[mtvesuvius]

My dad did me the honor of passing with this hand. LOL.

I had:

xxx
x
AQx
AQJxxx

Making 6.

[rogerclee]

bill1157, on Apr 14 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Apr 14 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

3♦? Please think!

No club fit; ♠Ax is a nightmare for nt unless pd has ♠stoppers also. Are you so sure you want to be in game? No. so a non-forcing invitational 3♦ is fine.

Bill

Disagree with the first, second, and fourth sentences. To the third, I'm not sure we will make game, but I am sure enough to bid it. 3♦ is a bad bid because it is easy to go down in 3♦ with even 3N cold.

[bill1157]

mtvesuvius, on Apr 14 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

My dad did me the honor of passing with this hand. LOL.

I had:

xxx
x
AQx
AQJxxx

Making 6.

And I'm guessing he is a very good player? Just goes to show how many different views people may have on a hand and its possibilities.
I'm sticking with 3♦.

Bill

[mikeh]

2N is plenty. Partner is still there... and most good partners (maybe ALL good partners) will bid game on any reasonable hand with a decent club suit, on the theory that one rarely takes precisely 8 tricks on such hands.

Having seen the hand, and the result... I don't know how to reach slam... not that slam is any bargain on a spade lead.

The alternatives:

Pass: could win, but is the bridge equivalent of staying in bed all day out of fear of a traffic accident

3♦: a misbid, a distortion.. wouldn't even have occurred to me had it not been suggested

3♣: while this is constructive, it is a huge underbid... and may mislead partner into thinking, reasonably enough, that he needs at least one major stopper for 3N.. with 11 tricks a long way away

3N: an overbid... it's the right call playing with a partner who only counts points, not tricks, when deciding whether to raise 2N to game.

[655321]

mikeh, on Apr 15 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

2N is plenty. Partner is still there... and most good partners (maybe ALL good partners) will bid game on any reasonable hand with a decent club suit, on the theory that one rarely takes precisely 8 tricks on such hands.

[...]

3N: an overbid... it's the right call playing with a partner who only counts points, not tricks, when deciding whether to raise 2N to game.

Ah yes. Of course.

Maybe 2NT is a better bid than 3NT, I don't know. I agree that some days 3NT will have no play.

But I can't help thinking that there are bridge arguments for bidding 3NT. Arguments other than partner is a moron, or we are treating partner as though he is a moron.

I am a 3NT bidder because the long diamonds give us another possible source for 9 tricks. I agree that with a reasonable hand with a decent club suit partner will raise 2NT to 3NT. But perhaps partner has bad clubs (QTxxxx) with his few high cards in the other suits. On a good day our diamonds run for 6 tricks. Or perhaps partner has not so much in diamonds either, and his card are in the majors. Then perhaps our major stoppers give us time to set up the diamonds for 5 tricks, and take 4 major suit tricks too. If I was the opening bidder I would be delighted for my partners to 'insult' me by bidding 3NT on this hand.

[rogerclee]

I think bidding 3NT is not treating partner like a moron, it is treating partner like he doesn't know we have a great potential trick source in diamonds with two outside aces.

[awm]

rogerclee, on Apr 15 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

I think bidding 3NT is not treating partner like a moron, it is treating partner like he doesn't know we have a great potential trick source in diamonds with two outside aces.

Partner heard our 1♦ bid. He didn't raise diamonds (or make a support redouble). He will know that diamond honors are potentially powerful here. I think our "great potential trick source in diamonds" is a mirage. I'd rather have the club king than the diamond king.

Why should we be making 3NT with what could be 22 combined high card points and no particularly wonderful fit? We could also easily have problems in one or both major suits. It's also not going to be infrequent that we have game in a minor and not in 3NT; give partner a hand like:

♠Kxx
♥x
♦Qx
♣KQJTxxx

I think it's clear to invite here, and I like a 3♣ bid. In my book this is not a "blocking bid" nor does it show a "much weaker hand than 2NT." It's just an invite to game, with a hand that prefers not to play 2NT when partner has a minimum. It also gives us a better chance to reach 5♣ when it's right (partner might just bid 5♣ on a hand with seven non-running clubs and a major suit singleton, for example).

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Apr 15 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

I think bidding 3NT is not treating partner like a moron, it is treating partner like he doesn't know we have a great potential trick source in diamonds with two outside aces.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that bidding 2NT is treating partner like a moron. You are giving partner room because you know that he overbids anyway.

[skjaeran]

I think this is an easy 2NT rebid. And I love just punting game. Partner is able to evaluate his club suit and/or diamond fit himself. He doesn't need much of an excuse to raise to 3NT. And if he rebids 3♣, I've got a very comfortable pass.