[Phil]

♠ J9xxx ♥T ♦AQx ♣ATxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 2N
3♣ - ?

Thanks

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2011-April-25, 09:44, said:

♠ J9xxx ♥T ♦AQx ♣ATxx

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 2N
3♣ - ?

Thanks

Torn between 4♣ and 5♣

Me thinks that I will chose the low road

[helene_t]

Maybe stupid question but: 3♣ is nonforcing, right?

5♣.

[Phil]

helene_t, on 2011-April-25, 10:06, said:

Maybe stupid question but: 3♣ is nonforcing, right?

This is part of the discussion, yes.

[kenrexford]

3♠

[mike777]

Phil, on 2011-April-25, 11:34, said:

This is part of the discussion, yes.

fwiw we play a meta agreement that any bid over 2nt(invite) is gameforcing.

that means we cannot back into a partscore by rebidding a suit or bidding a new suit.


The upside is it makes bidding over 2nt clear. Of course the downside is 2nt may play worse.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2011-April-25, 13:34, said:

3♠

I assume that you believe this to be a game invitational anti splinter...

Just what percentage of people would you expect to field this bid?

[awm]

3NT for me.

There seems to be some doubt about the nature of opener's sequence. In particular:

(1) Does this necessarily promise four clubs and a 0544 shape? I think it would be normal to bid this way on 1543 myself.

(2) Is the 3♣ bid forward-going? My normal agreement would be that it shows extras.

With this established, it seems clear we should be in game. It's possible the right game is five of a minor, but we don't even have a definite fit. It seems like 3NT will often be right and that bidding it would be superior to committing to the eleven-trick game (on what could be a moysian). My spade holding is good enough that I am not that scared of the suit in notrump (opponents will have three or maybe four spade tricks, not likely five) and often opponents will not lead spades if I bid a confident 3NT here in any case. While I understand the purpose of Ken's 3♠ bid (and think a fair percentage of good partners would field it) that call seems to rule out 3NT and indicate slam suitability (i.e. no wastage in spades) neither of which seems correct on this particular hand.

[hrothgar]

awm, on 2011-April-25, 14:09, said:

While I understand the purpose of Ken's 3♠ bid (and think a fair percentage of good partners would field it) that call seems to rule out 3NT and indicate slam suitability (i.e. no wastage in spades) neither of which seems correct on this particular hand.

I'd like to see a slam invitational hand consistent with the original 2NT bid...

[kenrexford]

I thought posting "3♠" would be a major "Oh yeah, duh" moment. But, apparently not. The one point, however, is that I don't care whether some theoretical partner might or might not "field" the 3♠ call. If he comes up with some absurd meaning for 3♠, then he is hopeless anyway, so I might as well guess what to do rather than describing something, as the description will be given to a dolt. I prefer to analyze auctions in the assumed context of a rational partner with at least a modicum of skills as to bidding.

[awm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-25, 14:12, said:

I'd like to see a slam invitational hand consistent with the original 2NT bid...

The easy example is a hand with five clubs, such as:

♠xxxx ♥x ♦AQx ♣AJxxx

The problems with the actual hand (in my mind anyway) are the lack of a known club fit and the strong possibility of 3NT being the best contract.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on 2011-April-25, 13:44, said:

fwiw we play a meta agreement that any bid over 2nt(invite) is gameforcing.

that means we cannot back into a partscore by rebidding a suit or bidding a new suit.


The upside is it makes bidding over 2nt clear. Of course the downside is 2nt may play worse.

There must be some exceptions - For example, this uncontested auction:

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2NT
3♣

If both 2♣ and 2NT are non-forcing, there is no way that 3♣ is forcing.

[Phil]

Maybe I have been on the forums too long, but I consider 3♠ to be the best call. It cannot be natural across from our 12 cards, so logically it needs to be a choice of games probe. FWIW, I would also take 4♠ as a 'Bluhmer' showing a monster across from our rebid. How about Jxxx, xx, Ax AQxxx?

