[bid_em_up]

Playing with a competent partner, who opens 1♣ in first seat, and the next hand passes, you find yourself holding:

---

Partner's 1♣ bid can be only two cards (5542 methods) and you tend to bid 4 card suits up the line (non-walsh). Our Inverted minor raises are considered Game Forcing unless it is determined that you have no stop in a given suit, in which case it is possible to end in four of a minor.

Please try to answer based upon these methods, regardless of what methods you happen to play. If you chose "Something Else", then feel free to explain your methods or reasoning along with intended followups.

What is your call?

Thanks.

(There may be a companion hand later, for further discussion).

As a follow-up question, assume you bid 3N. Does the 3N bid imply a club fit or not (especially given the above methods)? Feel free to elaborate on why it does or does not.

[cherdano]

I would bid 2♣. I only jump to 3N if I wouldn't mind playing there if opener has a minimal hand with shortness somewhere, and here I certainly don't want to play 3N opposite heart shortness.

(Another way of saying the same thing: I have too many aces and kings.)

3N doesn't show a club fit of course. It's a normal bid with 3343.

[jdonn]

The tens make it a pretty close decision, but I agree with Arend's post.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with both the previous posts.

I don't like 3NT now for two reasons:
i) I am too good (too many controls, too many HCP)
ii) It might not be the right spot opposite a minimum unbalanced hand

In terms of methods, I'd like to be playing something sensible after a 2C response.

[jdonn]

BTW I would respond 2NT if it were game forcing though.

[TylerE]

Between 2♣ and 3N, I prefer 3N. I think it implies club tolerance...certianly xx, probably Kx or better. That said, lemme plug my preferred treatment, a sort of reversed crisscross.

The single raise is constructive (9-11 or thereabouts), but non-forcing.
JS in other minor is a GF. Opener's rebids are conventional.

1st Step = Unbalanced Min
2nd Step = Unbalanced Max
3rd Step = Balanced Min
4th Step = Balanced Max

Over the first and second, responder can relay for shortness. I only play this with one partner (he introduced the structure to me), but we've bid at least one good slam that isn't practical to reach playing normal inverted minor methods, which I'm frankly no big fan of (Better than jump = limit, SAYC style thoug). Once heard a pro describing inverted minor auctions as 1♣-2♣-Noise-Noise-3NT.

[kenrexford]

I have recently been using an approach where an "inverted raise" can simply show 13-15 balanced (with 3NT showing 16-17). There are complicated follow-ups, but this works nicely.

[keylime]

2♣ for me. Allows pard with a reversing hand to pattern out helping degree of fit. I have prime controls, and pard opened in front of me with... .Additionally, I got 3NT coming to me anyway, and personally, I tend to play 3NT direct over 1m in standard, as a little stronger, 16-18.

[whereagles]

I don't like surprising pard with a lesser fit, so I'll just stick to the systems' holes instead of trying to dig out of them.

3NT.

Of course, hands like these are a good reason to play inverted raises starting from 3 cards (a style which IS viable).

[mikeh]

duplicate post

[mikeh]

A lot depends on methods, especially methods after an inverted raise. I would only choose the inverted raise if we had powerful methods. Even then, I would choose 2N if this were forcing, as I usually (but not always) play it.

If forced to play without detailed agreements for inverted, and not playing walsh or 2N forcing, I bid 3N.

BTW, if playing walsh, but with the other constraints intact, 1♦ has a lot going for it... but I wouldn't choose it.. the tens dissuade me.. absent those spots, I'd prefer partner to rightside notrump

[Codo]

If I bid 2 Club now, I deny a balanced hand with 13-15 HCPs and I normally have 5 Clubs for a inv. minor raise of clubs. I think that these are serious drawbacks.

I am a little too strong for 3 NT and my points are very usefull to be put down in dummy, that is the problem with 3 NT now.

I don't see the problem with the Heart shortage. If pd has something like Qxxx,x, AQx, Axxxx, he may pass 3 NT and fail, but with many other hands he will make a slam try. He knows that I have at least 3 clubs, normaly 4 and that I have no 4 card major. At least at imps he will be very careful to pass 3 NT with a singleton.

[cherdano]

Codo, on Nov 13 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

If I bid 2 Club now, I deny a balanced hand with 13-15 HCPs and I normally have 5 Clubs for a inv. minor raise of clubs. I think that these are serious drawbacks.

