[mike777]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

My reasons in posting this was to gauge how people view 3♠. I bid 3NT which Justin hates (as you can see by his blatant yet futile early attempt to influence the respondents ), and I even pretty much agree with his judgement about the chance of 5♣, but I don't think 3♠ (his choice) shows this. I think it shows a less definite spade stopper, along the lines of Cherdano's post, where you hope for some help from partner. How else do you bid Kxx KQJx x AQxxx or so? You can't cater to holding great spades with a diamond void, even if you might not think 3NT is best with that I still think you have to either bid it or bypass it. I also think partner's 1♦ bid is more of an indication of length or strength in that suit than some people. It's true 5 weakish diamonds is possible but I'm not going to lose sleep over that if he has 5. If he has 4 then they should definitely be good, it would be stupid of partner to start with 1♦ holding Qxxx when he could have just raised clubs.

Anyway actual hand partner had xxx xxx Axxx KQJ, but I don't think that has much relevence since I completely disagree with both of his bids, mildly with 1♦ and strongly with 3♣.

Prefer 1nt...around 8-11 for me, with this 4333 hand. Partner knows my shape and strength at bid one. This seems like another example where real experts with both of these hands prefer to bid and bid and bid ala Soloway 2/1 style as opposed to simplify. With Soloway's Judgement I understand that. I could live with 1d response here.

[pclayton]

Even though I supported a 3♠ with the subject hand, I like the logic behind 3♠ stating it is a better choice with an exposed stopper, and that 3N says; "I got spades covered".

Certainly, there is a Walsh aspect to this discussion that no one is mentioning. If 1♥ could be 'up-the line', there isn't a strong inference about Opener's shape with 3♠. But if 1♥ promises an unbalanced hand, then Opener's shape is very well known with 3♠.

That being said, I don't know of a single player that will realize that the fate of 3N will make or breakl on the strength of his diamond holding; which will be exposed for the defense to pick away at. If I were convinced that my partners would understand that: Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

I still can't even begin to fathom why someone would bid 1♦ on this hand, instead of either bidding the systematically correct notrump bid or club raise, presumably 2NT or 2♣.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

I still can't even begin to fathom why someone would bid 1♦ on this hand, instead of either bidding the systematically correct notrump bid or club raise, presumably 2NT or 2♣.

ditto,

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

I still can't even begin to fathom why someone would bid 1♦ on this hand, instead of either bidding the systematically correct notrump bid or club raise, presumably 2NT or 2♣.

I'm supposed to make a 2N call with Qx in a side suit and hand that doesn't scream to declare?

I'm supposed to make a inverted raise with K-only 4th and give up on the idea of playing a NT partial?

Maybe this game is getting too tough for me.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

I still can't even begin to fathom why someone would bid 1♦ on this hand, instead of either bidding the systematically correct notrump bid or club raise, presumably 2NT or 2♣.

I'm supposed to make a 2N call with Qx in a side suit and hand that doesn't scream to declare?

Qx DOES scream to declare notrump.

I guess you should wait for KJT KJT KJTx xxx to respond 2NT.

Is it so unusual to bid notrump on a balanced hand with no major and an honor in every suit instead of Qxxx of a minor? But then argue against raising partner's minor because it makes it too hard to reach notrump, which responding 1♦ apparently didn't let you do anyway unless partner could bid it on the 3rd round?

All so partner can try to figure out that over half your hand is in the majors after you bid 1♦ then 3♣?

[Fluffy]

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

Why would 3♥ be some sort of checkback for spade help? Why wouldn't we bid 3♥ with a weak 5-6; x, QJxxx, x, AKJxxx?

I open every 5-6 at the major, I know this is not fully standard (helps on this kind of sequence when you can rule out 5c major), but with weak ones I think even more people open 1M.

with 3415 I can bid 3NT, 3♠ or 3♥ depending on where my honnors are.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Axx, Qx, Qxxx, Kxxx makes for a very crappy 3N, I'd fell better about trusting my pard to pull 3N when its wrong.

Would you pull 3N with this hand? I'd be concerned that pard had the 2=4=2=5 myself.

I still can't even begin to fathom why someone would bid 1♦ on this hand, instead of either bidding the systematically correct notrump bid or club raise, presumably 2NT or 2♣.

Club raise is jsut wrong, 2NT is artifical for many (and that is because they never used it as natural)

Quote

Qx DOES scream to declare notrump.

Last time I bid no trump with that holding I got -300. I posted the hand on the forums, the consensous was something like: 3NT is ridicoulous, you would better go back to the bridge school and hire some lessons. I think even a poster offered himself as a teacher

[marcD]

I play 3C forcing so not sure what 3C NF is supposed to show. However, partner's hand seems like a good candidate (concentration D/C, Club fit facing an unbalanced hand hoping it is not 4414). I would therefore pass. As a side point it might have been wiser to bid 1S instead of 1H planning to bid 2H over 2C (especially if wide range)

[skjaeran]

marcD, on Apr 27 2007, 09:40 AM, said:

As a side point it might have been wiser to bid 1S instead of 1H planning to bid 2H over 2C (especially if wide range)

Bypassing 1♥ would deny a 4-card suit to most people.
You'd have big time trouble convincing your partner that you had a 4-card ♥ suit after that sequence. And bury the suit as a potential trump suit unless partner for some reason decided that a 4-3 fit would be a good idea.

[awm]

There's a difference between advertising Qx as a stopper and suggesting a notrump bid with Qx. Basically:

(1) If we have had some long auction where three suits have been bid and partner is likely to have two or fewer in the fourth suit, and I hold Qx in the fourth suit, for me to bid 3NT is pretty ridiculous.

(2) On the other hand, if I have Qx in some suit and 3NT is right from one side of the table or the other, there is a good chance it plays better from my side (say partner has Kxx or Axx). Of course it is quite possible that partner has xx in this suit and 3NT is wrong from both sides of the table.

(3) Bidding notrump in response to partner's opening doesn't promise that "we absolutely definitely belong in notrump" nor does it absolutely guarantee a stopper in every suit. However, if it's obvious that 3NT will play better from partner's side of the table than from mine (if it plays well from either side) then I should try to avoid bidding notrump on the first round where possible.

Bidding notrump with Axx Qx Qxxx Kxxx seems pretty normal to me.