[FrancesHinden]

Everybody has their own style of bidding. I've given the six main different styles above. Partnerships are compatible when the styles mesh. You don't have to play the same style as your partner (a simple soul and a mastermind can work well).

This hand come up earlier this week, and I was struck how the bid chosen at the table by various people seemed to reflect exactly my perception of how they like to bid.

Scoring: matchpoints

1NT 2♠ 3♦ P
?

---

1NT is 15-17
3♦ is natural and game forcing (double would have been take-out)

FWIW my first choice is 4D, and my second choice is 3S
My partner bid 3S, second choice 4D but said afterwards he thought 4D was right. He's a scientist at heart and his natural reaction was to bid the opponents' suit.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 2 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

My partner bid 3S, second choice 4D but said afterwards he thought 4D was right. He's a scientist at heart and his natural reaction was to bid the opponents' suit.

Ditto.

[hotShot]

I'll bid 4♦, because I'm a simple soul -----
and because an unforced raise to 4m is Minorwood in my favorite partnership.

[Codo]

I would simply and natural bid their suit, asking for a stopper.
When partner does not bid 3 NT, I will bid diamonds. We have no way to stop in 4 Diamond, so when he has xxx in spade, we will be in 5 ♦ -1.

[cherdano]

I guess we need another category - 4♦ (Minorwood), the mad scientist. (If my partner forced me to play minorwood on this auction, I would return the favor by torturing him with 4♣.)
Also, what about the "doesn't this show my hand"-5♦ bidders.

[FrancesHinden]

hotShot, on Jan 2 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I'll bid 4♦, because I'm a simple soul -----
and because an unforced raise to 4m is Minorwood in my favorite partnership.

How can you both be a simple soul and think 4D is Minorwood here?

Only mad scientists* would play that a raise to 4D by the limited hand can possibly be asking for aces opposite an unlimited hand. Give yourself a "mastermind" award for wanting to ask for keycards as opener...


*IMO, if you like, if we're being nice in 2009

edit: I used the phrase 'mad scientist' in my post without having seen cherdano's.

[dicklont]

4♦ Show support right away.
For all I know partner is driving to 5 or 6♦.
When I first bid 3♠ and later support ♦ he won't expect such good support.

My style? Try to help partner were I can, he doesn't like guessing and nor do I.
I find that my partners judgement is very good, provided that I describe my hand well.

[qwery_hi]

I think I'll choose 3♠ and if partner doesn't bid 3N, 5♦.

[whereagles]

Seems like a no-brainer 3♠, regardless of the meaning you attribute to it

[mikestar]

4♦ seems best to me, and I can see some merit in jumping to 5♦. 3NT is not likely to be right on this auction--if partner has spades stopped and a hand that is good for NT why didn't he bid 3NT himself? So if 3NT is out of the picture, why bother with 3♠ when your diamond support is the best feature of your hand?

If I had started with 3♠, I would definitely follow up with 5♦ if partner doesn't bid 3NT--but this doesn't emphasize the diamond support as well as a direct raise.

[Fluffy]

If I didn't have ♠J I would bid 4♣ since I am a torturer (or maybe 3♥). But with something in spades and 8 top tricks in sight as long as spades don't run I cannot bypass 3NT, so 3♠ it would be.

The more I think of it the more I think I'd bid 3♥ as the torturer scientist I am (allowing partner to bid 3♠ and me 3NT)

[RichMor]

I bid a 'practical' 3♠. We don't want to play 5♦ at matchpoints if 3NT is reasonable.

[jdonn]

I think 4♦ is pretty obvious (or at least raising diamonds somehow, so if you think 4♣ is a cuebid...) The one thing I think is clearly wrong (other than 3NT) is 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT if partner bids it. If partner has a spade stopper, and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit, he would have bid 3NT last round (or 2NT - 3NT depending on leb) instead of bidding diamonds.

[y66]

3S. Isn't this the pragmatic* bid?

* mad scientist in denial

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

I think 4♦ is pretty obvious (or at least raising diamonds somehow, so if you think 4♣ is a cuebid...) The one thing I think is clearly wrong (other than 3NT) is 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT if partner bids it. If partner has a spade stopper, and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit, he would have bid 3NT last round (or 2NT - 3NT depending on leb) instead of bidding diamonds.

After reading this post, I am convinced that 4♦ is correct for the reasons mentioned. Since I aspire to be an expert some day, the question before me is this - is it standard expert practice to bid 3NT (with a stopper) even when a diamond slam may be in the offing if partner has say Kxx of diamonds?

Edit - I don't think I was very clear in the question I was asking. It was motivated by the sequences in which we open 1NT, responder transfers to diamonds and then bids 3NT. I was wondering what the expert practice is to do with such a hand in this case.

