[skjaeran]

With ♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx
vs ♠xxx ♥AQxxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx

Our bidding would be:
1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 2♣
2♦ - 2♥
pass

1♣=11-14/18-19 bal or nat
1♦=♥
1♥=any hand with 3c♥, some with 4c♥
2♣=xyz, puppet to 2♦
2♦=11-14, 3c♥ (2♥ would show 13-14 and 4c♥, 2NT 18-19 and 3c♥, 3♥ a minimum 18-19 with 4c♥)
2♥=5+♥ inv

[jdonn]

Yes it's obviously a great hand for transfer responses with any decent followups, mine would be 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ (1♥ is any hand with three hearts, 1♠ is asking, 1NT is balanced minimum). As for the given problem, I don't open hand's like partners, nor do I raise on them, and in addition I would be able to find out partner has a min with three, so that's all my excuses for why this wouldn't happen to me

[brianshark]

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

[skjaeran]

brianshark, on Sep 1 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

I prefer raise of partner's suit after 1m-1M-2M to show exactly four in my suit, thus partner will know when to play in the minor. I've got other ways to invite holding five (or no fit for partner's suit).

[SoTired]

skaeran, on Sep 1 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

brianshark, on Sep 1 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

Completely disagree. If you have a min response with 4♥, it makes no sense that you would want to leave a probable 4-4 major fit at the 2-level to play in a minor contract at the 3-level. So the only reason why you would want to bid 3D is a game-try showing a double fit. True, you could be 4♥5♦ and if opener wants to reject the game-try, playing a 5-4 3D fit is superior to playing a 4-3 3H contract. But that particular situation is rare, so it does not make sense catering to it and therefore losing all the other game-try (or even slam-try) cases when you want 3D to be forcing.

[skjaeran]

SoTired, on Sep 1 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

skaeran, on Sep 1 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

brianshark, on Sep 1 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

Completely disagree. If you have a min response with 4♥, it makes no sense that you would want to leave a probable 4-4 major fit at the 2-level to play in a minor contract at the 3-level. So the only reason why you would want to bid 3D is a game-try showing a double fit. True, you could be 4♥5♦ and if opener wants to reject the game-try, playing a 5-4 3D fit is superior to playing a 4-3 3H contract. But that particular situation is rare, so it does not make sense catering to it and therefore losing all the other game-try (or even slam-try) cases when you want 3D to be forcing.

There's other ways to make slam tries than doing a game try first. I prefer, as often as possible, to have game tries be exactly that - game tries. So that partner can make educated decisions, and doesn't have to cater for your game try rather being a slam try. (And have to make some other forewardgoing move to let you make a cuebid or whatever, instead of just bidding game, and help the opponents with their opening lead and defence.)

[brianshark]

skaeran, on Sep 1 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

SoTired, on Sep 1 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

skaeran, on Sep 1 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

brianshark, on Sep 1 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

Completely disagree. If you have a min response with 4♥, it makes no sense that you would want to leave a probable 4-4 major fit at the 2-level to play in a minor contract at the 3-level. So the only reason why you would want to bid 3D is a game-try showing a double fit. True, you could be 4♥5♦ and if opener wants to reject the game-try, playing a 5-4 3D fit is superior to playing a 4-3 3H contract. But that particular situation is rare, so it does not make sense catering to it and therefore losing all the other game-try (or even slam-try) cases when you want 3D to be forcing.

There's other ways to make slam tries than doing a game try first. I prefer, as often as possible, to have game tries be exactly that - game tries. So that partner can make educated decisions, and doesn't have to cater for your game try rather being a slam try. (And have to make some other forewardgoing move to let you make a cuebid or whatever, instead of just bidding game, and help the opponents with their opening lead and defence.)

I agree with the sentiment about seperating game tries and slam tries.

I guess I was assuming that playing simpler methods where you don't have dedicated slam try bids, letting the 3♦ bid double up as a slam try seems a worthwhile use of that bid at the small cost of not letting it be passed out.

[gnasher]

SoTired, on Sep 1 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

So the only reason why you would want to bid 3D is a game-try showing a double fit. True, you could be 4♥5♦ and if opener wants to reject the game-try, playing a 5-4 3D fit is superior to playing a 4-3 3H contract. But that particular situation is rare, so it does not make sense catering to it and therefore losing all the other game-try (or even slam-try) cases when you want 3D to be forcing.

Why would you have to be 4-5 to want to do this? A 4-4 game try opposite a 3-4 or 3-5 rejection will play much better in diamonds than in hearts.

[benlessard]

In Imps you wont get super rich with gametries that will jeopardize your contract and you wont get rich with correcting partscore at 1 level higher. On this hand playing standard i would invite but expect down 1 is partner refuse. Passing is probably not a big mistake if it is one.

Opening 1m light, RED & not lead directing doesnt make anysense imo, and please dont tell me its a matter of style. Im fond of making 3 card raise but never when i can bid 1S to show 4.

Quote

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though

Agree because 3D is by far the most useful slam tries available.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Sep 1 2008, 02:07 AM, said:

On the actual hand, I tried 3♥ (invite). Partner declined with:

♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx

I was fairly lucky to get out for down one. The hand passed out at the other table, lose three.

It seems like your partner should have rebid 1NT if he was going to open this hand. Raising is just going to make partner try for game aggressively with a lot of hands that would pass 1NT.