Nooo you don't deny a balanced hand with 13-15 hcp. Would you really bid 3N on any 5332 or 4432 hand with 5 or 4 clubs, respectively, regardless of your holding in the doubleton?
3N is a big jump and should be very descriptive, not just any balanced 13-15 hcp hand.

[OleBerg]

Voted 2♣ assuming that since it was mentioned, we have a methods to unearth our degree of club-fit (and slampotential) beneath 3nt.

I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

[Codo]

cherdano, on Nov 13 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 13 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

If I bid 2 Club now, I deny a balanced hand with 13-15 HCPs and I normally have 5 Clubs for a inv. minor raise of clubs. I think that these are serious drawbacks.

Nooo you don't deny a balanced hand with 13-15 hcp. Would you really bid 3N on any 5332 or 4432 hand with 5 or 4 clubs, respectively, regardless of your holding in the doubleton?
3N is a big jump and should be very descriptive, not just any balanced 13-15 hcp hand.

We are in complete agreement, 3 NT is a very tight defined bid. Of course there are many balanced hands which are not suitable for this bid. (Obviously all 4 card major hands, all hands with wide open suits, etc...)

For me, after 1 Club 3 NT normally shows more or less exactly 3334, maybe 2344 or 3244 with a very good reason to surpress the 4 card suit (maybe AQ in the short suit)- I could bid my 4 card suit on a very low level if I had one outside clubs.

With (233)5, I have no problem in raising clubs and await the bright future.
Just playing mps I may choose 3 NT as a tactical bid, when all side suits are well stopped, f.e AQ, KJx,Axx,Jxxxx.

[Codo]

OleBerg, on Nov 13 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %).

I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one.

It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT.

[OleBerg]

Codo, on Nov 13 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 13 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %).

I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one.

It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT.

Of course the hand is well-suited to play 3nt, which will often make. The point I was trying to make, was that it was also well suited for play in Clubs.

12 tricks might eassily be on facing an unbalanced minimum, on which partner will always pass. The real embarrasing ones, are the ones where 3nt is down and 6♣ is making:

♠ xx
♥ x
♦ AQxx
♣ KQxxxx

An initial 3nt bid should be something like:

♠ KJx
♥ AJx
♦ KJx
♣ xxxx

3nt, played by us, is in no way un-attainable if we start with 2♣.

(I agree that 2nt forcing is a better bid, but we were specifically asked to choose betweem 2♣ and 3nt.)

Of course a few things could sway me to bid 3nt. The most obvious one would be playing MP's in a field of unhomogeneous strenght. (I feel I am rightsiding the contract by bidding 3nt.)

But if I want to play good bridge, with a competent partner, against equal opposition, I find 2♣ obvious and 3nt a little silly.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3NT, 13-15 bal. looks like I have a bid, which describes my hand.
I dont mind 2C, but I know, what I want to play NT and game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

OleBerg, on Nov 14 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 13 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 13 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %).

I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one.

It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT.

Of course the hand is well-suited to play 3nt, which will often make. The point I was trying to make, was that it was also well suited for play in Clubs.

12 tricks might eassily be on facing an unbalanced minimum, on which partner will always pass. The real embarrasing ones, are the ones where 3nt is down and 6♣ is making:

♠ xx
♥ x
♦ AQxx
♣ KQxxxx

<snip>

At least playing teams, partner should remove
3NT with this hand.

He knows (!) that we have at most four heart, and
at most 5 spades, and also that we have at least a
9 card club fit.
And after a 4C bid, responder can still show his control
richness.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[OleBerg]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 14 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 14 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 13 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 13 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %).

I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one.

It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT.

Of course the hand is well-suited to play 3nt, which will often make. The point I was trying to make, was that it was also well suited for play in Clubs.

12 tricks might eassily be on facing an unbalanced minimum, on which partner will always pass. The real embarrasing ones, are the ones where 3nt is down and 6♣ is making:

♠ xx
♥ x
♦ AQxx
♣ KQxxxx

<snip>

At least playing teams, partner should remove
3NT with this hand.

And he will be down in 4nt or 5♣ facing a lot of hands with fewer controls.

With my example hand, 5♣ is doomed, and 4nt is much tougher than 3.