[FrancesHinden]

qwery_hi, on Jan 2 2009, 04:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

I think 4♦ is pretty obvious (or at least raising diamonds somehow, so if you think 4♣ is a cuebid...) The one thing I think is clearly wrong (other than 3NT) is 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT if partner bids it. If partner has a spade stopper, and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit, he would have bid 3NT last round (or 2NT - 3NT depending on leb) instead of bidding diamonds.

After reading this post, I am convinced that 4♦ is correct for the reasons mentioned. Since I aspire to be an expert some day, the question before me is this - is it standard expert practice to bid 3NT (with a stopper) even when a diamond slam may be in the offing if partner has say Kxx of diamonds?

No, if partner has slam interest and a spade stop he will start with 3D. As Jdonn says, "if partner has a spade stopper and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit he would have bid 3NT last round"

So if partner bids 3D, then bids 3NT over your 3S bid, he must have started with a slam try, and hence 3S now then passing 3NT next round is clearly wrong.

Funnily enough, the purpose of starting this thread is not to say that one call is definitely right or not. I know which I prefer, and I agree that some possible sequences are definitely wrong, but as I said I think the choice of call now is mainly a style issue.

[The full hand isn't very relevant. As long as you do something sane you will end in a making 6D contract.]

[mikeh]

qwery_hi, on Jan 2 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

I think 4♦ is pretty obvious (or at least raising diamonds somehow, so if you think 4♣ is a cuebid...) The one thing I think is clearly wrong (other than 3NT) is 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT if partner bids it. If partner has a spade stopper, and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit, he would have bid 3NT last round (or 2NT - 3NT depending on leb) instead of bidding diamonds.

After reading this post, I am convinced that 4♦ is correct for the reasons mentioned. Since I aspire to be an expert some day, the question before me is this - is it standard expert practice to bid 3NT (with a stopper) even when a diamond slam may be in the offing if partner has say Kxx of diamonds?

many partnerships handle this issue by using science as responder... transfers help.. ie use 3♣ as a transfer to 3♦, then bid 3N.... showing a spade stopper, a diamond suit, and some reason not to bid 3N directly...

As for the OP, my instinct said 3♠, but thinking said 4♦.

[qwery_hi]

qwery_hi, on Jan 2 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

I think 4♦ is pretty obvious (or at least raising diamonds somehow, so if you think 4♣ is a cuebid...) The one thing I think is clearly wrong (other than 3NT) is 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT if partner bids it. If partner has a spade stopper, and wants to play 3NT opposite a diamond fit, he would have bid 3NT last round (or 2NT - 3NT depending on leb) instead of bidding diamonds.

After reading this post, I am convinced that 4♦ is correct for the reasons mentioned. Since I aspire to be an expert some day, the question before me is this - is it standard expert practice to bid 3NT (with a stopper) even when a diamond slam may be in the offing if partner has say Kxx of diamonds?

Edit - I don't think I was very clear in the question I was asking. It was motivated by the sequences in which we open 1NT, responder transfers to diamonds and then bids 3NT. I was wondering what the expert practice is to do with such a hand in this case.

Since I edited my post, I'm following up with a new post along the same lines.

Consider a hand where opposite a 15-17 NT, you would transfer to diamonds and then bid 3NT. (Humor me if you don't play there methods)

Lets say you hold such a hand and a spade stopper. If you bid 3♦, assuming that partner doesn't have a stop, aren't you putting partner in a pickle if he doesn't have diamond support?

Edit - I think I get it now - 3 ♠ is only right if you don't have diamond support. Thanks all.

Further edit - by "right" I mean 'right for me' .. no as frances said, there is no single "right".

[ASkolnick]

I'm not sure that is quite true. What if partner has a partial stopper?

Qx, Qxx, xx, or xxx etc. is he really going to bid 3N by himself? So, I think that 3 spades should suggest a partial stopper (which is what you have). Looking at the hands, there may be times that 5m goes down, but 3N makes.

It also may depend on what the sequence, 2N(Lebensohl) followed by 3S actually shows as well.

[qwery_hi]

ASkolnick, on Jan 2 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

I'm not sure that is quite true. What if partner has a partial stopper?

Qx, Qxx, xx, or xxx etc. is he really going to bid 3N by himself? So, I think that 3 spades should suggest a partial stopper (which is what you have). Looking at the hands, there may be times that 5m goes down, but 3N makes.

It also may depend on what the sequence, 2N(Lebensohl) followed by 3S actually shows as well.

You're right. I don't know of a way using modern methods to show a half-stop and ask partner for help for a half-stopper. I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the older precision systems use the cue bid for this purpose, but the modern cue bid seems to ask for a good stopper. As to what a good stopper is, I don't know.