[jdonn]

KQJT KJxx - A9xxx, you deal at imps, I forget the vul, opponents silent.

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 3♣ ?

3♣ is invitational, and you have no special agreements. If the vul is important to you then assume you are vul, but really I can't remember.

Edit: Sorry I should have included more options, maybe 4♣ and 5♣. I am going to take 'other' to mean some amount of clubs.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Apr 25 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

KQJT KJxx - A9xxx, you deal at imps, I forget the vul, opponents silent.

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 3♣ ?

3♣ is invitational, and you have no special agreements. If the vul is important to you then assume you are vul, but really I can't remember.

5C.

I must be really missing something here, my choice is not even a top 3 option.

[pclayton]

I'll probe 1st with 3♠.

Both 3N and 5♣ are possible. Even 6♣ is great opposite some hands.

Across from: xxx, xx, AQTx, KJxx 3N looks good.

xxx, Ax, Qxxx, KQxx and 6♣ is very playable.

Even an awkward hands like: xxx, Qx, KJxx, KJxx give us a good 5♣.

You have to descend to something really bad like: xxx, x, AJxxx, Kxxx to find a game thats anti-percentage, and to many this isn't a 3♣ call.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 25 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

I'll probe 1st with 3♠.

Both 3N and 5♣ are possible. Even 6♣ is great opposite some hands.

Across from: xxx, xx, AQTx, KJxx 3N looks good.

xxx, Ax, Qxxx, KQxx and 6♣ is very playable.

Even an awkward hands like: xxx, Qx, KJxx, KJxx give us a good 5♣.

You have to descend to something really bad like: xxx, x, AJxxx, Kxxx to find a game thats anti-percentage, and to many this isn't a 3♣ call.

Would you have bid 3♠ on all these hands, if not then what?

KQJ KJxx x A9xxx
Axx KQJx x A9xxx

(just trying to get a feel for what you view the definition of that bid as)

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 25 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 25 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

I'll probe 1st with 3♠.

Both 3N and 5♣ are possible. Even 6♣ is great opposite some hands.

Across from: xxx, xx, AQTx, KJxx 3N looks good.

xxx, Ax, Qxxx, KQxx and 6♣ is very playable.

Even an awkward hands like: xxx, Qx, KJxx, KJxx give us a good 5♣.

You have to descend to something really bad like: xxx, x, AJxxx, Kxxx to find a game thats anti-percentage, and to many this isn't a 3♣ call.

Would you have bid 3♠ on all these hands, if not then what?

KQJ KJxx x A9xxx
Axx KQJx x A9xxx

(just trying to get a feel for what you view the definition of that bid as)

This thread feels eerily similar to your "is it forcing" thread.

I think 3♠ definitely patterns out and describes diamond shortness. I think it shows a spade fragment better than Axx, since responder probably should opt for 2N with hand containing some spade cards and invitational values. I think with the KQJ hand, 3♠ or 3N are acceptable.

What I do know is that 3N (instead of 3♠) shows a hand that wants to play 3N; a positional double stop in spades and extra values.

[cherdano]

To me, 3♠ sounds like asking for spade help towards 3N in context. In other words, responder should bid 3N with a half-stopper, or maybe with xxx. I think bidding 3S just won't help at all. I am much more tempted to try out whether partner takes 4♦ as splinter...

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Apr 25 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

To me, 3♠ sounds like asking for spade help towards 3N in context. In other words, responder should bid 3N with a half-stopper, or maybe with xxx. I think bidding 3S just won't help at all. I am much more tempted to try out whether partner takes 4♦ as splinter...

So 3N is mandatory when we have a good spade stop?

It seems our diamond shortness may be the key to pard's evaluation.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 25 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

This thread feels eerily similar to your "is it forcing" thread.

Lol, despite the fact I know nothing at all about this auction, I know 3♠ is forcing The literal justification would be that partner made an invitational bid, so not-passing is deemed to have accepted the invitation.

[mike777]

1) partner has bid one diamond for some reason and not 2nt(invite) or direct invite in clubs.
1A) I think partner has real Diamond values, hcp.
2) partner rebid 3clubs for some reason.
2A) I think partner has no spade stopper and very often an unbalanced hand, invite hand with 4+ clubs, maybe 5 clubs often and good Diamonds.

xx...xx.....AKxx.....KJxxx would be a very typical hand for me. Partner could have a bit more.

xxx...x....AQxx.....KQxxx is a very real possibilty, this is close to a direct game force raise in clubs..but only close. So I understand bidding kickback or whatever our minor suit rkc bid is here.

My 5clubs could miss a slam but I have my doubts that bidding 3s is much of a help to find a slam. Partner knows we are short/unbalanced somewhere when we bid 1H...diamonds is a good guess.

[Fluffy]

too many 3NT and 5♣, people want to take partner out of the decision

3♠ looks pretty obvious to me, probably its not that easy, but I think partner should have someting to say if we wanna diferentiate ♦Qxxx from ♦KQ10xx

I don't play any asking bid by opener, except blackwood, and don't like to use it.

--
How to ask half a stopper in spades?

1♣-1♦
1♥-3♣
3♥*-3♠*
3NT*

3♥*: 3♦ Might work as well
3♠*: I need help with spades
3NT: I do have it


But opener would never ask.

[jdonn]

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♣.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 07:13 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♣.

