[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 29 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

After Ive shown 16-18, ♣ hand I dont think 3nt holding xxxx ♠ and an opening hand is the smartest bid but then Im not an expert.

You showed a 16-18 ♣ hand, but that's not what you have.

You have 14 hcp, really 13 since the QJ tight doesn't look like 3 points.

6♣, hell. I'd be tempted to shoot 6NT over a 3♣ bid! Maybe if I don't reveal anything I'll get a diamond lead.

[jillybean]

Ok, then you all bid 2♣ over 1♥? Meeooow

[mikeh]

I tend to open these hands 5♣ in part because I am not going to like my options over most responses, and in part because I would be worried about the opps getting together if I opened 1♣: which is the call that most invites the opps into the auction.

If I opened 1♣, and I am not saying it is wrong to do so, I would certainly bid 3♣... this hand is not about point count, it is about playing strength and the thought of bidding a weak-sounding 2♣ makes me ill.

Having bid 3♣ and heard 3N, this is an easy pass... not a comfortable pass, but an easy one. It is uncomfortable for all the obvious reasons, but I should have thought of that before opening 1♣. There was nothing about this auction that should have surprised me.

Pulling to 4♣ is just plain wrong. Look at it from partner's perspective... 4♣ is the type of call that gets partners to pull their hair out... it is a bid that says that the earlier bidding was a mistake.. but what kind of mistake? And remember that 3N is a very wide range bid, especially red at imps... he may be stretching, or he may be heading for the simplest game, confident of overtricks (as he was on the hand in question, subject only to a fear about spades.. but he has so much stuff and the white v red opps never peeped at the one level... so I'd be betting 20-1 or more that they can't run 5 spade tricks.

It is important to stay with your bidding plan. Opening 1♣ and then bidding a non-forcing 3♣ means that you have to stay in 3N.

As to whether 3N was the correct call: well, I happen to agree with it (compared to everyone's suggestion of 3♦). I don't like 3♦... why telegraph the lead... xx in spades is all I may need... and remember that opener's first task over 3♦ to to admit to or deny 3 card heart support... 3♦ is NOT a stopper ask per se. So if opener bids 3♥, what now??? 3♠ doesn't sound like xxxx to me


My only concern is that I do have a pretty good hand for slam, and I am not at all sure that 4♣, setting trump and forcing, wouldn't be better at imps... the odds of 5♣ being unmakable are very low.

Slam could be anywhere from verygood to hopeless opposite more typical 3♣ bids and I would probably not risk exploring unless playing with an expert, because we are going to have to be bidding well to do the right thing. With a non-expert partner, bid 3N and then, if time permits, discuss slam bidding afterwards...

[jdonn]

I would pull 3NT to 4♣, because there are two suits that could be problems and because 3NT could be down a lot if it's down. It's not like partner needs the king of clubs to bid 3NT. Of course the actual 3NT bid was ridiculous although it's a fine contract given no one overcalled spades, but I think either player should get this to 5♣.

Opening 5♣ might not have been a bad idea at all.

[ArtK78]

I would have bid 5♣ over 3NT. There is an old adage which goes something like this:

"What do you call an eight-card suit?"

"Trump."

And another old adage says that you never put down an eight-card suit in the dummy.

Now, these are both platitudes, but like most bridge platitutes, there is a lot of logic behind them.

Whether there is a logical way to explore for a club slam is another matter. Considering that I already made a bid that could be passed, I am not going to give partner another chance to pass. I bid 5♣ and hope I am right.

As for why 5♣ is the best spot on the hand, that is fairly clear. If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades [or Kx or Ax opposite HT9xx] 3NT is down on a spade lead (assuming no underlead of the AK). Meanwhile, the chance that 5♣ goes down on an adverse red suit ruff is extremely small.

[jkdood]

Re:
"After I've shown 16-18, ♣ hand I dont think 3nt holding xxxx ♠ and an opening hand is the smartest bid but then Im not an expert."

It's good policy to play a 3C rebid for about 15 HCP with a decent 7 card suit. Most experts reverse with better hands, often making up a reverse without the perfect shape. Of course, on BBO anyway reverses are a tact that many players (non-expert or so-called BBO experts) don't understand well so tread carefully.

I don't hate 3N but I think 3D caters to both questions about strain (when spades are the chink in the NT armor) and level (when pard has a max and slam is a good spot.) I also don't hate 1C but after choosing that and then 3C - 3N I don't see how I can move again despite some "worthy" suggestions to the contrary.

[jkdood]

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

[ArtK78]

jkdood, on Jul 29 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

True, it is unlikely.

But it is possible.

And it is not necessary that one opponent hold both spade honors. AT9xx opposite Kx or KT9xx opposite Ax is good enough on a spade lead if the opps don't destroy their high cards in the process. And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, your replies make a lot of sense and at the same time don’t make me feel like a complete twit.

[ArtK78]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

jkdood, on Jul 29 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

True, it is unlikely.

But it is possible.

And it is not necessary that one opponent hold both spade honors. AT9xx opposite Kx or KT9xx opposite Ax is good enough on a spade lead if the opps don't destroy their high cards in the process. And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

In addition, neither partner can tell from their respective spade holdings that 3NT rates to be as good a contract as it is. The xxxx could be opposite a singleton and the QJ could be opposite xxx. It just so happens that 3NT rates to be a good contract due to a combination of circumstances (the combined six-card holding, no spade overcall).

