[Hanoi5]

Holding:

♠KQ9xxx
♥T
♦Axx
♣Qxx

You open 1♠ and your partner bids 3NT which could be 13-15 balanced (2 spades) or to play. What do you bid and why?

[gwnn]

If partner has 13-15 balanced I will bid 4S.
If partner has a 'signoff in 3NT' hand I will pass.
if I don't know what partner has, I don't know what to do. I don't understand this system. What hand is there that wants to play exactly 3NT, with no shape restrictions? x xxx AKQx Axxxx?

[flytoox]

I think it should just show some balanced, featureless GF hand. I will bid 4S and be prepared to pd's lecture if that is wrong.

[Little Kid]

4♠

[Cascade]

4♠ no second choice

[andy_h]

4♠ and change system. By having 3NT as a million possibilities you will never be able to judge properly. "balanced or to play" what does to play consist of? Can you not just start with a 2/1?

If you should keep the balanced option it is recommended that it should be bid on either as a hand full of controls or a hand filled with quacks.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

Holding: ♠ KQ9xxx ♥ T ♦ Axx ♣ Qxx
You open 1♠ and your partner bids 3NT which could be 13-15 balanced (2 spades) or to play. What do you bid and why?

IMO 4♠ = 10, _P = 3. 3N usually shows a balanced hand. Anyway, it denies 4+ ♥ so 4♠ is likely to be safer. IMO, SAYC and 2/1 bidding problems should be posted in the SAYC and 2/1 discussion forum.

[Hanoi5]

I wasn't interested in discussing how bad or good SAYC is. I believe this is just a bridge decision: your partner has shown certain hand by bidding a final contract and you haven't shown yours completely, do you keep on bidding or leave that contract? I was looking for support for in my opinion the singleton heart was enough reason to bid 4♠.

Another thing is that the 3NT bid shows 13-15 balanced, but sometimes your partner will have a 4441 or a 6-card minor with stoppers and short spades, a bit undisciplined but I think 'normal', ain't it?

[Gerben42]

Bidding 3NT with a hand that "just wants to play 3NT" is not a system thing but a partnership thing. This hand cries for 4♠. If partner has some minor-oriented hand, perhaps he learned to bid his suits next time.

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

Holding:

♠KQ9xxx
♥T
♦Axx
♣Qxx

You open 1♠ and your partner bids 3NT which could be 13-15 balanced (2 spades) or to play. What do you bid and why?

I correct to 4♠. Partner rates to have only 3♥ so in 3NT the opponents will give you a ♥ attack which rates to be better handled in 4♠.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Another thing is that the 3NT bid shows 13-15 balanced, but sometimes your partner will have a 4441 or a 6-card minor with stoppers and short spades, a bit undisciplined but I think 'normal', ain't it?

No, that isn't normal in SAYC:

SAYC booklet, on page 3, said:

RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1♥ OR A 1♠ OPENING
...
3NT = 15–17 HCP, balanced hand with two-card support for partner.

It's also not normal where I play bridge.

[gwnn]

It would be more interesting if it was

1NT-3NT

and the 1NT had a 6 card major (as some people sometimes have). That would be an interesting case, I think I would pass 3NT, but there would be a very strong case for 4M I think.

Most people, however, have a firm agreement about 3NT, what it promises, how many spades, what cards, etc. As gnasher notes above, SAYC is a relatively well-defined system, at least when it comes to the first 2 or three bids, inferior system, but well-defined, and if you say 3NT is 13-15 or to play then it is not SAYC and I don't know what it is, and it would be difficult to decide without knowing your partner's tendencies to jump to 3NT. For example, if I was a bad bridge player and my partner knows it and he is a hand hog then he may jump to 3NT a lot with lots of weird hands with voids in spades and other delicacies then 4S is not going to fare well.

Now I played "3NT to play" in a strong club partnership, that was pretty useful (or at least fun) actually, but it is still probably an inferior agreement. In std partnerships I played 3NT as 13-15 with xxx in partner's major and strength in all three suits, but not many aces. But best I think is 3NT over S=weakish unknown splinter and 3S over 1H=weakish unknown splinter, 3NT over 1H=strongish splinter in spades.

[rbforster]

4♠, counting on partner's implied <4 card heart suit. If he was 13(45), I hope he would start with a 2/1 in his 5 card suit.

[peachy]

nige1, on May 13 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

Holding: ♠ KQ9xxx ♥ T ♦ Axx ♣ Qxx
You open 1♠ and your partner bids 3NT which could be 13-15 balanced (2 spades) or to play. What do you bid and why?

IMO 4♠ = 10, _P = 3. 3N usually shows a balanced hand. Anyway, it denies 4+ ♥ so 4♠ is likely to be safer. IMO, SAYC and 2/1 bidding problems should be posted in the SAYC and 2/1 discussion forum.

Playing SAYC, 3NT is not 13-15, but who cares really. If that was your agreement and you call it SAYC, fine. *If* 3NT is 13-15, I bid 4S.

[hanp]

Definitely not normal to bid 3NT with those hands hanoi, you give partner an impossible decision.

[Crunch3nt]

Assuming is imps, since no one has dissented yet I will. My initial reaction to the question on whether to bid 4S or pass 3NT, was that this was an obvious pass.

Your 3NT method is clearly based on a philosophy of the default action being to pass and only ripping on rare, unusual hands and just having a sixth spade / singleton heart is not sufficient reason to pull. If 3NT is going down, partner should have bid slower.

9 tricks in NT must be huge odds on compared to 4S where bad-breaks, top losers, ruffs, etc might occur. 3NT shows slow cards (eg K10xx hearts or J10xx clubs) if 13-15 balanced which is not suitable for 4S. If partner has Ax or spades or his/her own long suit, 3NT is definitely the go.

I agree with the forum that your 3NT method as "either/or" has too many hand types in it though.

[Winstonm]

It wouldn't matter to me if the hand were: KQ9xxx, Axx, Qxx, x. I would be 4S. If it turns out partner was surpressing some solid 6-card club suit and had x, Kxx, Qxx, AKQ10xx, I would either A) blow off the results of this one hand and move on to the next one or B) feign serious illness and excuse myself from the partnership.

It is either no big deal or a big deal - you decide.