[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on 2012-October-08, 07:52, said:

I see you guys all agree on that. It isn't obvious to me. Why is pass after X forward going ?

Because you could just sign off in 5C if you have a bad hand for your current auction.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-08, 09:39, said:

I prefer 3♠ to show three to an honour here - typically Axx

So a 3532 without a spade honour has to bid 4♣ or play 3NT from the wrong side? Why is rightsiding more important with Axx opposite Qx than with xxx opposite Kx?

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 00:58, said:

So a 3532 without a spade honour has to bid 4♣ or play 3NT from the wrong side? Why is rightsiding more important with Axx opposite Qx than with xxx opposite Kx?

I said typically - not "it promises Axx".

However, you do seem to be obsessed with getting to 3NT in an auction that just does not call for it. All your example hands for 3♦ look like 2NT bids to me, clearly with ♠Qxx but also Qx. 2NT is a broad church, and I have plenty of room to explore where appropriate. On your example hands, I now bid 3♣, he bids 3♦ and we go from there. They are trivially solved.

3♦ suggests a very suit-oriented hand over which, of all things, I bid 4♣ with three key cards in his suits. Once in a while 3NT will be the best spot, but the vast majority of the time we belong in five or six clubs.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-09, 05:36, said:

I said typically - not "it promises Axx".

I've looked carefully through my previous post for the part where I said "Phil says 3♠ promises Axx", but I can't find it. Could you point it out to me?

What I do think you said is "I prefer 3♠ to show three to an honour here". From that, I inferred that you like to have an agreement that 3♠ shows Hxx. Have I misunderstood?

Quote

However, you do seem to be obsessed with getting to 3NT in an auction that just does not call for it.

Are you saying that after the start 1♥-2♣;2♥-3♦, the partnership will never want to play in 3NT, on any hands consistent with the auction? That would certainly help in slam auctions, but it seems a little impractical.

With xx KQTxx xxx AKx I'd like to be able to play in 3NT, from the right side, opposite Kx x AKxx QJxxxx, with which I assume you would bid 3♦. That is an example of why I think 3♠ should not promise Hxx. I expect that you can produce examples of when it gains to play 3♠ as promising Hxx. It seems to me, however, that rightsiding 3NT when we have a single stop is more important than rightsiding it when we have a certain stop even played the wrong way around, and may have nine tricks to cash immediately.

Quote

All your example hands for 3♦ look like 2NT bids to me, clearly with ♠Qxx but also Qx. 2NT is a broad church, and I have plenty of room to explore where appropriate. On your example hands, I now bid 3♣, he bids 3♦ and we go from there. They are trivially solved.

I agree that my earlier examples of responding hands were ill-considered, which is why I didn't disagree when someone said so. What does that have to do with my comments about your preference for playing 3♠ as promising Hxx?

Quote

3♦ suggests a very suit-oriented hand over which, of all things, I bid 4♣ with three key cards in his suits.

Yes. Everyone would bid 4♣ with the hand in the original post. What makes you think anyone wouldn't?

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 07:38, said:

I've looked carefully through my previous post for the part where I said "Phil says 3♠ promises Axx", but I can't find it. Could you point it out to me?

I can't find it, but I assumed precipitately you were implying it with your assumption.

What I do think you said is "I prefer 3♠ to show three to an honour here". From that, I inferred that you like to have an agreement that 3♠ shows Hxx. Have I misunderstood?

No, you are correct. How low I will go depends on how no trumpy my hand is.


Are you saying that after the start 1♥-2♣;2♥-3♦, the partnership will never want to play in 3NT, on any hands consistent with the auction? That would certainly help in slam auctions, but it seems a little impractical.

I can just bid it. Playing Three spades strongly suggesting three to a top honour can help get to 3NT intelligently on hands where it would be wild to just punt it ourself.

With xx KQTxx xxx AKx I'd like to be able to play in 3NT, from the right side, opposite Kx x AKxx QJxxxx, with which I assume you would bid 3♦. That is an example of why I think 3♠ should not promise Hxx. I expect that you can produce examples of when it gains to play 3♠ as promising Hxx. It seems to me, however, that rightsiding 3NT when we have a single stop is more important than rightsiding it when we have a certain stop even played the wrong way around, and may have nine tricks to cash immediately.

