[Fluffy]

♠xxx
♥Kx
♦AKQJ10x
♣xx

all vul

1♦-pass-1♠-pass
2♦-pass-3♦-pass
??

[bigbenvic]

One option is to bid 3♥ hoping to get partner to bid 3NT with a ♥ stop. If he bids 3♠ (my fingers are crossed) when he doesn't have a heart card I'll bid 3NT and pray that his 10ish HCP in the blacks are enough to stop them getting enough tricks.

The other option is to just bid 3NT and cross my fingers, again. Partner seems to be balanced so this might work.

On balance I'm punting 3NT as pards just might bid 4♦ and I'll look stupid (nothing new) for not bidding it.

[mikeh]

Tough hand.

I pass, partly because while we may have plays for game, we can't cater to both games and there is no reason to think that both 3N and 4♠ will make on the same hands.

Also, while 3♦ will sometimes fail when 3N is the alternative, and it fails, the 3N will often fail by more undertricks.

And when we don't reach game, I'd far rather be in 3♦ than in 4♦.

And this really doesn't look like the hand to bid 3♠.

I pass, but not happily.

[mike777]

3nt if 3d is more than a courtesy raise.

[ewj]

I would probably bid 3NT...but tbh might pass...would do one of those ...don't feel massively strongly about which one

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2012-December-04, 18:53, said:

3nt if 3d is more than a courtesy raise.

are we playing adjective bridge?

You don't get to ask partner about this at the table, and I very much doubt that anyone actually plays a narrow range here, whether invitational or 'courtesy'.

All we know is that he didn't bid 2N so whatever he has, it isn't a 10 count with values in both rounded suits.

He's catering to our having up to a bad 16 count with an indifferent 6 card suit. We have a far better suit that he was catering to, but a far weaker hand. Indeed, compare this to xxx Kx AQJxxx Kx. The same 13 count but a hand that has improved by knowledge of the diamond support. Our hand hasn't grown up at all on the auction. I'd go further: I'd suggest that xxx Kx AQxxxx Kx would have grown up to be a better hand for 3N than our actual hand, which is, alas, the same as it started, unless one wants to look for 4♠.

The more I think about it, the more confident I am that my 1st post, advocating pass, was correct. And I won't change my opinion on learning that on the actual hand, 3N was a winner. However, I will read posts that take issue with my reasoning based on bridge principles.

[ewj]

You won't have 16 for a 2♦ rebid!?!?! I reckon I would open most flat 14s 1NT too...

Not that I necessarily disagree with your pass

[mike777]

I hope I at least get to know if we even play courtesy raises?

too put it another way ya I thought we are indeed playing adjective bridge adjective such as limit raise.

but ya I play pard for a real full inv hand that for some reason could not bid 2nt and bid 3nt.

OTOH if 3d is truly random then pass looks easy.

[quiddity]

mikeh, on 2012-December-04, 19:12, said:

are we playing adjective bridge?

You don't get to ask partner about this at the table, and I very much doubt that anyone actually plays a narrow range here, whether invitational or 'courtesy'.

All we know is that he didn't bid 2N so whatever he has, it isn't a 10 count with values in both rounded suits.

He's catering to our having up to a bad 16 count with an indifferent 6 card suit. We have a far better suit that he was catering to, but a far weaker hand. Indeed, compare this to xxx Kx AQJxxx Kx. The same 13 count but a hand that has improved by knowledge of the diamond support. Our hand hasn't grown up at all on the auction. I'd go further: I'd suggest that xxx Kx AQxxxx Kx would have grown up to be a better hand for 3N than our actual hand, which is, alas, the same as it started, unless one wants to look for 4♠.

The more I think about it, the more confident I am that my 1st post, advocating pass, was correct. And I won't change my opinion on learning that on the actual hand, 3N was a winner. However, I will read posts that take issue with my reasoning based on bridge principles.

Should partner have a higher minimum for his raise when his diamonds are bad?

[mikeh]

ewj, on 2012-December-04, 19:20, said:

You won't have 16 for a 2♦ rebid!?!?! I reckon I would open most flat 14s 1NT too...

Not that I necessarily disagree with your pass

what do you rebid with say Qx KQ KQxxxx KJx?

Note that I said a 'bad' 16 count. I didn't mean an average or slightly below average: I meant a 'bad' one

[Fluffy]

bigbenvic, on 2012-December-04, 18:21, said:

One option is to bid 3♥ hoping to get partner to bid 3NT with a ♥ stop.

Do you really mean this? 3♥ shows stop for me and shows lack of ♣ stop. I am a simple soul who bids what he's got.

[rhm]

Am I the only one who would not rebid 2♦ at match points with this hand?
I do not fall in love with minors when playing match points.
Rebidding diamonds would be my third choice.

Rainer Herrmann

[PetteriLem]

mikeh, on 2012-December-04, 20:23, said:

what do you rebid with say Qx KQ KQxxxx KJx?

Note that I said a 'bad' 16 count. I didn't mean an average or slightly below average: I meant a 'bad' one

That is not a problem hand. With a real problem hand, I raise a major with 3 cards happily, try to bid 3 card side suit or blame my thoughtless opening bid.

[PetteriLem]

I would probably bid 3nt, because partner invited (possibly the weakeast of all invites in my book) and I clearly have as good cards as I could have. We easily have one suit open, on the other hand we cash ours quickly. I tend to favour that we are quicker, that's why I go for it.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3NT, but my partner isn't catering for my having a 16-count.

I would open 1NT on either xxx Kx AQJxxx Kx or Qx KQ KQxxxx KJx. I understand that the first one isn't to everyone's taste, but I'm surpised that Mike would open 1♦ on the second one.

[ewj]

mikeh, on 2012-December-04, 20:23, said:

what do you rebid with say Qx KQ KQxxxx KJx?

Note that I said a 'bad' 16 count. I didn't mean an average or slightly below average: I meant a 'bad' one

I would open 1NT

[Codo]

3 NT is it... looks easy. Ok partners hand is AQxx,xxx,xxxx,KJx and they take the first 8 tricks... Sh... It happens...

[Fluffy]

partner had

♠AJxx
♥xx
♦xxxx
♣AQx

3NT makes as ♣K is onside, also ♠KQ109x onside
3♥ leads to 3NT the wrong way for automatic 2 down when 6 hearts are running
3♦ makes comfortably
spade contracts are horrible.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2012-December-06, 16:47, said:

partner had

♠AJxx
♥xx
♦xxxx
♣AQx

3NT makes as ♣K is onside, also ♠KQ109x onside
3♥ leads to 3NT the wrong way for automatic 2 down when 6 hearts are running
3♦ makes comfortably
spade contracts are horrible.

I don't know that we can learn much from this example. For one thing, it seems bizarre that the opps' cards lie as you describe. Can anyone here imagine passing over 1♦ with KQ109x in spades, the heart A and the club K???

Are you certain that you have the layout correct?

[Fluffy]

nopes, they just told me good spades KQ10 willing to lead them, maybe only 4