your bid 3433

[jillybean]

[hv=d=&v=b&s=sjxxhkxxxdqjxckxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♥

2♣: ?[/hv]

 

Is your bid 2nt or 2♦ ?

 

My bid was

2♦ 3433 shape, poor ♠'s and QJ's

 

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think both bids are reasonable, but

would opt for 2NT, since i prefer I would

like to invite to game.

 

2D is certainly ok, and probably better,

since one or both mayor suits may be wait

open.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

With those great fillers in the minors, 3♦ is in order B)

[hrothgar]

This is a nasty hand. I'd like to have a better idea whether partner would raise hearts with three card support). Partner's failure to raise hearts implies some length in spades. (Wouldn't be suprised if partner has 3=1=5=4 or 3=1=4=5 shape)

 

Jxx still isn't much of a stopper, but it xxx opposite xxx is often enough to prevent the opps from running 5 tricks off the top.

 

To some extent, this is going to depend on partner's minor suit opening style. If I can expect a relatively sound opening

 

xxx

x

AKxxx

AQxx

 

or some such, I'll bid 2NT. If partner is likely to open significantly weaker

 

xx

x

KT987

AQxxx

 

then 2♦ is a lot more attractive...

[mikeh]

2N is wrong.... sorry, but it is wrong.

 

Your hand is okay in terms of working points for an invitational bid, but you lack a ♠ stopper. It is silly to misdescribe your hand in constructive auctions when you have other, more descriptive, bids available.

 

A constructive auction is a dialogue, or conversation (leaving aside the question and answer structure of relay methods). If you could not use bids but had to, instead, describe your hand to your partner in words, would you say: I have a balanced hand with about 10-11 points with a ♠ stopper, do you want to bid 3N?

 

That would be a lie. So don't bid 2N if there is a non-lie available.

 

There are times when one's hand is so difficult to describe that one has to lie, and the usual expert advice is to choose the either the cheapest lie (to preserve room to escape) or the smallest lie (to minimize the distortion).

 

But here you have an easy 3♦ bid.... unless your partner is one of those benighted souls who thinks that it is good bridge to open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ on 4=5 minors.

 

3♦ says 'I have an invitational hand, with real ♦ support, but I either have a lot of shape or I lack a ♠ stopper, so couldn't bid 2N'

 

Listen to that description and then compare it to your hand... looks like a match to me.

 

I can, however, understand a reluctance to bid 3♦ because the hand is soft and the 4333 shape unattractive... hands with such shape can usually be downgraded in valuation. But that does not make 2N more attractive: 2N shows the same strength as 3♦... just differently located. So the choice is not 3♦ or 2N: it is 3♦ or 2♦.... 2♦ would be very conservative, but (especially at matchpoints) not ridiculously so. However, I look at my hand and I see 3 working cards in my partner's suits... 60% of my hcp are in his suits... this always makes me happy :) So I opt for 3♦.

 

Finally, 2N is the kind of bid I'd risk at mps, maybe, but never at imps. At mps, 120 beats 110... at imps, it doesn't.

[Finch]

Absolutely everything mikeh said.

You have support for partner, so show it.

You have (just about) invitational values, so show them.

 

Opposite one of the suggested hands where horthgar would bid 2NT

 

xxx

x

AKxxx

AQxx

 

2NT needs spades 4-3 and the ace of hearts onside, and could have the first 8 (or more if we misguess) tricks cashed against it.

3D is a lot better (clubs 3-3 or the ace of hearts onside is a simple line) and is unlikely to be more than one off.