Strong support

[Edmunte1]

Playing in a strong team match, you hold as South at love all:

[hv=s=sq75ha8532d106ca63]133|100|[/hv]

 

and bidding goes:

S ---- V ---- N ---- E

pas--pas --1♠--3♦

?

 

As a general style our 3rd hand openings are pretty decent (9+), but can be only 4 card suits

[skjaeran]

I might open 1♠ with 4-4 M in 3rd seat with AKJx Kxxx. I don't know if that's your style. Playing my style, I'd make a negative double, to be able to locate the 5-4 ♥ fit instead of playing in a possible 4-3 ♠ fit, although I'd be sure the trump is strong enough.

 

If that's not the style in use, I'd bid 3♠. We'd probably play better with the opening lead going through me than partner.

 

Partner raises to game with the appropriate hand (14 good and unbalanced).

[whereagles]

3♠ now or rewind and open a 9-11 1NT ;)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3H, which should show a 5 hearts

and 3 card spade support, since

you did not open 2H.

It should also show constr. values.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

3s..no..problem yet

[pclayton]

As bad as my 3rd hand openings are, plus the fact that they are frequently a 4 bagger, 3♠ is a little painful, but its 'foisted' on you.

[Codo]

3 ♥ I see no way how direct 3 ♠ can work better.

[helene_t]

Agree with Marlowe, 3♥ should show this hand.

[hrothgar]

The standard meaning for a 3♥ advance opposite a 1♠ showing 5+ pieces would be something like the following

 

♠ KT63

♥ KQ863

♦ 5

♣ 874

 

Note the following:

 

1. The hand has honor fourth in Spades

2. The hand has both length and concentrated values in Hearts

 

Partner only needs Hxx in Hearts And Axxxx in Spades to have a good chance of taking 10 tricks.

 

In contrast, you're holding

 

3 card Spade support

Axxxxx in Hearts

 

From my perspective, you're a bit weak for a fit non-jump. In particular, the heart suit seems way too aenemic. The larger the range of hands that you allow for this bid, the more likely it is that partner will be poorly placed to guess what to do.

 

Mark me down for a simple 3♠ bid.

[Apollo81]

3♠.

 

Bidding 3♥ would not have even occurred to me with that terrible suit.

[pbleighton]

3S.

 

Peter

[jdonn]

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does but even they don't agree (some think 4 cards, some think 3, some think 2 card "tolerance"). There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

 

The idea about a negative double could definitely work, but the problem is partner might bid 3NT on a total minimum and then I am compelled to bid 4♠. But if someone wants to overbid somewhat and consider this a game force that is not the worst idea, as long as their partner is not the type to open something ridiculous in 3rd seat.

[whereagles]

There's some case for 3♥ showing mild spade support, but obviously not if you haven't agreed to that :P

[Codo]

Of course you can play that a hand has a too weak suit to be openend with 2 or three Heart and try to bid this suit later like jdonn.

Of course you can bid 3 Spade hoping that you have no 4-3 Fit and that pd can figure out that your hand is not just competetive but from inviting strength.

Surely you can agree to make fitnonjumpshifts, so that you need 4 S and 5 H to bid 3 Heart.

 

But after this start of the bidding, which are the most valuable informations for pd?

Obviously if you have fit and or a Diamond stopper and are you weak or from invitational strength?

You have these possibilities: Pass 3 HEart 3 Spade and 3 NT (and other higher bids of course.)

I doubt that it is a good idea to define 3 Heart in one of the of the ways above. It is much more useful to show a hand with a fit and invitational strength, so that pd can figure out if you look just at Qxxxx, Kxx,xx,xxx or a stronger hand like in the actual layout.

 

ANd about a "standard meaning": I am pretty sure that at least some players use free bids in a competetive auction to show a good raise. The normal example is:

1♠ (2 ♦) 2 ♠ (3♦) 3 ♥ to show a stronge rhand compared to 3 ♠.

[cherdano]

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does

I am really tired of this argument. I don't think any sensible person would claim that 3♥ implies spade support by logic. For me, it implies spade support by agreement. And to answer your second point above, I haven't discussed this with Han, but I am pretty sure he would expect 3-card support for 3♥ on this auction.

There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

If the suit is too weak to open 2/3♥, why is it strong enough to bid it later at the 3-level without a fit for partner? 2-suiters can start with a negative double. Of course, when you have the 2-suiter I would prefer to be able bid 3♥, but when I have a fit and a side suit, I prefer to be able to show this with 3♥.

 

Having said all this, I would never bid 3♥ with the hand in this thread. It's not like I would love to see ♥Qxx in partner's hand, or hate to see a heart singleton.

[jdonn]

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does

I am really tired of this argument. I don't think any sensible person would claim that 3♥ implies spade support by logic. For me, it implies spade support by agreement. And to answer your second point above, I haven't discussed this with Han, but I am pretty sure he would expect 3-card support for 3♥ on this auction.

There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

If the suit is too weak to open 2/3♥, why is it strong enough to bid it later at the 3-level without a fit for partner? 2-suiters can start with a negative double. Of course, when you have the 2-suiter I would prefer to be able bid 3♥, but when I have a fit and a side suit, I prefer to be able to show this with 3♥.

