[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 28 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

Quote

I assumed partner would have an easy pass over rho bid of one heart with your example hand? If they play something else hopefully we will find out.

Generally not a good idea to use pass here for all weak hands but only for weaker hands with no convenvient bid. The Walsh structure is designed for non-competitive auctions and is no longer followed when the opponents bid. The 1S bid over 1H should not express any extra values, shape, or additional length. If you pass with AQxx, xxx, xx, AKxx the auction may procede p-1C-p-1D-1H-p-4H-X-p-?

Are you going to bid 4S when partner may hold KJ, x, AQxxxx, Jxxx? Will you pass for penalty when he might hold: Kxxx, x, AKJxx, xxx?

If opener had bid 1S over 1H, you can pass the double easily with the first and will play 4S opposite the second.

P.S. Using support double for diamonds is an extremely poor choice, IMO. A better choice is to show a 4-card heart suit in case the auction is p-1c-p-1D-1S-X as now if you pass even a simple preemptive jump to 3S can shut out hearts. If you use this method double here: p-1C-P-1D-1H-X can show 4 spades and bidding 1 spade can show 56.

Jdonn's thread, I will let him explain his agreements, that is most important.

For me partner cannot have your second example and respond with one diamond.

[jdonn]

Funny I could swear I recall saying

jdonn, on Apr 28 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

You play 2/1 with no special agreements that will pertain to the current auction

Why do people always get caught up in what system and what style and what convention. I was even kind enough to tell you something about partner's style. Just play bridge.

[skjaeran]

I really can't understand all those 2NT and 3NT bids.
I strongly disagree that parnter could be 45 (or even 44!!) now - to me 2♠ invariably show 5-6. Whith 4225 or 4324 partner would bid 3♥ over my 2♥ - that being the punt, not 2♠.

Opposite a singleton or void in ♥'s, 3NT rates to play badly, unless our clubs are solid or our spades are solid and partner holds the ♣A.

[whereagles]

I can say I bid 3NT for two reasons. One is to protect the heart honors. The other is because I don't know pard, so I have no clue as to what to expect from his bids.

Where I come from, this auction shows a strong 55, but no way he's got that, so who knows...?

[Fluffy]

It depends on partner if I know him I can probably just bid 3NT

If not I will just bid 3♦ and let him rebid 3♠ again.

[Halo]

Why 3NT?

I showed game interest or more with 2H (if I read the auction correctly).

Now partner's possible hands (for me) include minimums where he is turning down my possible spade game invite. I now feel 3NT is a reasonable way to clarify my overall values. Maybe I should assume 5...6, or that I have created a game force auction, but I don't see a need to test that out.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

Funny I could swear I recall saying

jdonn, on Apr 28 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

You play 2/1 with no special agreements that will pertain to the current auction

Why do people always get caught up in what system and what style and what convention. I was even kind enough to tell you something about partner's style. Just play bridge.

Sorry to get sidetracked, but - as long as 2H created a game force - it seems a non-problem. 2N is a standout IMO. At some point in time we would want to describe the nature of our hand while protecting the heart holding, so now, at the cheapest level seems best. 2N allows partner to evaluate his hand in light of any heart wastage and creates room for him to make a further descriptive bid.

[mike777]

2nt may work, but I fail to see how 3s can be bad if partner has 6 clubs and 5 spades, support with support and start cuebidding now and pass if partners next bid is a simple 4 spades. I do have Kxx of spades and Qx of clubs. Both of us heard our opp bid hearts.

Yes I think partner is 65, no, she is not rebidding/punting a 4 card spade suit after 2h, see above posts.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

Sorry to get sidetracked, but - as long as 2H created a game force - it seems a non-problem. 2N is a standout IMO.

Oooops, you are right, 2NT is clearly best.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 29 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

2nt may work, but I fail to see how 3s can be bad if partner has 6 clubs and 5 spades, support with support and start cuebidding now and pass if partners next bid is a simple 4 spades. I do have Kxx of spades and Qx of clubs. Both of us heard our opp bid hearts.

