[kenrexford]

A third possibility might be a slam force.

If we assume that Opener could have opened with a balanced 11-count (allowed here). then Responder should have about 14-15 to bid 3NT. (2NT shows 12-13.)

Opener actually held, again, ♠Q10 ♥Axx ♦AJxxx ♣AKx. If Responder were to hold something like ♠AKx ♥Kx ♦KQxx ♣xxxx, then a grand is nearly laydown. You don't score well bidding a passable 4NT when the grand makes so often. Take away the diamond King, reducing Responder to an "ugly" 12-count, and the small slam is nearly laydown, the grand possibly on a finesse and 2-2 diamonds.

So, 4♦ might also be a hand strong enough to force slam but leaving room to explore a grand slam.

Would anyone seriously consider not bidding slam with the actual hand, unless you knew that Responder was being funny?

[FrancesHinden]

The problem is that I disagree with two of your premises - first that responder may have 4-card diamond support, and secondly that he may have a useful doubleton.

As far as I am concerned, jumping to 3NT over 1D virtually promises a 4333 distribution and pretty much denies 4 diamonds, so is likely to be exactly 3334; or if it does have 4 diamonds is very suitable for NT. When you have so many other ways to bid (inverted raise, responding in a suit) 3NT should be restricted to a very specific hand type. For me, the thought of responder having 'something like AKx Kx KQxx xxxx' (which is is a beautiful hand for play in diamonds) is as unlikely as the hand responder actually held.

[kenrexford]

This is true, except that partner is obviously insane. LOL

That being the case, I still can easily construct a 3334 hand where the grand makes. Give partner ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦KQx ♣QJxx, for instance. Three spades, five diamonds, one heart, and four clubs makes 13 tricks.

If 3334 is mandatory, then perhaps 4♦ should yield a COV bid (4♠) or an "extreme hole" bid (4♥). When I now bid 5♣, also perhaps COV and agreeable about the prior call, then the grand is biddable. 13 cashers -- laydown.

Sure, the sixth diamond replaced the club Jack. I get that.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

This is true, except that partner is obviously insane. LOL

That being the case, I still can easily construct a 3334 hand where the grand makes. Give partner ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦KQx ♣QJxx, for instance. Three spades, five diamonds, one heart, and four clubs makes 13 tricks.

Yeah, but that still isn't a 3NT bid. What exactly is it about the hand that should make it declarer in NT?

This is a 3NT bid:

KJx
AQ10
Qxx
Q109x

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

This is true, except that partner is obviously insane.  LOL

That being the case, I still can easily construct a 3334 hand where the grand makes.  Give partner ♠AKx ♥xxx ♦KQx ♣QJxx, for instance.  Three spades, five diamonds, one heart, and four clubs makes 13 tricks.

If 3334 is mandatory, then perhaps 4♦ should yield a COV bid (4♠) or an "extreme hole" bid (4♥).  When I now bid 5♣, also perhaps COV and agreeable about the prior call, then the grand is biddable.  13 cashers -- laydown.

Sure, the sixth diamond replaced the club Jack.  I get that.

Frances beat me to this post, with far politer language than I intended to use.

Ken, you concede that your partner was insane to bid 3N with his actual hand.... and then you go on to suggest that a more appropriate hand, to which you should cater as opener, includes xxx in a major!

It is a basic tenet of constructive bidding that we do not deprive ourselves of bidding space except to convey specific, narrowly defined descriptions, especially in auctions in which the other partner's holdings are themselves ill-defined.

The only exceptions of which I am aware relate to two classes: one in which we take control, by Keycard or devices such as Jacoby 2N, where we believe that we can extract the relevant information by taking charge, or by strong jumpshifts: and many experts actually have some narrow constraints on the latter anyway. (in fairness, splinters and limit raises are space-devouring bids, but most experts play narrow-range splinters and limit bids are basically mixed bids with reasonably narrow tolerances)

So, in the sequence 1minor 3N, it seems to me that bridge logic requires that:

1. the hand not be suitable for a trump contract: therefore no doubletons and no 5 card suits

2. the hand deliver positional values in the side suits: holdings that will benefit from being led up to on opening lead, rather than led through. Clearly, this is rarely attainable in all 3 side suits, but xxx in any is absurd.

3. The high card strength be narrowly defined so that opener can evaluate the cost/benefit of making a high-level move beyond 3N.

I fully concur with all of Frances' posts on this thread, including her portrayal of what a 3N bid should resemble.

[kenrexford]

OK. I'll finally concede that 3NT makes no sense at all and that a grand is not likely opposite a sane partner. My 4♦ call obviously did cater to the known insanity, such that no intelligent discussion of plausible alternatives in a real auction makes sense if I insist upon catering to absurdity. LOL

[000002]

to some Professional player or wish to become:

mine thought:
1)4♥/♠/5♣:Singleton/Void.
2)4♦:button to start cuebid,and it's forced Q-bid.
3)4♣:to show ur character side suit;to bid 4♦ waiting with 1 inferior HighCard only.


regards
000002

[kenrexford]

I also heard another suggestion, that being 4♣ as a shortness call, 4♦ asking. 4♦ as a general try, for cues. 4♥ as RKCB for diamonds.

Adding into this 4NT as a 4-card quantitative and 4♠ as a 5-card quantitative appeals to me, personally, although it does not solve the 6-5 major problem.

[mr1303]

It must be said, that outside of a speedball event, or one where I was playing with someone I didn't like and didn't want to be dummy, I have never bid 1m p 3NT.