[mike777]

(2h)=2s=(3d)=3s
Imps both NV.

I was way out in left field on this one as both my adv pick up pard and the expert at other table both bid 3s here.

What is the worst and best hand for 3s you would expect?

[mikeh]

Rather than give examples of best and worst, I'd prefer to 'describe' the 3♠ bid.

Firstly, it is not invitational. There is no need for it to be invitational.

You have 3♥ available as invitational. It will be very rare that you would be looking for 3N on this sequence, and far more likely that you want to suggest 4♠.

And if you have a forcing hand with ♦, just double, and with ♣, bid your suit: 4♣ is forcing.

So 3♠ is competitive. It should be a little more than the worst 1♠ - 2♠ sequence, and a little less than the best constructive 1♠ - 2♠ raise you can imagine.

With the best constructive raise up to a medium limit raise, cue bid and respect a signoff. With a top limit raise or minimum game force raise, jump to 4♠. With a better hand, cue bid and bid again over any signoff.

[luke warm]

i can imagine it being an 11 count, but that's about the best.. on the low end, i'd guess 6 or 7

[mike777]

"So 3♠ is competitive"

that's what I thought...geez whiz.
they had hand I would make a slam try with oh well. Even if they thought it was invite, this hand is too good. But both tables bid 3s, oh well.

Sometimes not sure if my bidding thoughts are just crazy or what.


KXXX=X=KXXX=AXXX

[mikeh]

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Aug 19 2005, 01:46 AM, said:

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

I must, reluctantly of course, agree 100% with my enemy from Canada.

Roland

P.S. Our vessel with the 12 mm (or is it 120 mm?) gun is now patrolling the waters around OUR island!

[Double !]

3S = less than a limit raise/ invitational hand. Just competing. Could bid 3H to invite.

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Aug 18 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 19 2005, 01:46 AM, said:

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

I must, reluctantly of course, agree 100% with my enemy from Canada.

Roland

P.S. Our vessel with the 12 mm (or is it 120 mm?) gun is now patrolling the waters around OUR island!

Low end: Qxxx, xx, xxx, Axxx
High end: Kxx, xxxx, xx, AQJx

Oh - Roland and Mike - don't worry, I'm sure W will send in plenty of backup in case either of you decide to start lobbing shells at each other.

[Rebound]

Hey, I'm on the first line of defense right on the atlantic coast of Canada in Halifax. If you're going to attack you'll have to go through me LOL

Course, if you wanna drop by for a game, that's a different story heh heh.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

For me, 3S is constructive / inviational /
competitive.

Assuming, everyone has his bids, the most
you can have is 10-12HCP.

Partner will know, looking at his hand, if you hold
a maximum or minimum for your raise, at least with
a certain probability.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Aug 18 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

Well, i would just bid 4S, with the hand in question,
but I am very timid, when it comes to slam bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Assuming, everyone has his bids, the most
you can have is 10-12HCP.

Why should we assume that the opponents have their bids? I don't trust them at all, but I do trust my partner. 4♥ tells him that I have a very fine hand with a heart shortage. Then he will take it from there.

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 03:14 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 18 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

Well, i would just bid 4S, with the hand in question,
but I am very timid, when it comes to slam bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Can't hardly be timid to bid game on that sequence, but the hand shown for the bid is a MINIMUM GF hand. I would raise 2S to 3S with a couple of well placed honors and 3S pieces. Either 4D or 4H would be reasonable with the hand shown but no quarrel with 4S except that I would tend to use it for the weaker 4 card spade immediate raise.

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Aug 19 2005, 03:31 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Assuming, everyone has his bids, the most
you can have is 10-12HCP.

Why should we assume that the opponents have their bids? I don't trust them at all, but I do trust my partner. 4♥ tells him that I have a very fine hand with a heart shortage. Then he will take it from there.

Roland

Hi Roland,

1) I am a trusting soul, following the old advice given by Simon
in this book "Why you loose at bride", that you should
trust the bids made by the opponents, as long as there is
no clear evidence that they fool around

2) The assumption just shows, that 3S in this sequence cant
be sensible forcing, because there aint enough "points"
around, there exist only 40 in the pack

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 19 2005, 02:54 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 03:14 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 18 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

More evidence (if any was needed) that the self-rating system leads to runaway inflation! An 'expert' bid 3♠ with Kxxx x Kxxx Axxx after (2♥) 2♠ (3♦)????

I would bid 4♥: a splinter in support of ♠, and thus a mild slam try.

This is so clear that I have serious difficulty thinking of an alternative

Well, i would just bid 4S, with the hand in question,
but I am very timid, when it comes to slam bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Can't hardly be timid to bid game on that sequence, but the hand shown for the bid is a MINIMUM GF hand. I would raise 2S to 3S with a couple of well placed honors and 3S pieces. Either 4D or 4H would be reasonable with the hand shown but no quarrel with 4S except that I would tend to use it for the weaker 4 card spade immediate raise.

I did not say, I am timid when it comes to bidding games, just when
it comes to bidding slams. A big difference.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pigpenz]

I tend to see this sequence come up quite and bid and it never has been right yet for me to bid I take it as 3card support and 7-9hcp...somewhere short of a cue bid...highly invitational , but it always turns out my partner is balancing in alive auction

[Fluffy]

with 9 HCP I cue for a slam try, while you settle for part-score lol.

It depends on the hand of course, lowest should be 6 and highest bad unplaced 9 I guess.

[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 10:51 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 19 2005, 03:31 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Assuming, everyone has his bids, the most
you can have is 10-12HCP.

Why should we assume that the opponents have their bids? I don't trust them at all, but I do trust my partner. 4♥ tells him that I have a very fine hand with a heart shortage. Then he will take it from there.

Roland

Hi Roland,

1) I am a trusting soul, following the old advice given by Simon
in this book "Why you loose at bride", that you should
trust the bids made by the opponents, as long as there is
no clear evidence that they fool around

I disagree here. What Simon is saying (if I remember it right) is that you shouldn't worry about opponents psyching unless you can tell they do. This is a different matter than trusting they have the full values for their bids. Would you never think of bidding game after opponents start bidding (1♣)-P-(1♥), because 1♣ shows 13hcp and 1♥ 6 of them, so we can have 21 at most?
In the given sequence , maybe 2♥ was a tad light with 4 hcp? Maybe 3♦ was non-forcing, just 7 hcp and a long suit (no I don't recommend bidding like this)? Maybe it was a light hand with heart support, showing diamonds first for some misguided reasons? Anyway, I don't think you can trust partner to workout your strength based on opponents' bidding.

Arend

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 19 2005, 10:51 PM, said:

1) I am a trusting soul, following the old advice given by Simon
in this book "Why you loose at bride", that you should
trust the bids made by the opponents, as long as there is
no clear evidence that they fool around

That is not what Simon says (read it again), and even if he did, I wouldn't trust my opponents one bit. They are my enemies at the bridge table, and they want to hurt me as much as they can.

These days people open 8-9 counts and respond on 3 hcp. Should I assume that they have at least 18 hcp between them and forget about game our way if I have a good hand? Feel free to do that, but I won't. That is exactly why one should play 1NT as natural on this auction:

1♣ (p) 1♥ (1NT)

It is much more dangerous to come in later. As a general rule, I recommend that you trust your partner 100% and take the opponents' action with a grain of salt.

Roland

[reisig]

3♠ is a competetive bid ...not a game try hand. Sometimes partner has a very good hand for 2♠ and just needs a little help to bid game...and often not such a great hand. Roland and I hate to agree with MikeH - its more fun to disagree.