[Poky]

♠A
♥Kx
♦JTxx
♣QJTxxx

1♣ - 1♦
2♦ - 3♣
???

What do you bid and why?

[Free]

3NT, makable contract imo, no immediate slam ambition.

[luke warm]

sounds good to me

[hrothgar]

Poky, on Aug 29 2004, 02:42 AM, said:

♠A
♥Kx
♦JTxx
♣QJTxxx

1♣ - 1♦
2♦ - 3♣
???

What do you bid and why?

I bid 3♥

I'm worried about 3N.
Partner either needs a Spade stopper OR AK of clubs for 3NT to have good play.

[the hog]

3H. Best bid to explore best available contract, whether that is 3N or 5C

[luke warm]

3H isn't bad, but i'd not feel comfortable with partner bidding the nt now (unless he also has hearts)... i'd not like a heart lead thru me

[paulg]

I'm not sure how forcing 3♣ is but partner has had two opportunities to bid NT and failed to do so on both occasions. He needs a lot of specific cards for 3NT to make and it seems safer to invite with 4♣ than risk a lot of undertricks in 3NT.

Of course given opps silence it seems most likely that 3♣ is forcing and partner must have a good hand. In that case perhaps a minorwood 4♣ is appropriate .... presumably in my regular partnership I'd know what 4♣ means

The scoring and vulnerability would play a part too.

[goodwintr]

Nobody (so far) has suggested a hand for partner (who responded 1D to your 1C, then bid 3C over your raise to 2D). So I'll propose one: S - Kxx H - xxx D - Kxx C - 9xxx. He responded to 1C in case you had a moose (and also because he didn't want to give the opponents a free run). He didn't raise clubs because no club raise seemed appropriate. He didn't bid 1NT because he didn't want to wrong-side that contract, and because he thought he was a little weak for that bid. (Maybe he is one of those people who believe 1C-1NT shows 8-10.) So he bid a squirrelly 1D, thinking the bidding wouldn't get out of hand. (1C-1D-2D is something of a rarity, after all.) Now he is just taking a preference back to clubs, where he knows you have real length. (He assumes you would have opened 1D with 4-4 in the minors, or that you would have rebid 1NT instead of 2D.)

So, pass 3C, unless you want to bid 4C or 5C as a sacrifice.

T.L.Goodwin

[paulg]

I'm not sure about SAYC, but in my system and in Crowhurst's Acol this sequence is forcing. I think in most systems it should be invitational and hands such as Kxx xxx Kxx 9xxx must either respond 1NT or take their medicine and pass 2♦.

Not that this hand is very likely, since it means that the opponents have both majors and the clear majority of points and it normally only requires one of these conditions to be true to ensure they bid

However I agree that if it is not forcing, then pass is an attractive bid.

[jtfanclub]

goodwintr, on Aug 29 2004, 08:55 AM, said:

Nobody (so far) has suggested a hand for partner (who responded 1D to your 1C, then bid 3C over your raise to 2D). So I'll propose one: S - Kxx  H - xxx  D - Kxx  C - 9xxx.

I'm most definitely not an expert...

Wow, I'm glad I don't play with experts much. My partner bids 1D on that, I'll be a wee bit upset (unless we're playing precision, of course). If he wants to lie a little and bid 2C, I'm down with that. If he wants to lie a little and bid 1NT, that's OK too. But to make an unlimited bid like 1D...ew. And then, when he knows that we don't have game and we're in a fit (albeit not a good one), he bids on to the three level? Is he hoping that we'll get to 3NT undoubled and be down 3 when the opponents have a makeable game?

To me, 3C is a very strong invite- he has to be willing to leave a solid passable bid to go up a level to bid game. He's also bypassed 2NT, which IMO should be a medium strength invite. Partner has a lot of clubs, and something flawed in a major (maybe the singleton KS?).

