[awm]

Here's a hand from teams today. The auction started 1♣-P-1♥-P-2♣-P. In our style, we often rebid 1NT with a singleton heart and reverse or jump rebid fairly light, so 2♣ is often (but not always) six cards and 11-14 or so. What's your next call?

Scoring: IMP

---

[Winstonm]

3C

[655321]

3♠ (Game forcing hand with a singleton spade) or 5♣ (enough for game, not risking 3NT when opponents have 9 or more spades, not looking for the perfect fit slam that is admittedly possible) both seem reasonable bids to me.

[mike777]

3c=good invite I hope, not weakish.

I assume 3s=splinter and slam try, not "just" invite to game.

If 3c=random hand then I am stuck with 3s.

[jdonn]

3♠. We would bid 3♣ with one of the aces removed.

[skjaeran]

3♠ looks like the obvious choice to me.

[han]

3S for me too.

[pclayton]

3♠. I'm pretty amazed at the votes for 3♣.

[kenrexford]

3♠ is available. 2♦ otherwise.

[awm]

At the table I was worried that 3♠ sounds like a better hand. After all, we have effectively two aces and out (the ♠Q and ♣J are not likely to be useful here). Admittedly the shape makes this quite a nice hand, but splintering might oversell it a bit. For example give partner something like:

♠xxx
♥Qx
♦Kx
♣AKQxxx

This is a maximum 2♣ rebid with a perfect spade holding of three small. It's easy to imagine partner checking keycards on this hand and then bidding 6♣, which has no actual play. Of course, there do exist hands where 6♣ is good (i.e. xxx x KQx AKQxxx) and should also be bid opposite a splinter, but partner is actually likely to evaluate Hx in hearts as "better" than a singleton heart when the opposite is true.

In any case, I chose to bid 5♣, as 3♣ seems like a big underbid (yes, it does show a decent hand, but ♣AKxxxx and a red king probably makes game here and I don't see partner accepting with that) and 3♠ is potentially an overbid. Partner's actual hand:

♠xxx
♥x
♦KQJx
♣AKxxx

Slam is on ♣Q singleton or doubleton; bidding 3♠ probably gets us there while 3♣ and 5♣ likely play in those contracts. Partner didn't want to rebid 1NT on three small spades; the other table actually did rebid 1NT and landed in a club partial making six!

[kenrexford]

I think you gave partner too little credit. With the hand you proposed for the RKCB-then-6 auction, RKCB-then-6 would be gross. There is a lot of space between 3♠ and 5♣.

The actual hand is much better than the proposed hand.

♠xxx ♥Qx ♦Kx ♣AKQxxx
♠xxx ♥x ♦KQJx ♣AKxxx

The first has six losers. The stiff covers two, meaning that he needs three more. Two Aces will not work.

The second has the same six losers. However, two Aces may well do the trick (as it did) because club length (shown by the 3♠ call) works very often to grab that extra trick, even without the club Queen.

In other words, the club Queen in the first is a redundancy, really. Remove the Queen and you have the same hand, contextually.

I understand that 3♠ looks like a big bid, where maybe Opener should view either as enough if that view of 3♠ is accurate. However, it appears to not be accurate to many, such that Opener should scream but resign if Responder declines to cooperate any more.

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 7 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

At the table I was worried that 3♠ sounds like a better hand. After all, we have effectively two aces and out (the ♠Q and ♣J are not likely to be useful here). Admittedly the shape makes this quite a nice hand, but splintering might oversell it a bit. For example give partner something like:

♠xxx
♥Qx
♦Kx
♣AKQxxx

This is a maximum 2♣ rebid with a perfect spade holding of three small. It's easy to imagine partner checking keycards on this hand and then bidding 6♣, which has no actual play. Of course, there do exist hands where 6♣ is good (i.e. xxx x KQx AKQxxx) and should also be bid opposite a splinter, but partner is actually likely to evaluate Hx in hearts as "better" than a singleton heart when the opposite is true.

