Third-hand Opening Bid

[Kalvan14]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sj976ht53d87cajt8]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P - (P) - 1S - (X) - ?[/hv]

 

Your bid, please

[Blofeld]

At these colours I'm going to bid 3♠. I don't know what the correct level is, but neither do our opponents, and 3♠ is unlikely to be very dear.

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sj976ht53d87cajt8]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P - (P) - 1S - (X) - ?[/hv]

 

Your bid, please

3S

 

 

I play Bergen 3c, 4 trumps 7-10 less than a limit raise, still on over x as well as BROMAD for 3 card raises so easy 3S bid here. All are still on as a passed hand as well.

[P_Marlowe]

3S, in case it is wrong and partner complains,

tell him, that he should write a e-mail to cohen.

 

Sry, but you are green vs. red, you have a 9 card

fit, and you hold the spades, kill the space.

 

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

2S. This hand is too strong in HCP and too balanced for a preempt in my books at white/red.

[pclayton]

If vul were reversed I'd bid 3♠, but this hand just has too much.

 

AJTx over the doubler is a very strong holding.

[Kalvan14]

I'm quite happy to see another position in this thread. I'd the fear that everyone would back 3♠ :)

 

Still, it is a 3rd-hand opening, NV vs vul: who guarantees that it is a true opening bid, and that there are 5 spades?

[mike777]

The problem is 2S does not describe this hand, it shows 3 spades and less than constructive. If you like this hand that much at least bid 3clubs bergen or 2H BROMAD showing 3 pieces and constructive. I will stick with 3S, 4 spades and 0-7 points or so. I do not think Txx of hearts is a plus.

[Guest Jlall]

The problem is 2S does not describe this hand, it shows 3 spades and less than constructive. If you like this hand that much at least bid 3clubs bergen or 2H BROMAD showing 3 pieces and constructive. I will stick with 3S, 4 spades and 0-7 points or so. I do not think Txx of hearts is a plus.

Mike, perhaps you should assume standard agreements and not your own personal agreements. In normal bridge 2S is just a normal raise, 5-9 or whatever with support.

[mike777]

ok, but as we have discussed before it just seems making a free bid of 2s over x here is undefined in standard but perhaps not. I can see playing 2s as a constructive free bid but that would be more than 5hcp. A constructive raise to 2s makes a lot of sense if that would be standard today? On the other hand if 2s is just a wide range bid less than limit....

[Guest Jlall]

You find a raise to 2S showing 5-9 to be overly wide-ranging with game try methods etc available over it, yet your own preferred 3S bid is 0-7 with no game tries at all over it. This does not seem consistent to me.

[mike777]

hmm ok, I will think about this issue, thanks.

 

edit ok here is my int. level logic for 3S. I hope to learn something on this excellent post problem.

1) The simple book bid of 3s shows around 0-7 hcp and 4 spades...ok but any reason to upgrade or downgrade?

2) We got 0-7 hcp and 4 spades.

3) Would like to have side shortness but none here.

4) Jxxx of trumps is a negative

5) Txx of hearts is a negative

6) AJTx of clubs is a plus.

[Kalvan14]

If pard had opened in 1st or 2nd seat, I'd have no doubt in choosing a simple raise. The problem is that he opened in 3rd seat, and we are at fav V. IMHO, I ould again give a simple raise over E pass; when E doubles, I believe that the priority is pre-empting W. 2♠ is just not enough.

[joker_gib]

Too strong in HCP at these colours and no shape enough.

 

Without agreements I go with 2♠.

 

LHO has already passed and maybe 2♠ is enough to buy the contract.

 

In my method I bid 2♥ showing a constructive raise.

 

Alain

[whereagles]

2♠ is more than enough. Besides, pard opened 3rd seat. Don't bury him.

[Finch]

I'm quite happy to see another position in this thread. I'd the fear that everyone would back 3♠ :)

 

Still, it is a 3rd-hand opening, NV vs vul: who guarantees that it is a true opening bid, and that there are 5 spades?

If you don't bid 3S because you are catering for partner not having an opening bid, perhaps you should alert partner's 1S bid.

 

I would bid 3S. Seems to about down the middle for the call.

[whereagles]

I would bid 3S. Seems to about down the middle for the call.

Well, if you're going to bid to the 3-level, you might as well bid 3♣. This at least will give pard a better pic of what you have.

[Finch]

Not if you play that fit bids show 9 cards in the two suits.

[whereagles]

The 3♣ bid has a number of advantages that offset the lack of distribution.

[han]

I'm bidding 3S. I like to use Fred's rule here: I must have at least one nice feature for a raise, an ace, a king or shortness (I assume that Fred didn't invent this rule, but he wrote it somewhere on this forum a while ago). This hand would be a minimum for 3S at unfavorable, and is about a maximum at favorable.

 

I don't dislike 2S, but I expect that the bidding would come back to me at 3D or 3H, and I would hate to bid 3S then (and passing is not attractive either).

 

I thank wereagles for pointing out the possibility of bidding 3C with hands like this, it wouldn't have occured to me. For me it shows a more distributional hand, as well as more strength. Kxxx xx xx AJ10xx would be close to a minimum.

[inquiry]

2♠ no matter what other agreements I have, which are BTW

 

1) I do play 3♠ shows 4 and 0-7 (which I have), but partner opened 3rd seat and a) might not have an opening and and more importantly :) might not have 5♠.

 

2) I do play over the dble that 2♥ bid is "good raise" to 2♠ and that immediate 2♠ is just "competitive". This hand does not qualify for a good raise to 2♠

 

3) I do play 3♣ here as a fit jump. This hand is not up to a 3♣ bid, but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

[whereagles]

but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

Actually, the 3♣ bid, being very descriptive, might put some pressure on LHO to make a red-suit bid, thus relieving our side from commiting to 3♠. (We shouldn't be forced to 3♠ if LHO bids, especially with a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opener.)

[inquiry]

but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

Actually, the 3♣ bid, being very descriptive, might put some pressure on LHO to make a red-suit bid, thus relieving our side from commiting to 3♠. (We shouldn't be forced to 3♠ if LHO bids, especially with a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opener.)

The DISADVANTAGE of not playing it forcing to 3♠ (even by a passed hand) is this"

 

P-P-1S-X

3C-3H-P-P

?

 

Does pass show the weak hand or extras? And if it is the weak hand, then your partner is in bit of a pickle with a between hand, too weak to accept game straight away (especially if you can be this weak and this flat) but strong not to make a game try. This is where PFA (principle of fast arrival) comes in very handy, and Pass is stronger than 3♠

[whereagles]

Well, it's obvious that the PFA coupled to a force to 3♠ works better in constructive auctions. But the point is a constructive auction is probably not that high a priority after a 3rd seat opener. This motivates dropping off the PFA/3♠-force and defining 'pass' by opener as a weakish hand, willing to let opps play their 3x contract undisturbed.

[luke warm]

i don't like the shape of the hand for 3♠, but i'd bid it anyway.. mainly for the reason frances gave and because it puts them to a guess immediately