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

and the QJ could be opposite xxx.

If it is, then 5♣ is probably going down too. There's no evidence that partner has the diamond ace and the heart king.

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand. If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy. If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

It's only when you decide that the QJ is worth "Three! No wait, Zero! Hold on, Two Points! Can I go back to three?" that you getting into ridicluous bidding sequences. Pick a value for it, and then stick with it until the auction tells you to evaluate it differently. Personally, I think QJ is overwhelmingly likely to be a stopper. If partner has 3 spades, for example, the odds of him missing the A, K, and T is (8/11*7/10*6/9)=33.9%, so we have about a 2/3 chance of having a stopper, not including the inference that both opponents had a chance to show spades and both declined.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jul 29 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand. If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy. If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 29 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand.  If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy.  If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

All of the points about pulling 3N are valid... but surely they are reasons for opening 5♣ which, red at imps, is a strong call. If we open 1♣, I don't think we should be pulling 3N: we might well reach a 11 trick contract off 3 quicks, with 3N cold. Of course, the reverse may well be true!

[jkdood]

Sure 5C (or 3 or 4) could be right and it is imps.
And 3NT (and I won't quote Hamman) could be right.
But although I have an extra club and maybe short a HCP or even 2
Pard effectively took the responsibility to stop/help-stop all 3 suits
without anything specific from me,
and I would just let it play there if they feel it's their most descriptive call/best spot.

(stiff d: I could have one less club and AK dub of H and have 0 surprises and pard's aware of this, and maybe the T of dia is large card today!)
(PS - the opps not bidding diamonds is also somewhat reassuring )

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

There are two points here, and I'm afraid I'm mixing them.

One is that I think QJ of spades is fine to consider a stopper when partner rates to have a few. So I think AK78's "if you see the N/S hands, and you mix the E/W hands, you could create something where you go down" isn't with the odds.

The other is, if you bid 1 club, then 3 clubs, then 4 clubs, I think partner has every right to expect you to have a very strong hand- that you're bidding past 3NT out of strength, not weakness. I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect partner to figure out that you valued your hand as strong enough for 3♣ then changed your mind.

That's what I mean by a silly auction. Strain isn't really involved- if you bid 5♣ over 3NT, that shouldn't be hard to figure out, but 4♣ (the bid actually made) is caused by overvaluing and then undervaluing the QJ...inviting game, partner accepting the invite, and then reconsidering whether you want to be in game.

I'm willing to play 3NT because I consider myself to have a stopper in one of the unbid suits. I don't think partner would bid 3NT without stoppers in at least one of the unbid suits. So I'm willing to take my chances.

[jdonn]

I really don't feel like debating the bridge judgment of the given hand since I don't particularly mind being disagreed with (although no stoppers in some suit isn't the big problem, more likely is one stopper and no king of clubs.) My point is that pulling 3NT isn't inherently illogical, or isn't some an auction that shouldn't exist. I await being corrected on the following, but it looks like jt was essentially saying "if you decide your QJ of spades aren't useless then it would inherently be silly to pull 3NT" which makes no sense.

I now see you posted before I did. What you said makes even less sense. How can 4♣ be bid based on hand strength when you are already within a given strength range that partner has said is enough for game?? You then mention the QJ of spades again, which still have nothing to do with it. You are attributing a reason to 4♣ bidders that might not be a reason or might not be the only reason.

Did you consider that someone might bid 4♣ because they think it's very likely they belong in clubs instead of notrump?

[jkdood]

Re: "point is that pulling 3NT isn't inherently illogical"

I DO agree with that, and I only suggested living with 3N is my pref.

I also think winning an imp-based National Championship 2 days ago
suggests your judgement is far from "inherently illogical" in these matters
(Not that your judgements weren't well-respected before that:-)

[awm]

It seems to me that the 3♣ bid describes a hand pretty tightly. Something like 16-18 "playing points" (can easily be fewer high card points especially with 7+♣) and a good 6+ card club suit.

Obviously one can make the point that this hand "doesn't really fit" the 3♣ rebid, having too many clubs or too few overall values or some combination thereof. This is a good argument for opening 5♣ on this hand.

But having bid 3♣, it does seem weird to pull 3NT. This auction seems to me something like bidding 1♠-2♠-4♠-cuebid; sure you could have some weird hand where it's not clear that a single raise was really "right" the first time (say ♠Kxx ♥- ♦xxx ♣Kxxxxxx) but just because you could easily make slam opposite partner's 4♠ bid (say ♠AQxxxx ♥Kxx ♦x ♣Axx) doesn't mean you should now remove 4♠.

Sure, the example hand doesn't have a diamond stopper and the spade stopper is dubious. But a 3♣ rebid doesn't promise a diamond stopper last time I checked. Partner should have something in the pointed suits. And while it's certainly possible that partner has the right stuff to make slam (or the wrong stuff for 3NT) we should trust our own bidding (and our partner's) here.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jul 29 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

But having bid 3♣, it does seem weird to pull 3NT. This auction seems to me something like bidding 1♠-2♠-4♠-cuebid

That comparison is not applicable. On that auction and this one, your strength is limited. On this auction your length/distribution are NOT limited. Note I'm not looking for slam, I'm trying for what I think is likely to be a better game.