In any case, I chose to bid 5♣, as 3♣ seems like a big underbid (yes, it does show a decent hand, but ♣AKxxxx and a red king probably makes game here and I don't see partner accepting with that) and 3♠ is potentially an overbid. Partner's actual hand:

♠xxx
♥x
♦KQJx
♣AKxxx

Slam is on ♣Q singleton or doubleton; bidding 3♠ probably gets us there while 3♣ and 5♣ likely play in those contracts. Partner didn't want to rebid 1NT on three small spades; the other table actually did rebid 1NT and landed in a club partial making six!

Why would partner pass a good 3c invite with the given hand. I would always drive to at least game. Reading the wtp with 3s seems to assume 3c is a pretty minimum bid.

[ArtK78]

In other threads, the raise to 3♣ is a courtesy raise, not promising much more than a fit.

So, the 3♠ bid is consistent with the philosophy that a 3♣ raise doesn't promise much.

So is opener's pass of the raise to 3♣.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy. To me, the raise to 3♣ shows invitational values, and is sufficient on these cards.

[goobers]

I think in other hands a 3C raise came after a forcing 1N auction, like

1S - 1N
2C - 3C

where 3C was a courtesy raise. Can this be applied here as well? In the forcing NT auction, opener could have as much as 17-18, but isn't that not the case here?

[cherdano]

goobers, on Jul 7 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

I think in other hands a 3C raise came after a forcing 1N auction, like

1S - 1N
2C - 3C

where 3C was a courtesy raise. Can this be applied here as well? In the forcing NT auction, opener could have as much as 17-18, but isn't that not the case here?

No it is not. 1C 1H 3C shows an invitational hand, 1S 1N 3C shows a game forcing hand. Hence the upper limit of 1S 1N 2C is much higher.

[cherdano]

I don't think 3S promises slam interest, it is allowed to bid 3S with a purely COG hand.

[ArtK78]

goobers, on Jul 7 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

I think in other hands a 3C raise came after a forcing 1N auction, like

1S - 1N
2C - 3C

where 3C was a courtesy raise.  Can this be applied here as well?  In the forcing NT auction, opener could have as much as 17-18, but isn't that not the case here?

Raising 2♣ after a forcing 1NT shows significant club support (usually at least 5 clubs) and invitational values. Opener doesn't promise more than 3 clubs (and, on the auction 1♥ - 1NT - 2♣, only a doubleton if the partnership does not play Flannery).

So, I would say that you actually have the sequences backward, as the raise to 3♣ after a forcing 1NT followed by a 2♣ rebid by opener shows a good hand (less than a game force, of course).

Note: I can't come up with any hand that would rebid 2♣ after a forcing 1NT response when opener has 17-18 HCP. Opener should be able to come up with some stronger bid than 2♣ (assuming a standard forcing 1NT structure).

Caveat: After 1♥ - 1NT (forcing) - 2♣, a 2♠ bid shows a massive club raise which was not worth a 2/1 on the previous round. So, the "mere" raise to 3♣ shows less than what a 2♠ bid would show.

[awm]

A typical 3♣ bid is something like:

♠xx
♥AKxx
♦Axxx
♣xxx

♠KQxx
♥Kxxx
♦xx
♣Qxx

In general it shows something like 10-11 hcp with 3-4♣. Occasionally it could be lighter with 4♣ and shortness. Note that opener's 13-count with only five clubs doesn't give you a great shot at game opposite either of these two hands (and 4♣ could easily fail if clubs go 4-1). I don't really see why 23-24 combined hcp with a 5-3 club fit is a game bid.

There are a couple questions for the 3♠ bidders. One is how you plan to keep partner out of slam when he has a "perfect" spade holding but a doubleton heart. Another is whether you plan to pass 3NT if partner tries bidding it.

[cherdano]

To answer Adam's question: I will bid 5♣ over any slam try by partner, if he still insists on bidding 6♣ then I will say a confident "glp".
If partner bids 3N, then of course I pass, what are you worried about? I have spade stopper help, and I have aces which is always good for 3N opposite a 6-card suit. In fact I am more worried about missing 3N because partner thinks his AT9 is a single stopper.