Yes I think partner is 65, no, she is not rebidding/punting a 4 card spade suit after 2h, see above posts.

I don't see how you see this based on the description:

Quote

You play 2/1 with no special agreements that will pertain to the current auction, except you know partner is a light opener.

I consider "no special agreements" to mean 1S has no significance other than opener holds 4 spades. If that is the case, then there is also "no special agreement" as to the meaning of 2H, other than forcing.

Not having specific agreements, opener may be taking the 2H bid in any number of ways....a general force requesting clarification, a spade agreement, a force prior to supporting clubs, or a stopper ask. We don't know what opener assumes this to be. All we know is he can't pass. :P

If he thinks it is a general force, he may have no other call but 2S with the hand I previously described AQxx, xxx, xx, AKxx. If he thinks it is spade support, he may just be rebidding 2S to show a minimum opening: AJxx, xx, Qx, KJxxx.
He may be 56 or 55 (we weren't told if 55 is opened 1C)

Basically with no agreements aren't we better off making a bid that a) describes our hand, b) does not force partner to hold a hand he may not hold, and c) gives him room to describe his hand further.

I don't know of anyone (but could be wrong) who would play the 2H cuebid as anything but game force, so what is the hurry to show 3-card support, since even if partner is 56, 3N may be the superior spot?

Obviously, others see this differently and I could be all wet while they are all right, but to me it was 2NT, WTP? from the start.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 29 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

2nt may work, but I fail to see how 3s can be bad if partner has 6 clubs and 5 spades, support with support and start cuebidding now and pass if partners next bid is a simple 4 spades. I do have Kxx of spades and Qx of clubs. Both of us heard our opp bid hearts.

Yes I think partner is 65, no, she is not rebidding/punting a 4 card spade suit after 2h, see above posts.

I don't see how you see this based on the description:

Quote

You play 2/1 with no special agreements that will pertain to the current auction, except you know partner is a light opener.

I consider "no special agreements" to mean 1S has no significance other than opener holds 4 spades. If that is the case, then there is also "no special agreement" as to the meaning of 2H, other than forcing.

Not having specific agreements, opener may be taking the 2H bid in any number of ways....a general force requesting clarification, a spade agreement, a force prior to supporting clubs, or a stopper ask. We don't know what opener assumes this to be. All we know is he can't pass.

If he thinks it is a general force, he may have no other call but 2S with the hand I previously described AQxx, xxx, xx, AKxx. If he thinks it is spade support, he may just be rebidding 2S to show a minimum opening: AJxx, xx, Qx, KJxxx.
He may be 56 or 55 (we weren't told if 55 is opened 1C)

Basically with no agreements aren't we better off making a bid that a) describes our hand, does not force partner to hold a hand he may not hold, and c) gives him room to describe his hand further.

I don't know of anyone (but could be wrong) who would play the 2H cuebid as anything but game force, so what is the hurry to show 3-card support, since even if partner is 56, 3N may be the superior spot?

Obviously, others see this differently and I could be all wet while they are all right, but to me it was 2NT, WTP? from the start.

If an expert pickup partner only has 4 spades and has bid this way ok...I will have learned something.....As a non expert...it would never enter my judgement partner has only 4 spades on this auction. See above posts.

If I ever had the pleasure of playing a pickup match with Jdonn with these agreements..I would never have thought he only has 4 spades on this one....I note many disagree.

My first and second and third thoughts would be support with support. I note perhaps Jdonn expert partners would think otherwise.
Of course I bid 3nt over one club more than 24 hours ago so..

In any event these are the posts which I really enjoy and learn. I hope many other nonexperts share my thoughts otherwise I would not post so much.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course I bid 3nt over one club more than 24 hours ago so..

So did I.

Sometimes a blunt instrument works best - I would rather have a machete in a cane field than to try to hack my way out with a scalpel.