Does 1♥ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, then 3♣ is only a slight overbid. Every card is working hard, in spite of the hand being only a 10 count.

Agree with 1♦ too. This hand has zero tenaces and does not want to declare NT.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 26 2007, 10:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 26 2007, 07:13 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♣.

Does 1♥ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, then 3♣ is only a slight overbid. Every card is working hard, in spite of the hand being only a 10 count.

Agree with 1♦ too. This hand has zero tenaces and does not want to declare NT.

Partner's club jack is often wasted, and he is 4333 with the worst heart holding ever. Meanwhile I may still be 4414. 3♣ is tempting at a glance, but clearly wrong once you think about it in my opinion. You are almost sure to have just one stopper in either spades, diamonds, or both. Think of hands for partner that are don't have a ton extra but will accept the invitation, and I think you will agree, any time he doesn't hold aces or a lot extra (enough to bid over 2♣ or nearly so), you will be in trouble in 3NT.

1♦ is more debatable, but I still don't like it. I have a 10 count opposite an opener, I'm not worried 1NT will go down. Meanwhile if partner doesn't bid 1NT I can no longer get there, and I also have value preempting the next player from bidding a major.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting post, mostly by the responses so far.

Strangely, I am strongly in the "could be natural" group on this one. I'm not sure what has happened to me, but...

This seems rather obvious. We have four bids that do not bypass 3NT, namely 3♦, 3♥, 3♠, and 3NT.

3NT seems to speak for itself.

3♥ seems to me to be the call to ask about spade help. If partner has spades double stopped, he will bid 3NT. With one stop, or a bolster, he will bid 3♠. Without spade help, he will bid 4♣ or something higher and intelligent.

3♦ seems to be a punt bid.

With all of this available for weeding out the spade situation for notrump, I cannot conceive of a need for 3♠ to be anything but natural. We may well want to declare 4♠ on the Moysain. Partner may want to declare 3NT. Whatever happens, showing 4405/4414 with a 3♠ call seems imminently logical.

[pclayton]

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?

[awm]

I like 3NT here. Usually in this auction, responder has some cards in diamonds (his first bid suit). By rebidding 3NT opener is advertising:

(1) More than minimum values.
(2) 4♥ and at least 4♣
(3) A strong holding in spades.

It seems one could almost infer weak diamonds from this. Usually opener will be 3-4-1-5 or 4-4-1-4 on this auction, although I suppose some 2-4-2-5 with two spade honors is a possibility.

I would interpret 3♦ and 3♥ both as natural and pattern showing, something like 1-4-3-5 and 5-6 in the round suits respectively. I'd interpret 3♠ as a hand unsure about the final contract, but this uncertainty is normally based upon weakish spades (but not shortage) and something like doubleton diamond. I wouldn't expect responder to bid 3NT over 3♠ on a hand with two small spades and strength in diamonds (which is almost the expected hand for responder).

With responder's actual hand or something similar, it seems reasonable to bid on over 3NT since opener has almost guaranteed diamond shortage and the Axxx holding is ideal opposite shortage and not so hot in 3NT. Opener bidding 3NT caters to the more frequent hand type of xx xxx KQJx KJxx or the like, where 3NT is definitely a good spot and there's no way responder will bid it over 3♠ by opener.

[sathyab]

If you had posed this problem differently, by providing only the bidding sequence 1c-1d-1h-3c(inv) and not the opener's hand and then ask the question as to what a 3s bid by opener should be, my guess is that everyone would say it should be a notrump probe, clearly asking for a stopper. Okay, not quite everyone, I know there's always someone who'll be saying it's trying to right-side the contract with Axx of spades, so pard can bid 3nt with Qx or worse they'll suggest that in their partnership it's part of a completely different and exotic set of agreements, and that therefore the problem doesn't even exist.

[Halo]

I vote 3S. Completely clear cut for me. Good hand, too soon to cut out partner.

[mikeh]

I'm late to this post, and spoiled to some degree by knowledge of partner's hand. On that point, I agree with 1♦.... but not if I were planning to bid 3♣ over 1Major...I hate 1N on those well-known positional major stoppers xx and xxx.

I think 3♣ is a significant overbid... if partner can't bid over 2♣, we probably haven't missed much.

As for opener..... on the one hand, he has 'extras', but that void in partner's suit is a liability... it should cause a downgrade, not an upgrade. 4441 hands are notorious for playing at less than apparent value and a 4405, with a void in partner's suit is not much better.

Still, I can't see passing red at imps... if 3♠ means this hand (amongst others) then it is clearly right, but it (equally clearly) may not mean that!

I certainly do not think that it invites partner to bid 3N without a ♠ stopper.... no matter what it shows, it does not suggest that call absent a ♠ card, in my view...

So, if we are bidding to 3N, we have to do it now.

If we are not bidding to 3N, then 3♠, no matter what it means, is misdescriptive... we are heading towards a higher level ♣ contract and I refuse to look for slam by making an advance cue-bid, which will be what 3♠ will be revealed as if we force to 5♣.

(3♠ may get us to 3N when partner owns the ♠A, but that is a hand on which we definitely do NOT want to be in 3N.... either he can't help us in ♣s as much as we need, or the ♦ suit will be weakly stopped.)

I would bid 3N, but I hate it and next week, I might bid 5♣ and the week after that a blame-transfer 4♣.