[Hanoi5]

♠AKxx
♥Jxx
♦Kxx
♣AKx

All white:

Pa Pa Pa 1♣
Pa 1♠ Pa ???

[jdonn]

3♠ am I missing something?

[TimG]

3♠. Is the alternative to rebid 2N and then pull 3N to 4♠? Concealing four-card support can't be right (even if 3N happens to score better on this deal).

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Ditto.

[ArtK78]

3♠. Dare I say WTP?

[Phil]

3♠. Pretty sick to bid 2N on this trump support and these sharp cards.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

[kenrexford]

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

Point counter? What, 3+18=21, so pass?

[se12sam]

I think the OP expects a cute 2♥ bid as a lead suppressing bid. Followed by play in 3NT if appropriate....
In any case, I think 3♠ is the field action, and I would have no hesitation choosing it.

[OleBerg]

kenrexford, on Jul 23 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

Point counter? What, 3+18=21, so pass?

I assume, that this time you are only pretending to be silly?

[kenrexford]

OleBerg, on Jul 23 2009, 06:05 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 23 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

Point counter? What, 3+18=21, so pass?

I assume, that this time you are only pretending to be silly?

Hyperbole, again. But, since partner will stretch to keep the auction alive with a King, the "point" is that point-counters should bid 3♠, because 18+8=26, and Responder raises with 8-9 from a 6-9 range, so how would point counters bid this differently?

[OleBerg]

kenrexford, on Jul 23 2009, 01:28 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 23 2009, 06:05 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 23 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

Point counter? What, 3+18=21, so pass?

I assume, that this time you are only pretending to be silly?

Hyperbole, again. But, since partner will stretch to keep the auction alive with a King, the "point" is that point-counters should bid 3♠, because 18+8=26, and Responder raises with 8-9 from a 6-9 range, so how would point counters bid this differently?

But they will bid 4♠.

[mikeh]

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

But the weak NT style with which I am familiar (Kokish gets some credit for writing about this if he didn't come up with it) makes this an even clearer 3♠ call.

When playing weak notrump it is common, and mandatory in the 'kokish' approach' to require 4 cards for a single raise.. and the single raise shows either 15-17 balanced or an unbalanced hand, the idea being that an unbalanced 12 count with 4 card support has approximately the same playing value as a balanced 15 count with 4 card support... one generally plays a relay thereafter to clarify hand-type. In turn, this makes the jump raise very powerful... a control rich 17 count or better.... partner will rarely pass the jump raise.

In fact, if anything, I'd downgrade to 2♠, in this style, before I'd bid game... but I'd be comfortable with 3♠... as I am in the OP.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

4♠ is really bad no matter what. And I think Ken's point is that only point MIScounters would bid 4♠, since if partner is a minimum response we don't have enough points for game.

[MFA]

mikeh, on Jul 23 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

But the weak NT style with which I am familiar (Kokish gets some credit for writing about this if he didn't come up with it) makes this an even clearer 3♠ call.

When playing weak notrump it is common, and mandatory in the 'kokish' approach' to require 4 cards for a single raise.. and the single raise shows either 15-17 balanced or an unbalanced hand, the idea being that an unbalanced 12 count with 4 card support has approximately the same playing value as a balanced 15 count with 4 card support... one generally plays a relay thereafter to clarify hand-type. In turn, this makes the jump raise very powerful... a control rich 17 count or better.... partner will rarely pass the jump raise.

In fact, if anything, I'd downgrade to 2♠, in this style, before I'd bid game... but I'd be comfortable with 3♠... as I am in the OP.

I'm surprised that you say it's common to require 4card support for a single raise to 2♠. I'd say that it's rather uncommon based on my experience.

Anyway, for me raising with 3-card unbalanced minimum would be default. Only if my hand had a very clear orientation towards something else, I would not raise 1♠ to 2♠ with 3 unbal.

So for me 3♠ is nowhere near as strong as you suggest.

But I agree that the actual hand is a 3♠ bid.

[mikeh]

MFA, on Jul 23 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 23 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jul 22 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

3♠ am I missing something?

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠.

If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine.

However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

But the weak NT style with which I am familiar (Kokish gets some credit for writing about this if he didn't come up with it) makes this an even clearer 3♠ call.

When playing weak notrump it is common, and mandatory in the 'kokish' approach' to require 4 cards for a single raise.. and the single raise shows either 15-17 balanced or an unbalanced hand, the idea being that an unbalanced 12 count with 4 card support has approximately the same playing value as a balanced 15 count with 4 card support... one generally plays a relay thereafter to clarify hand-type. In turn, this makes the jump raise very powerful... a control rich 17 count or better.... partner will rarely pass the jump raise.

In fact, if anything, I'd downgrade to 2♠, in this style, before I'd bid game... but I'd be comfortable with 3♠... as I am in the OP.

I'm surprised that you say it's common to require 4card support for a single raise to 2♠. I'd say that it's rather uncommon based on my experience.

Anyway, for me raising with 3-card unbalanced minimum would be default. Only if my hand had a very clear orientation towards something else, I would not raise 1♠ to 2♠ with 3 unbal.

So for me 3♠ is nowhere near as strong as you suggest.

But I agree that the actual hand is a 3♠ bid.

I should have stressed that my opinion on weak notrump-style major raises was based on my experience with a particular school of thought... my first attempt at a post was explicit in that regard, and then when I changed some comments, I left that bit out. I fully understand that in many parts of the world and other parts of NA, the approach may be fundamentally different.

[pooltuna]

well given that it is MP I take a more conservative view and just bid 3♠