years after the end of the Jurasic era. And if the dinosaurs played briddge, it would probably only the more advanced dinos that lived in the Cretaneous era, not the Jurasic.

[bid_em_up]

I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I am more concerned with the possibility of 3N going down, than I am about the overtrick(s) in 3N.

Especially when partner can be 2-5-4-2 or 2-5-2-4 as explained by the original poster.

I'm bidding 4♥.

[MFA]

3NT.

[mikeh]

I'm with the 3N bidders, whether BAM, mp or imps. If given this hand after a transfer then 3N, my guess is that 75% (or more) of expert players would pass.

Wild horses could not get me to bid 3♠. Partner has (conveniently) denied 4+♠s. Which suit is LHO going to lead with roughly equivalent holdings if I bid a quiet 3N? Which suit is he leading after my revealing 3♠?

Plus, if 3♥ showed gf values OR BETTER... then 3♠ logically shows slam interest in ♥s.... which hardly resembles my hand.

While I am a strong believer in 'game before slam', such that most below-game probes are efforts to find the best game rather than look for slam, there are exceptions and this has to be one.

If opener has a super accept of ♥s, then he HAS to be able to cue bid in support, preserving the raise for the 'no interest' hands, and 3N for the 'let's play here' hands.

Note this analysis depends, for its logic, on the assumption that 3♥ was (relatively) unlimited.

[kenberg]

Well, stuck in the minority again. I voted hearts. At the risk of sounding really odd, I think I would be more inclined to bid 3N at imps than at mps or bam. There are a lot of hands like this that take ten tricks in hearts, nine tricks in NT. One way this can happen is for partner's suit to be something like Kxxxx. Say Kx/Kxxxx/Axx/Qxx. Assume in 3N an opening club lead and return, ducked. You give up the heart(I suppose), and they take three clubs and a heart against normal breaks. Assume normal breaks in a 4H contract. They cannot take four tricks off the top. When you get the lead, you play off the AK of hearts and then play on spades. What you toss depends on how the play to the first few tricks has gone, but probably you toss diamonds. One on the third spade hoping everyone follows, and then another not caring whether they ruff or not. It looks to me like you have a decent chance of losing one heart and two clubs.

Of course the hands do not have to be like this, and opponents don't always find the optimal defense, so we all have to guess. But it's a fact that there are a lot of hands that make both 3N and 4M on the nose. In imps, it matters little, here, it matters a lot.

No doubt someone else can produce a hand for partner where 3NT is right. Or I could. But I bid 4H here. It won't always be right, it won't always be wrong.

[Echognome]

mikeh said:

I'm with the 3N bidders, whether BAM, mp or imps. If given this hand after a transfer then 3N, my guess is that 75% (or more) of expert players would pass.

True. That's not the problem. The problem is would you also bid 3N if the auction started transfer then 3♣ or 3♦? The problem we have here is we don't know if responder is 1=5=3=4, 3=5=1=4, 2=5=4=2, etc.

mikeh said:

Wild horses could not get me to bid 3♠. Partner has (conveniently) denied 4+♠s. Which suit is LHO going to lead with roughly equivalent holdings if I bid a quiet 3N? Which suit is he leading after my revealing 3♠?

No one suggested bidding 3♠ UNLESS responder could have 4♠. It certainly wasn't clear from the original post. Now that we know that responder has denied 4♠, it is certainly a question of whether to bid 3N or 4♥.

mikeh said:

Note this analysis depends, for its logic, on the assumption that 3♥ was (relatively) unlimited.

Note that the poster said 3♥ showed a MINIMUM GF hand. I presume that means responder cannot have a hand with slam interest. If so, then it changes the problem somewhat as you suggest.

[BebopKid]

I would prefer transfer to hearts then bid 3NT, accomplishes the same goal, but lets opener choose.

But I would vote for 3NT since I'm 4333

[MFA]

Quote

At the risk of sounding really odd, I think I would be more inclined to bid 3N at imps than at mps or bam.

I agree!
It is not at all the scoring that makes 3NT so attractive.