I was surprised not to get a consensus about 3♣. Some thought it was NF (?!) by saying, how would you bid a 0544 subminimum (my answer - pass?).

Partner just bid 6♣ which was kind of nuts I thought. I held: void AKQxx KJxxx Qxx. 5♦ is a great spot.

3N was bid at the other table, and it slided home on a non-spade lead. Diamonds were 5-0, but the ♥JT9 fell tripleton.

[Cyberyeti]

0544 wasn't in the frame, I bid 2♣ not 2♦ with that.

0553 or 1543 are absolutely normal for this, I'd expect partner to have 5 clubs to raise, think your partner fell off the planet, I'd bid 3N.

[Foxx]

3NT would have been my choice, without a known fit. I don't want to play in a 4-3 club fit. I suppose 3♦ is possible, but we didn't think of it.

I'll give your partner the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was just killing time while waiting for the saucer to come down from the sky, pick him up and take him home.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on 2011-April-25, 14:36, said:

There must be some exceptions - For example, this uncontested auction:

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2NT
3♣

If both 2♣ and 2NT are non-forcing, there is no way that 3♣ is forcing.

I asked several pards and they sent me this response:

"My default answer to this question is basically “All bids after non-forcing invitational bids become FORCING”.



In my opinion, this is a good agreement to have with anyone whom you play.



Having said that, however, the rare, rare, rare exception to this rule MIGHT be the auction that you give above.



Here, partner is just warning you that he has 7 or 8 “broken” clubs (8 seems too many), and you can bid again but only with that thought in mind.



If you guess right, then good for you. If you guess wrong, you just traded a possible plus for a minus.



In your auction, the opponents are ominously silent, but then, you didn’t give them much room and may have 12 opposite 10 in hcps…….responder having the 12, of course.



If I have opened xx,xxx,xx,AKQJxx, I would never bid 3C. I almost assuredly would bid 3N.



Your auction (to me) would be something like Ax,x,Qxx,KJxxxxx. Way too good for 3C opening yet not much good to partner unless he fits my suit.



Unfortunately, he usually holds QT9x,AKxx,Kxxx,x."

[rduran1216]

3C to me just sounds like 1543 or 0553 with either a strong hand (16-17) or a really worried 11 count. Anywhere in between u just bid 3NT over 2NT (or pass). I'd bid 3S with the given hand as well, and 5D over the 4D rebid you'll certainly make.

[JLOGIC]

3S is an obvious bid. I do not understand awms comment that it "rules out 3N", why would one play that? Is 3N over that artificial by partner or something? Partner can choose to bid 3N as he will with a stiff spade usually, or he can choose not to, and if he doesn't he will clarify his shape (likely 0544 but could be 0553).

A normal initial meaning for a cuebid below 3N when no fit has been established yet is "I'm not sure where to play," (sometimes an advanced cue, not applicable in this auction for obv reasons). A normal followup for that would be for partner to bid 3N with his most balanced hand type (1543), and not to bid 3N with a spade void.

I do not have an "agreement" with anyone about this auction but I would expect normal bidding logic/analogous other sequences to make it pretty clear. I guess only ken and I think similarly though, how scary!

If I wanted to rule out 3N and angle for a club slam I would shockingly raise clubs beyond 3N to tell partner about this!

[JLOGIC]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-25, 15:46, said:

0544 wasn't in the frame, I bid 2♣ not 2♦ with that.

This is correct with a minimum, but incorrect with a hand strong enough to bid over a minimum rebid (ie 1H-1S-2D-2H-3C). If you bid 2C then 3D with that hand type, you could no longer play 3C.

[gnasher]

3♣ looks like fourth-suit forcing to me. 3♦ or (arguably) 3♥ by opener would be non-forcing, so 3♣ is what he does when he wants to make a forcing bid with the same shape. With a 1543 shape I'd usually just raise to 3NT.