[TimG]

goodwintr, on Aug 29 2004, 08:55 AM, said:

Nobody (so far) has suggested a hand for partner (who responded 1D to your 1C, then bid 3C over your raise to 2D). So I'll propose one: S - Kxx H - xxx D - Kxx C - 9xxx. He responded to 1C in case you had a moose (and also because he didn't want to give the opponents a free run). He didn't raise clubs because no club raise seemed appropriate. He didn't bid 1NT because he didn't want to wrong-side that contract, and because he thought he was a little weak for that bid. (Maybe he is one of those people who believe 1C-1NT shows 8-10.) So he bid a squirrelly 1D, thinking the bidding wouldn't get out of hand. (1C-1D-2D is something of a rarity, after all.) Now he is just taking a preference back to clubs, where he knows you have real length.

Isn't the slow raise generally stronger than a direct raise? Shouldn't responder pass 2♦ with your example hand rather than risk further encouragment with 3♣?

Of course, with your example responding hand and the given opening hand, the opponents' silence in rather curious. So, maybe bidding 3♣ will serve to further impede the opponents' entry into the auction.

[goodwintr]

OK, so you guys don't like my constructed example hand, or my interpretation of the sequence as "running back to clubs." So, what do you think your partner has?

T.L.Goodwin

[luke warm]

i don't know what he has, but i know he doesn't have the hand you constructed, and bid two times with it... nobody would yell at him for passing 1C with that hand, or for bidding 1NT... or even for bidding 1D... but after 2D by opener, the only thing he should say is 'pass'

[BridgeBuff]

I don’t think I play that forcing, but I also don’t think there is much point to partner bidding 3♣ simply to improve the partial, so he must have an invitational hand of some kind, and a reason for not bidding 1NT or 2NT or 3♦. He must be unbalanced (his hand, that is).

I think he must be 4=5 or 5=5 minors. He has nothing in majors or he would have bid one first or second chance. He isn't 4=4 minors unless something like xxx/xx/KQxx/Axxx and his partnership doesn't like a 1NT response with that holding. He isn't xxxx/x/KQxx/Axxx or he would have responded 1S, surely. He isn't xxx/x/KQxxx/Axxx or he would invite with 3♦.

That leaves xxx/x/KQxx/Axxxx or xx/x/KQxxx/Axxxx or the like. At least that's what I think my partners would lay down.

Looks to me like 4♣ is about right. With these 'what would you bid' questions, a lot depends on partnership style.

[whereagles]

3NT here. After having shown 9-10 cards in the minors, the NT bid now shows where most of my values lie. I can't think of anything more descriptive.

[Gerben47]

I think partner is raising the bar for opponents because 2♦ will not be passed out. I guess he has something like 2254 and 8 HCP.

I pass. If partner has

xx
xx
KQxxx
Axxx

5♣ is against the odds and 4♣ could go down.

[paulhar]

In standard bidding, I would presume this sequence to be a forcing game try - the opener would bid 3D if rejecting or something else if accepting, but the responder might have higher aspirations which makes it forcing.

I'm guessing by the opponents' silence that partner has the hand which wants to do more. Since I think I can make 5C opposite a typical game try (xx, xx, KQxxx, AKxx is not enough to force to game in a minor but I don't think partner has much in the majors as he could have bid 2NT or 2 of a major, so I'll bid 4C for now. I don't like partner's chances in 3NT opposite my example hand which I think would be typical.

[skorchev]

3♥ for me. Should investigate 3NT or 5♣!


Stefan

[Poky]

Poky, on Aug 29 2004, 12:42 AM, said:

♠A
♥Kx
♦JTxx
♣QJTxxx

1♣ - 1♦
2♦ - 3♣
???

The 3♣ bidder had...
♠xxx
♥Qx
♦AKQxx
♣Axx
...and was passed all around for 3♣+2.

Do you think 2♠/2♥ showing GF bids are better than the "unclear" 3♣? Since we agreed fit in diamonds I think 3♣ should be "INV+ with double fit, F1" and only the 3♦ response is passable below the 3NT level.

[daswallow]

If 3♣ has not been agreed as forcing, it is a dangerous bid.
You know 3NT is unlikely to be right (I am assuming this is IMPs?) unless there are 9 tricks on top, in which case a minor suit game/slam should be on too.
I would probably bid 5d, as the hand has no real slam ambition unless partner has both unbid suits controlled.