[kenrexford]

Maybe I'm missing something. I'll try more explanation.

I have opened 1♣, a 1♦ overcall, and partner bids 1NT. This is always going to feature diamonds stopped and a club "fit" if clubs are real. So, I make the call that is forcing and establishes the fit (2♦) as real, maximizing the space to further describe the hand for 3NT purposes, or for 5♣ purposes, or for whatever purposes we may have in mind.

What I don't get is 3♣. To my way of thinking, and please don't be shy about noting this possible insanity (people are so shy here), if 2♦ establishes the club fit and is forcing, then 3♣ should not show that same hand. Seems logical enough. However, what would it actually show? It seems to me that an immediate 3♣ call is actually a semi-preemptive call.

I mean, if 1NT is in fact implicitly a club "raise" in this sequence, does this not change the analysis substantially? Does not the availability of a cue change the analysis? Does not the ability to reverse change the analysis? I would expect 3♣ to show some garbage six-bagger reaching the ideal problem contract immediately, jamming their major exploration and jamming their diamond exploration.

Am I missing something?

[han]

Can you not be 3-3-5-2 for bidding 1NT? Opener can have xxx, responder can have xx, so I would not describe this as an implicit club raise.

I do think that your suggestion (3C as preemptive, therefore 2D as the game-try with clubs) is fine.

[kenrexford]

han, on Mar 25 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

Can you not be 3-3-5-2 for bidding 1NT? Opener can have xxx, responder can have xx, so I would not describe this as an implicit club raise.

I do think that your suggestion (3C as preemptive, therefore 2D as the game-try with clubs) is fine.

3-3-5-2 is a hand with support of a six-card suit, technically.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 25 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing something. 
<snipped>

What I don't get is 3♣.  To my way of thinking, and please don't be shy about noting this possible insanity (people are so shy here), if 2♦ establishes the club fit and is forcing, then 3♣ should not show that same hand.  Seems logical enough.  However, what would it actually show?  It seems to me that an immediate 3♣ call is actually a semi-preemptive call.

<snipped>
Am I missing something?

Yes, Ken, I think you are missing something. At least, I think so.

To me, 2♦ is a different hand.

1. we really do not need 3♣ as semi-preemptive. Yes, there may be hands on which LHO is about to act again, despite knowing that our partner is sitting behind him with diamonds and about 8-10 points and his partner passed. But we can still bid later if it appears (to either of us) reasonable to do so... and, in the meantime, we do not needlessly get too high.

2. 3♣ for this hand is ideal. It is descriptive. It invites 3N but expresses the inability to make the bid ourselves. It certainly, to my way of thinking, denies say Axx xxx x AKQJxx.. that is a 3N call.

3. But we may occasionally have a HUGE hand. The consensus in this forum, with some exceptions, seems to be that we need a very good hand, indeed, to open 2♣ with a minor. So we will sometimes have a near-2♣ opener with long clubs. While this is low-frequency, it is the meaning I would reserve for 2♦. A game force with clubs.. and this 14 count, good tho it is, is more than an Ace short of what I would need.

Give me Axx AQx x AKQxxx and I'd bid 2♦.

Opposite an ideal fitter such as xxx Kx AJxx Jxxx and we can reach slam. While, opposite Qxx Jxx KJxx Jxx, we play 3N.

[han]

Mike, I don't think AKJ10xx is an ideal suit for 3C. How does partner know that we have this suit instead of, say, AQ10xxx with better majors?

If you bid 3C then partner is rarely going to bid 3NT with xx in clubs, after all, that is about the worst possible holding he could have.

Give me AJx KJx x AQxxxx and then I will bid 3C.

[kenrexford]

Wow. What a weird world. We save 2♦ as a call exclusively for game-forcing slam tries opposite 8-10(11) counts and merge everything else into a 3♣ call.

[mikeh]

han, on Mar 25 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

Mike, I don't think AKJ10xx is an ideal suit for 3C. How does partner know that we have this suit instead of, say, AQ10xxx with better majors?

