[billw55]

IMPs, none vul.

♠AK2
♥65
♦T54
♣AJT83

You deal, 1♣ - p - 1♠ - p - ?

Doesn't get much simpler than that

[Hanoi5]

2♠. More than half your opening is concentrated in the suit partner rates to have 5 cards in, why not?

[blackshoe]

2♠: 8
1NT: 5
2♣: 0

[Codo]

The honour location screams 2 Spade yes. But the shape screams NT.

I would toss a coin.
In general I never raise with just three cards without a six card side suit or a singelton, but this hand.....

[TylerE]

1N, on principle. I'm sure it didn't work otherwise this wouldn't be posted, but I hate 3 card balanced raises.

[gwnn]

2S

[billw55]

Let's say new minor forcing is available. Would any of the 2♠ bidders switch to 1NT in that case?

[MickyB]

2S, obvious. I'm sure it didn't work othewise this wouldn't be posted, but I hate rebidding 1NT with xx outside, let alone xx and xxx outside.

[MickyB]

billw55, on Jul 28 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

Let's say new minor forcing is available. Would any of the 2♠ bidders switch to 1NT in that case?

I'm sure everyone assumed some form of checkback/NMF was available.

[ArtK78]

I frequently raise major suit responses on three card support when there is any good reason to do so. This one is an obvious raise to 2♠.

I am going to flip the question about new minor forcing on its head. Would you raise the major on three card support if partner had an asking bid at his disposal to determine if you had 3 or 4 card support and a minimum or maximum strength hand for your bidding? Many players use 2NT in this sequence over the raise to ask just that:

3♣ - minimum opening, 3 card support
3♦ - maximum opening, 3 card support
3♥ - minimum opening, 4 card support
3♠ - maximum opening, 4 card support

[P_Marlowe]

1NT.

Showes the strength and the shape.

I am not against raising with 3 cards, but I dont do it with a bal. hand,
2C is not an option.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[billw55]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

... an asking bid at his disposal to determine if you had 3 or 4 card support and a minimum or maximum strength hand for your bidding? Many players use 2NT in this sequence over the raise to ask just that:

3♣ - minimum opening, 3 card support
3♦ - maximum opening, 3 card support
3♥ - minimum opening, 4 card support
3♠ - maximum opening, 4 card support

Interesting gadget. Might try that.

So would you rate this as a min or a max 2♠ call? It's a 12 count but the honor quality is excellent. Personally I would lean toward max.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on Jul 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

... an asking bid at his disposal to determine if you had 3 or 4 card support and a minimum or maximum strength hand for your bidding?  Many players use 2NT in this sequence over the raise to ask just that:

3♣ - minimum opening, 3 card support
3♦ - maximum opening, 3 card support
3♥ - minimum opening, 4 card support
3♠ - maximum opening, 4 card support

Interesting gadget. Might try that.

So would you rate this as a min or a max 2♠ call? It's a 12 count but the honor quality is excellent. Personally I would lean toward max.

I would rate it as a minimum - a good minimum, clearly, but still a minimum.

If the clubs were AKTxx as opposed to AJTxx, it would be a maximum.

[jdonn]

Wow clear maximum given that you are already showing just 3 card support. Add a red queen and it would have been a clear upgrade to a 1NT opener.

[ArtK78]

I guess it depends on the types of hands that you could hold to open 1♣ and rebid 2♠.

For example, you could hold:

AKx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

This is a clear maximum. I don't believe you can bid anymore than 2♠ over 1♠. Others may think the hand is too strong for a 2♠ rebid, but then you have to find some other call.

A 3-2-3-5 12 count, even if it is prime, should not be a maximum if the 3-4-1-5 hand shown above is considered a maximum.

But, on the other hand, if you use the same sequence to describe this hand:

Kxx
Kxx
QJ
QJxxx

Then the original hand looks like a maximum in comparison. This hand is a questionable opening bid. Once you open 1♣ you might raise 1♠ to 2♠. Now this is clearly a minimum (subminimum would be more accurate).

So, when you have a hand that is in the middle, you have to compare it to what you consider to be a maximum for the sequence and what you consider to be a minimum for the sequence to figure out where the hand stands.

[awm]

I'd bid 2♠ on this hand playing my normal methods.

If I was playing the gadget ArtK describes, I would bid 1NT.

The reason is that my normal methods are very good at reaching 3NT after 1♣-1♠-2♠ when that contract is best. ArtK's gadget (okay, it's actually someone else's gadget, I've heard Garrozzo credited, but ArtK introduced it on this thread) often leaves you at a guess whether to play in 3NT or 4M because responder has little idea of opener's shape or red suit controls (beyond the size of the trump fit). My methods also fix the problem of whether this hand is "max or min" because (like many similar hands) the real answer is "max if partner has five spades and min if he has four."

It's also interesting what effect the response style to 1♣ might have here. If you normally bid up-the-line (as Elianna and I do), the 1♠ response is quite often five. Bidding 1♠ with only four would deny a four-card heart suit or a five-card diamond suit, and if holding a four-card diamond suit would promise really good spades. So the only possibilities where responder has four bad spades here are 4333 shape or some hand with four-plus clubs (which is unlikely given opener's shape and won't play well in 1NT anyway with opponents running both red suits at us). In a style where you normally respond 1♠ with spades and diamonds regardless of relative lengths or suit quality, it seems a little bit more iffy.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

I guess it depends on the types of hands that you could hold to open 1♣ and rebid 2♠.

For example, you could hold:

AKx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

This is a clear maximum.  I don't believe you can bid anymore than 2♠ over 1♠.  Others may think the hand is too strong for a 2♠ rebid, but then you have to find some other call.

A 3-2-3-5 12 count, even if it is prime, should not be a maximum if the 3-4-1-5 hand shown above is considered a maximum.

But, on the other hand, if you use the same sequence to describe this hand:

Kxx
Kxx
QJ
QJxxx

Then the original hand looks like a maximum in comparison.  This hand is a questionable opening bid.  Once you open 1♣ you might raise 1♠ to 2♠.  Now this is clearly a minimum (subminimum would be more accurate).

So, when you have a hand that is in the middle, you have to compare it to what you consider to be a maximum for the sequence and what you consider to be a minimum for the sequence to figure out where the hand stands.

On AKx xx Txx AJTxx show a maximum and respect partner's signoff as he was looking for either 4 trumps or a very good hand. On AKx QJxx x Axxxx show a maximum then overrule partner's signoff and bid game because you have the very good hand. On Kxx Kxx QJ QJxxx learn to rebid 1NT instead of making a ridiculous raise.

Just because an asking bid is available is no excuse to fail to use judgment.

[bluecalm]

Matter of style. It seems for many Americans it's clear 2♠.
Here in Poland (and almost whole Europe I believe) people don't like raising with 3 cards.

For me it's 100% 1NT. I also know that partner will basically always bid 2♠ holding 5 of them so it's not like I am missing any 5-3 fits.

[Pict]

2S

I'd normally wan't to rebid 1NT, but 5 clubs to AJ and spades AKx is the exception I will live with.

[nigel_k]

This is a very clear 2♠. Even if you don't like raising with three, this is the hand to do it.

If NT is right, partner should be declarer. When he has only four spades, opponents have at least eight hearts and will either bid them or lead them through partner's heart holding. The only way to gain from bidding 1NT is when 1NT makes from your side and the 4-3 spade fit fails from partner's side. I can't see that happening anywhere near enough to outweight the loss from wrongsiding a 3NT game or letting opponents in cheaply with their hearts.