[NickB50014]

New partner, first hand on BBO, so no history.

Partners dealer and opens 3♣

I have:
♠A K Q 10
♥A K 10 x x
♦A J x
♣ x

Whats the best bid thats forcing and gets you to the right contract? I straight bid 6NT, making as partner had ♣AK10xxxx ♥QJ9 so had transportation even when ♣Q didnt drop after 2 rounds (thats to be expected). But any suggestions on the proper way to get there?

[mike777]

open 1c for starters...pard can never have this hand.

[NickB50014]

My partner opened 3C Im asking what to respond with the hand I posted, this happened on BBO earlier

[Zelandakh]

We could try starting with a simple 3♥. When that gets a 4♥ raise from partner we are away. Many pairs play 3♦ as some form of gadget after a 3♣ opening, for example to ask for a 3 card major fragment. That would obviously be another good option here.

Edit: when posting hands with a preemptive opening it is a good idea to post the vulnerability and, if possible, preempt style. Most BBF posters have a very loose/aggressive preempt style so if your style is conservative and the given hand is more of a 3 opener than a 1 opener it is best to say so. The types of hand that partner can hold obviously affect how to respond.

[NickB50014]

I was half afraid that I needed to hide my diamond position and wanted to declare NT from my side, just wasnt sure the most forcing bid with a random partner of unknown skill level, as the original bidder had left the table before I had a chance to bid my hand.

[PhilKing]

NickB50014, on 2012-November-26, 08:29, said:

My partner opened 3C Im asking what to respond with the hand I posted, this happened on BBO earlier

I think he understood that partner opened 3♣. The point was that you can't play for partner to be that strong (ie a 1♣ opening.

6NT is a massive overbid that will probably come off about one time in 20 but be laydown almost never. It costs nothing to start with a 3♥ response.

[NickB50014]

So is it standard for 3♥ to be ABSOLUTELY forcing there, not saying hey I think my suit is better then yours?

[Codo]

Yes 100 % standard.

[billw55]

Having seen many crappy preempts from BBO pickup partners, I would be more worried about making game than missing slam.

Yes 3♥ is forcing and probably technically correct. With a pickup partner I would just bid 3NT to avoid confusion. Many PPs will rebid 4♣ which is past 3NT ... good luck now with no agreements.

With that north hand, I would also open 1♣ and rebid ♣. But I do not strenuously object to those who choose preempt. I'm a pretty easy going partner

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2012-November-26, 10:33, said:

Having seen many crappy preempts from BBO pickup partners, I would be more worried about making game than missing slam.

It doesn't even have to be a crappy preempt, i am ALWAYS worried regardless of how strong hand i hold, about making game when i am short in pds suit.


For example give him KQJTxxx ♣ and out which is an auto preempt imo, and we may not even make 3NT if things dont go friendly.

I agree that 6NT is massive overbid, i mean...cmon. I would just bid 3♥ or bid 3NT to get the lead towards my hand, if pd has ♥ fit it works good in 3NT too. The negative side is, if pd has ♥ support and specifically ♦ shortness, which is less likely than having ♥ or ♠ shortness.

And yes 3♥ is absolutely forcing.

[Phil]

Agree with BillW55, except the part where he says he doesn't mind 3♣.

I would be pretty pissed angry if my partner preempted this.

[mikeh]

This hand reminds me of the last time I commentated on BBO: a match involving the eventual winners of the Mind Games against, iircc, a US team. The responder I was watching bid 5♣ making, and I commented that it would have been easy but wrong to bid 3N, since 3N could fail when declarer couldn't run/reach clubs, while 5♣ had to be odds on.

I was then told by helpful kibs that Rodwell and Lauria and several other players far better than me (me on a good day, that is) all bid 3N!

I think in that hand the weak side suit lacked the J we have in diamonds here, amongst other differences.

I would bid 3♥ with anyone I trusted not to be either a novice or to be about to play me to be a novice (i.e., might pass) and would otherwise bid 5♣, not 3N.

xxx x xx KQJxxxx is normal for 3♣, and why we think we belong in notrump escapes me.

I concur with those who think that partner can't have the hand he had, and that 6N was silly.