If you bid 3C then partner is rarely going to bid 3NT with xx in clubs, after all, that is about the worst possible holding he could have.

Give me AJx KJx x AQxxxx and then I will bid 3C.

We can't always hold what we want (sung to the tune of the Stone's Satisfaction).

I agree that we can't tell partner that we hold AKJ as opposed to AQ10.

But we can tell partner, via 3♣, that we need a filler. We shouldn't need 2 fillers, unless we have compensating values elsewhere including a diamond stopper. So he should know to bid 3N with the type of help we need, whether that be the Queen or the King or a decent hand with 2 diamond stoppers... remember, he doesn't need the clubs to be solid IF he has a good 1N with 2 diamond stops.

Yes, he will go wrong, sometimes, when he holds xxxx in clubs and a diamond stop... but we can't always hold what we want, and we can't always bid every game. Bidding is imperfect, and our hands usually only approach the prototypical holding.

I go back to an earlier theme: while 3♣ will generate poor results some of the time, I think that it is less likely to generate a poor result than is 3N. 3N commits us to game, no matter how poor that game may be. 3♣ will often (usually, and by a wide margin, imo) get us to good games and often avoid bad ones.

BTW, one comment I haven't seen yet is the difference between 2N and 3♣.

2N cannot be a balanced hand. Balanced 15-17 open 1N. Balanced 18+ bid 3N. balanced 14 counts... well, maybe, but I think that hand passes, because partner will accept with a balanced 9 count and the opps are attacking a long suit in a hand with probably entries.

So, doing a Ken impersonation for a moment, I am going to suggest that your example hand of AJx KJx x AQxxxx bid 2N

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 25 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

Wow.  What a weird world.  We save 2♦ as a call exclusively for game-forcing slam tries opposite 8-10(11) counts and merge everything else into a 3♣ call.

The inventor of the empathetic splinter, who looks for slams on 8 counts opposite a 15-17 1N is critiquing the idea that a cue of the opp's suit is a gf? Yes, Ken... life is getting weirder all the time

And I hardly 'merged everything else into a 3♣ call'.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Mar 25 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Wow. What a weird world. We save 2♦ as a call exclusively for game-forcing slam tries opposite 8-10(11) counts and merge everything else into a 3♣ call.

Wasn't it in "Alice behind the mirror" they played the "Useless space principle" by Rub Jeffens?

[kenrexford]

Mikeh, are you sure who has the glass of wine in his/her hand?

LOL

I agree that 2NT is clearly and unambiguously (LOL) a club bid. This furthers my point. 3♣ as a zoom bid seems to make a lot more sense than a descriptive bid, when 2♦ is available to nuance off of 2NT and 2♣.

Now, I have to admit liking the idea of 2♦ as a GF, to set up an unambiguous slam auction, or perhaps choice of games auction, or blended. But, I just don't think this situation calls for that. I would rather be able to explore the side cards below 3♣ than above 3♣. The alternative forces us too frequently to leave the safety of 3♣ for our game explorations.

As a GP, it seems that you generally want to get below what you want to hear. 2NT gets below nothing. 3♣ gets below less. So, I want to reserve the most obstruction for harm to the opponents (3♣), 2NT for when I'm not concerned about side suits (need help in clubs, please), and 2♦, the lowest bid, when all sorts of issues are present (I need help in hearts, spades, and diamonds, please).

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Mar 25 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

...who looks for slams on 8 counts opposite a 15-17 1N...

I recently had a hard laugh with a friend of mine. He opened 2NT, showing a good 19 to an average 21. I held a 4432 6-count with an Ace and a Qx. After finding the 4-4 fit, I went into the tank. It turned out that slam was remotely possible, but just too hard to imagine. My friend said I was sick. LOL

[the hog]

3C lets involve partner in the decision mking process and lets not produce a butcher's bid of 3NT.