[Hanoi5]

You hold:

♠74
♥x
♦T63
♣AKJT653

Red vs White:
3♥ Pa Pa ???

[rogerclee]

3N, somebody has to man up. Pass is ok, 4C is not IMO (you will just go minus a lot).

[jdonn]

Pass, nobody has to man up?

[PhantomSac]

3S, i don't like to agree with either jdonn or clee so i compromise here.

[the hog]

4H Michaels as I don't agree with anyone.

Seriously I pass and it isn't close.

[MinorKid]

I will just pass.
When you bid opponent may call 4♥.
You are very short in side suit and is likely that they have one to be established.
You may not use partner's trumps in ♣ so you can expect him to have nearly nothing offensive. If he has respective length in one, then opponent may have another.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass.

The alternatives for us would be 5C, since 4C would be artificial.

You know, p has some heart length, otherwise,he would have acted,
so he will have at best a weak NT, which makes it unlikely that you
are missing game.
And if THEY know, what they are doing, than the p of the preemptor
may be the richest guy on the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger?

Another example of sick reopening

[655321]

Fluffy, on Mar 5 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger?

Another example of sick reopening

Well to me there is a big difference in your 2 examples of 'sick' reopenings.

On this hand personally I would pass. A 3NT bid might be described as courageous, or insane, or lunatic even, but there is a real upside to it, and you have to admire a 3NT balance here (just a little ) even if you disagree with it. Also, as a BTW perhaps, -1100 here is unlikely, I imagine everyone is running when 3NT is doubled.

The hand in the other thread ( http://forums.bridge...showtopic=37691 ) is AKx xx Qxxxx Kxx after a 3♣opening on our left. I would use different adjectives to describe a balancing bid with this hand, words such as terrible, atrocious, etc. There is no real upside, and a very real risk of being doubled for a number.

So to me it is fundamentally wrong to balance at the 3 level with a weak notrump and length in their suit, whereas it is not fundamentally wrong to balance when you have a long suit and shortage in their suit.

[jdonn]

655321, on Mar 5 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Mar 5 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger?

Another example of sick reopening

Well to me there is a big difference in your 2 examples of 'sick' reopenings.

On this hand personally I would pass. A 3NT bid might be described as courageous, or insane, or lunatic even, but there is a real upside to it, and you have to admire a 3NT balance here (just a little ) even if you disagree with it. Also, as a BTW perhaps, -1100 here is unlikely, I imagine everyone is running when 3NT is doubled.

The hand in the other thread ( http://forums.bridge...showtopic=37691 ) is AKx xx Qxxxx Kxx after a 3♣opening on our left. I would use different adjectives to describe a balancing bid with this hand, words such as terrible, atrocious, etc. There is no real upside, and a very real risk of being doubled for a number.

So to me it is fundamentally wrong to balance at the 3 level with a weak notrump and length in their suit, whereas it is not fundamentally wrong to balance when you have a long suit and shortage in their suit.

Well said. Yes 3NT here could definitely work but ugh it could definitely go down a lot too!

[kayin801]

I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance? Cause that could lead to a bad score too. Or is it mandatory to pass partner's balancing 3NT?

[Fluffy]

I often punish partner for reopening with a double, but haven't punished him yet for reopening with 3NT.

[gnasher]

kayin801, on Mar 5 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?

I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣.

Quote

Or is it mandatory to pass partner's balancing 3NT?

It's not mandatory to pass it, but I don't think you can make a slam try opposite it.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on Mar 5 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

kayin801, on Mar 5 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?

I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣.

Yes, but people frown upon players who bid 3♦ over 3♥.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 5 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

kayin801, on Mar 5 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?

I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣.

Yes, but people frown upon players who bid 3♦ over 3♥.

Getting two threads mixed up

[whereagles]

It's really a 3NT wtp to me

I don't care much for stoppers. Really, I don't

[jdonn]

Stoppers, nor strength, nor the suit being solid, nor any sort of fit for any suit partner might have...

[gwnn]

3NT wouldn't have occurred to me (of course neither would x or 4C) but from now on I will try it. Admittedly this is a rare situation..