If my partner missorted his hand and opened 3♣, I would hope he'd splinter over my 3♥

[rmnka447]

The standard way to play over preeempts is for all new suit bids to be forcing.

So 3 ♥ would be the choice for this hand.

If preemptor has 3+ cards in your suit, then a raise of your suit is made. If not, preemptor can bid 3 NT with a solid running suit. Otherwise, preemptor bids 4 in his suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Playing with an unknown partner you have to guess.

In a standard way - 3H is forcing, ..., if you have doubts, that partner will bid on,
take your pick and guess, you guessed right, next board.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pirate22]

Pity only 10 cards shewn with the 3 cl opener,
one is likely to get a major suit led,if a diamond lead'there is still chances,by ducking
this lead to rectify the count.
if a major suit led win and duck a club.
my money is on 6 n/t.

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-November-26, 11:58, said:

xxx x xx KQJxxxx is normal for 3♣, and why we think we belong in notrump escapes me.

If this is to be expected for your partner's 3C opening then you are of course completely right. If your partner could have far weaker clubs, and perhaps only six, and perhaps even with some outside values, then there is a lot more to be said for bidding 3NT.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-December-04, 10:53, said:

If this is to be expected for your partner's 3C opening then you are of course completely right. If your partner could have far weaker clubs, and perhaps only six, and perhaps even with some outside values, then there is a lot more to be said for bidding 3NT.

There is a difference between 'normal' and 'expected'.

My expectation is far from tightly defined. However, I think my partner's tendencies would be towards chunky clubs rather than weak clubs and side cards. That doesn't mean that I would be shocked or even mildly surprised were he to hold, say, xx x Kxx KJ10xxxx.


However, when considering which game to choose, I would expect that almost all (but not absolutely all) hands falling within my expectation range would offer at least a play for 5♣, even with 2 trump losers. By contrast, I would expect most but fewer of them to offer at least a play for 3N. Obviously there would be a huge overlap: the majority of hands will (I think) offer a play for both contracts. My expectation is that 3N will more often be in jeopardy on 'normal' hands. I gave the example of a hand with KQJxxxx in clubs and nothing outside as an example of that sort of situation. No doubt one can fairly easily come up with hands on which 3N is easy (or at least makeable) and 5♣ against the odds, but I suspect that those are fewer than the converse. That suspicion is, of course, based on an assumption I am making about partner's preemptive style and thus you may be entirely correct in seeing it the other way around, depending on your partner's style. This is especially so if your partner is likely to open in 1st seat equal on 6 non-chunky clubs, where there is now a real prospect of losing 3 trump tricks.

One last point in favour of not bidding 3N: if you are aiming for 3N, I think you have to simply bid it and that forgoes the chance of playing 4♥ on that small but non-trivial group of hands on which 4♥ is better than either 3N or 5♣. And I would think that the more frequently partner has shortish clubs, the more often he'll have playable heart support.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2012-December-04, 11:46, said:

One last point in favour of not bidding 3N: if you are aiming for 3N, I think you have to simply bid it and that forgoes the chance of playing 4♥ on that small but non-trivial group of hands on which 4♥ is better than either 3N or 5♣.

Unless we have agreed to play that 3♣-3♥;3♠ simply denies heart support, so that we can still reach 3NT from the right side. I'm surprised you haven't discussed that

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2012-December-04, 13:00, said:

Unless we have agreed to play that 3♣-3♥;3♠ simply denies heart support, so that we can still reach 3NT from the right side. I'm surprised you haven't discussed that

It turns out that I have discussed this with several partners. I have always played this as a cue in support of hearts, usually (in real life always) shortness. x Qxx xx KQxxxxx would be a delighted 3♠.

Maybe using this specific sequence as simply denying support and stalling is more useful. I haven't discussed that

I no longer play seriously. I haven't been in what I consider a serious partnership for several years: in the sense of actually spending a lot of time dicussing low-frequency auctions. We generally use a change of suit by opener over a new suit advance by responder as agreeing responder's suit and showing a good hand in context (with shortness), having to remember that over specifically a 3♥ advance, 3♠ is artificial and a noise seems an accident waiting to happen

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2012-December-04, 15:35, said:

Maybe using this specific sequence as simply denying support and stalling is more useful.

There's no cost, because you can play 3NT as a 3♠ bid.