[jdonn]

Actually I held this hand, not my partner. I rarely post partner's hand instead of my own, and I rarely post at all because I tend to think I know what I should have done

No one here will agree with my partner's bidding and I'm going to spare him, but suffice to say he held xxxx of spades. I bid 3NT sort of instinctively (since my entire plan was to try and show extras by cuebidding before bidding 3NT) but in hindsight of course there was no reason not to just bid 2NT once I have already cuebid. If partner was really 5-6 I might hear some more from him other than just a notrump raise.

I think 4 spades is still possible (not the ones partner held), though not 4-4. Obviously others disagree, and really no one knows for sure unless they have discussed it with the person. I think it's easy to say you can always bid 3♥ as opener if you are stuck, but that might totally get in partner's way, like maybe he was showing a game force with diamonds or club support and now you wasted a level. Plus 3♥ sounds pretty encouraging on what may just be a minimum hand.

I happen to think at imps 3NT over 1♣ is an awful bid, though at mps maybe I understand (assuming this is in the range). We could just belong in a diamond or club slam, and I am plenty strong enough to not have to worry we will tell them how to beat us on an informative auction.

[mike777]

For me, playing lightish opening bids...giving up a minor suit slam for 3nt is a common issue. If we have the hcp no problem but if I have a flat responder hand as here this is tough to reach 6 of a minor. 3nt is at least 14-15 with 16 very common so I am not that far off on hcp. To repeat..give up on some minor suit slams with shortish hcp when I am balanced to just bid 3nt.

On this one Jdonn said lightish openings

[Winstonm]

Quote

I happen to think at imps 3NT over 1♣ is an awful bid, though at mps maybe I understand (assuming this is in the range). We could just belong in a diamond or club slam, and I am plenty strong enough to not have to worry we will tell them how to beat us on an informative auction

I concur completely that at imps it is best to try to accomodate minor suit slams when it is reasonable - I simply don't think this is the hand for it. It has a lot of holes to fill to come up with 12 tricks on power, and nothing about the shape is exciting. If you use a loser-count evaluation, it suggests partner will have to have more than an average hand, either in shape or strength, to make slam playable.

I'm not a big fan usually of the direct 3N bid; however it rarity of use is somewhat of a strength it that it should have close definition, and here it seems the most descriptive of bids, lands us in the likely right spot immediately with versus a balanced minimum-to-average hand, and although room consuming does not preclude further bidding from partner when he has a suitable hand.

I would say that this is the top-end of a three NT bid, and I can see the value in not bidding it here - but because of all the holes and lack of overall shape and fits, it seems best to me with this hand in this auction to transfer captaincy to partner with a descriptive bid.

I was wrong once before, but that was years ago.....

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 29 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

Quote

I happen to think at imps 3NT over 1♣ is an awful bid, though at mps maybe I understand (assuming this is in the range). We could just belong in a diamond or club slam, and I am plenty strong enough to not have to worry we will tell them how to beat us on an informative auction

I concur completely that at imps it is best to try to accomodate minor suit slams when it is reasonable - I simply don't think this is the hand for it. It has a lot of holes to fill to come up with 12 tricks on power, and nothing about the shape is exciting. If you use a loser-count evaluation, it suggests partner will have to have more than an average hand, either in shape or strength, to make slam playable.

I'm not a big fan usually of the direct 3N bid; however it rarity of use is somewhat of a strength it that it should have close definition, and here it seems the most descriptive of bids, lands us in the likely right spot immediately with versus a balanced minimum-to-average hand, and although room consuming does not preclude further bidding from partner when he has a suitable hand.

I would say that this is the top-end of a three NT bid, and I can see the value in not bidding it here - but because of all the holes and lack of overall shape and fits, it seems best to me with this hand in this auction to transfer captaincy to partner with a descriptive bid.

I was wrong once before, but that was years ago.....

did i Not say this but in 3 words..hmmm....