I had a very similar example in mind where 3NT is slightly better opposite a 46, but it is a)very specific b) 5♣ is still excellent and c) If we bid get to 3NT via 3♠ they may fish out a heart lead anyway. 3♠ is not just about right-siding 3NT opposite Qx. Partner with xx judges whether to bid it based on his overall texture. But my real guilty confession is that I might bid 2NT on that hand as well. I need a real perfecto to make slam, and if partner just raises to three I am happy.


I agree that my earlier examples of responding hands were ill-considered, which is why I didn't disagree when someone said so. What does that have to do with my comments about your preference for playing 3♠ as promising Hxx?

I'm not sure I understand and I missed that you handn't disagreed with the disagreer. Probably nothing, but maybe it all stems from my predispostion to bid 2NT more often here.

Yes. Everyone would bid 4♣ with the hand in the original post. What makes you think anyone wouldn't?

Because they said so. See BlueCalm post 15. He didn't bid 3♠ because he played 3♠ as promising half a stop. I am trying to stop him converting to the No Trump religion.

See above. Your post is long, but i have tried to cover everything.

[bluecalm]

I didn't played 3S as promising half stopper. I just thought it should promise it but had no agreement.
I actually like what gnasher/others are saying here. I need to think a bit more about it and see what kind of hands are bad for half-stopper agreement and what are bad for 3S = no other bid agreement.
My intuition for now is that this "2NT religion" is actually better way to play but as I said I need some more time. I will come back here with some summary/problem hands so we can have some more clarity on shortcomings of both methods.

Thanks for interesting discussion so far.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-09, 10:13, said:

Because they said so. See BlueCalm post 15. He didn't bid 3♠ because he played 3♠ as promising half a stop. I am trying to stop him converting to the No Trump religion.

Bluecalm can probably look after himself, but I believe that you're doing him an injustice.

In post 8, he said he would bid 4♣ with Jx KQTxx xxx AKx or Jx AQJxx Jxx Kxx. In post 9, I said that these two hands (but not the hand in the original post) should bid 3♠. In posts 11 and 16, he showed some interest in this idea, but didn't seem convinced.

He has never suggested that one should bid 3♠ with J10 K10xxx K8x AK9. So, whoever it is that you're trying to save from this perversion, it's not Bluecalm.

[PhilKing]

bluecalm, on 2012-October-08, 09:19, said:

Maybe I should bid 3S now with 2-5-3-3 etc as gnasher is suggesting. I actually like it and I think it makes a lot of sense it just was against my intuition at the time (which was that it promises half stopper).

My bad. Just felt I had to encourage him not to go beyond "maybe".

[bluecalm]

Btw what is the downside of just bidding 2NT with Kx-1-4-6 kind of hands like:
Kx x AQxx AKxxxx or:
Ax x AQxx QJxxxx ?

If we would bid 2nt with those then position after 3D would be much easier to untangle (leaving only hands without spade stopper there so only very suit oriented hands like xx x AKxx KQJxxx or 6-5's)

[Fluffy]

2NT says 3NT is probably our spot unless you have 3 clubs or 6 hearts, 3♦ says I really doubt 3NT is our spot.

[PhilKing]

bluecalm, on 2012-October-09, 13:51, said:

Btw what is the downside of just bidding 2NT with Kx-1-4-6 kind of hands like:
Kx x AQxx AKxxxx or:
Ax x AQxx QJxxxx ?

If we would bid 2nt with those then position after 3D would be much easier to untangle (leaving only hands without spade stopper there so only very suit oriented hands like xx x AKxx KQJxxx or 6-5's)

I would not bid 2NT on the first hands unless I am playing full relay 2/1 - I think it's too strong. Maybe I should bid 2NT anyway, since it cleans up 3D. And I already admitted I am bidding it on the second, because I think the downside is small and the upsides several.

If I'm 4-6, I'm generally bidding 2NT on hands where it's a) Very unlikely we can make 6♣ b) There's a pretty high chance that it is right to play 3NT from my side. But I probably don't bid 2NT enough.

All the rest can sort itself out with the extra space we gain (the way I really play it, the auction starts 1h-2c-2d(various)-2H-relay, but 2NT is fine).