[Little Kid]

Scoring: XIMP

1NT-2♦
2♥-3♦
4♦-?

---

[TylerE]

If you don't know what to when opener raises, why are you make a slam invitational bid? (Assuming 3♦ isn't something weird in your system)

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

If you don't know what to when opener raises, why are you make a slam invitational bid? (Assuming 3♦ isn't something weird in your system)

lol

[TylerE]

Glad to see you're continuing to raise the level of discourse Roger.

[jdonn]

Well since 3♦ isn't slam invitational, and since having a guess this round can easily still be better than making some bad bid on the last round, I second the lol. But to contribute to the discourse, why not 5♣ now and leave it to partner? He will never take us for no heart control and he will have an idea of our general values.

[TylerE]

Why isn't 3♦ slam invitational? It's not just some random 5-4 game hand.

[kayin801]

4♥ looks too much like choice of games, huh?

5♣ is ugly cause it postmarks the spade lead through partner when we end up in diamonds (hopefully partner can correct to 6NT with an appropriate hand), but it's the best bad bid.

[kayin801]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

Why isn't 3♦ slam invitational? It's not just some random 5-4 game hand.

Sometimes I like to stay out of bad 3NTs, and sometimes I don't want partner to sit in 3NT when he has 3 hearts.

[jdonn]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

Why isn't 3♦ slam invitational? It's not just some random 5-4 game hand.

Do you just resign yourself to go down in 3NT when responder has a minimum game forcing 3541 and opener has 4243 with xxx of clubs? And you know, there are 5-5 hands as well...

[jonottawa]

As usual, there's the avoid embarrassment bid, 5♣, and the take a shot bid, 6♦.

Criticizing this auction as too optimistic is ridiculous. Perfectly respectable slam try opposite a typical 1NT opener (particularly one that raises 3♦ to 4.)

[bucky]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

Why isn't 3♦ slam invitational? It's not just some random 5-4 game hand.

Of course it is not slam invitation (yet), it is aimed at reaching best game. Otherwise how do you bid with random 5-4 game hand?

[bucky]

I think a related question is: with spade control (perhaps should be SA and not SK), wouldn't partner bid 3♠ first, implying a diamond fit? If that is the case, then 4♦ implies good trumps (AKxx or AKxxx) but soft value on unbid suits. Do I still want to be in slam with no spade control?

If 3♠ can be natural 5-card spade suit (a playable agreement), then 4♦ hasn't denied SA, so 5♣ now is mandatory.

[Free]

Bid 4♠ cue, so they don't lead ♠

[the hog]

TylerE, on Oct 1 2010, 07:34 AM, said:

If you don't know what to when opener raises, why are you make a slam invitational bid? (Assuming 3♦ isn't something weird in your system)

Why is 3D slam invitational for you and not just a probe for the best contract? Anyway, I bid 5C.

[mcphee]

If 3D must be a slam search I suggest a change of methods as that approach to the game seems to violate the principle of finding the best game. In addition the hands that would like to search for the best game clearly will come up more often.

If the NT hand wants to raise D they could bid 3S which should logically show D support and no 3 card H support. The suggestion that 3S should be a 5 card suit makes very little sense to me. The bidding here is all about asking and telling, 1NT expressed at balanced hand 15-17, 2D shows 5+ H, 2H was doing as they were asked, 3D now shows a second suit 4+ cards and a game force. Most of the time the NT hand should bid 3H with 3 in this spot, if they want to support D they can bid 3S or 4C as an advanced cue bid, this is practical, and not the time to be introducing a 5 card S suit. If the NT hand thought so much of this supposed 5 card S suit they would have opened the bidding 1S.

[Little Kid]

We had no agreements about 3♠ but my assumption was that 3♠ shows some values there (not promising a 5-card suit) and opener is worried about ♣s before committing to 3NT.

[Fluffy]

Little Kid, on Oct 1 2010, 12:00 PM, said:

We had no agreements about 3♠ but my assumption was that 3♠ shows some values there (not promising a 5-card suit) and opener is worried about ♣s before committing to 3NT.

3♠ doesn't preclude club stopper, something like ♠AQ9x ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣Axx would also bid 3♠

[Phil]

Partner usually does not have three hearts so this hand has become quite good. With a great club stopper, weak spades and [H]Hx I would expect a 3♥ call. 4♦ is an unusual bid, and I think it must be very good diamonds. Axx xx AKxxx QJx?

I can't envision a grand, unless partner has the NUTS, so I won't help the defense out with 5♣ and simply bid 6♦.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Oct 1 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

Partner usually does not have three hearts so this hand has become quite good. With a great club stopper, weak spades and [H]Hx I would expect a 3♥ call. 4♦ is an unusual bid, and I think it must be very good diamonds. Axx xx AKxxx QJx?

I can't envision a grand, unless partner has the NUTS, so I won't help the defense out with 5♣ and simply bid 6♦.

I think that concept is overrated. You might need a spade lead to make, like from the K into AQ. Anyway I don't like giving up on grand, like Axx xx AKxxx xxx plus a heart queen or spade KJ or whatever. If I didn't want to guide the defense to a spade lead I would just bid keycard now.

[kenrexford]

Whatever 3♠ shows, I know for SURE what 3♥ would show and what 4♣ would show.

Partner does not have three hearts. Hence, he has two hearts.

Partner does not have a club control, because he would bid 4♣ with that hand and good diamonds.

So, partner has a hand with strong interest in diamonds and not much interest in hearts or notrump. He almost assuredly is looking at something in the ball-park.

5♣ is a reasonable call, assuming that 4♥ would be an offer to play opposite a strong doubleton (which it should be, IMO).