 

Having said all this, I would never bid 3♥ with the hand in this thread. It's not like I would love to see ♥Qxx in partner's hand, or hate to see a heart singleton.

Preempting carries much more of a message about suit quality than merely bidding a suit does. x Q86432 xx AKxx, if you want to open this with a preempt then by all means you are not alone, but passing is hardly ridiculous on a suit this lousy, and then of course there is no reasonable choice later but to bid 3♥. I think your agreement is fine for people who will preempt on anything that moves.

 

I don't understand two things. One is why you seem to be arguing in favor of something that you think a sensible person wouldn't find logical (I hope I'm not misquoting, but that is how I read what you wrote.) The other is why you wouldn't use your agreement on this hand that seems made for it. After all, the length information is useful to partner as well, and it would tell him xxx is a bunch of losers. Are you saying 3♥ (if it implies spade support) must be a king high suit, no more no less?

[mikeh]

I agree with josh: I would also add that there is a risk to using negative doubles with hands such as 2=6=1=4 or 2=7=1=3 unsuited for an opening preempt, in that partner will and should play you for a flatter hand, without primary ♠ support (hence, likely shortness) and some defensive values (for making a bid that commits to at least the 3-level opposite a 3rd seat opener with no fit). This type of negative double gets passed more often than most... I am not suggesting it usually gets passed, but I am saying that this factor means that one should feel free to bid 3♥ on such hands, rather than double, and this in turn makes it clear that, absent specific agreement to the contrary, there is no compelling bridge logic behind asserting that 3♥ shows ♠ support.

 

As it is, I would bid 3♠. It may not lead to the best possible contract, but it may lead to the best contract possible, to paraphrase one of the greatest bridge writers of all time.

[cherdano]

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does

I am really tired of this argument. I don't think any sensible person would claim that 3♥ implies spade support by logic. For me, it implies spade support by agreement. And to answer your second point above, I haven't discussed this with Han, but I am pretty sure he would expect 3-card support for 3♥ on this auction.

There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

If the suit is too weak to open 2/3♥, why is it strong enough to bid it later at the 3-level without a fit for partner? 2-suiters can start with a negative double. Of course, when you have the 2-suiter I would prefer to be able bid 3♥, but when I have a fit and a side suit, I prefer to be able to show this with 3♥.

 

Having said all this, I would never bid 3♥ with the hand in this thread. It's not like I would love to see ♥Qxx in partner's hand, or hate to see a heart singleton.

Preempting carries much more of a message about suit quality than merely bidding a suit does. x Q86432 xx AKxx, if you want to open this with a preempt then by all means you are not alone, but passing is hardly ridiculous on a suit this lousy, and then of course there is no reasonable choice later but to bid 3♥. I think your agreement is fine for people who will preempt on anything that moves.

 

I don't understand two things. One is why you seem to be arguing in favor of something that you think a sensible person wouldn't find logical (I hope I'm not misquoting, but that is how I read what you wrote.) The other is why you wouldn't use your agreement on this hand that seems made for it. After all, the length information is useful to partner as well, and it would tell him xxx is a bunch of losers. Are you saying 3♥ (if it implies spade support) must be a king high suit, no more no less?

That's not quite what I said:

I said there is no logic that ensures that 3♥ implies spade support, similarly as there is no logic that implies that 2♣ is a strong opening. Both are just useful agreements.

And of course this style works better when you both have an aggressive opening style, and a liberal preempting style.

 

About your second point: Fit bids or fit jumps mostly help partner evaluate if the fit jump suit contains intermediate honors. If my partner makes a fit bid and I have singleton, I will know his values are wasted. If I have an intermediate honor, I know it will be a good filler. If I have xxx, then while that is not perfect, at least his values are not wasted. The ideal fit jump suit is s.th. like KQTxx, not Axxxx. I would NEVER jump to 3♥ opposite a 1♠ opening with a Axxxx suit. I admit in the situation here it is closer, with the cramped space, but I would still not bid 3♥ here.

 

This is of course not my own insight, all this is in Robson/Segal. You might find it worth reading even if you will probably disagree with many of their conclusions.

 

Arend

 

P.S.: It's a bid similar to long suit game tries, of course. If you make game tries both an Axxx and KJxx, your partner will never know what to do with Qx or with a singleton.

[Trudy1959]

I bid 4♠ with this hand because:

1. My partner will always have a good hand and a decent 5+ card suit (usually distributional 6 card suit or better)

2. I want to put as much pressure on the opponents as I can; maybe they will take a phantom sacrifice in 5m, maybe they will make a bad lead and let 4♠ make

3. If I pass, I don't have any clues as to a good lead (is a trump lead right? a small ♥?).

 

Tru

[helene_t]

Preempting carries much more of a message about suit quality than merely bidding a suit does. x Q86432 xx AKxx, if you want to open this with a preempt then by all means you are not alone, but passing is hardly ridiculous on a suit this lousy, and then of course there is no reasonable choice later but to bid 3♥. I think your agreement is fine for people who will preempt on anything that moves.

But you would be much more comfortable opening 2♥ with your example hand than making a 3♥ freebid with the same hand, wouldn't you?

- it's a level lower

- partner's 1♠ opening in your singleton is bad news

- 3♥ now has now preemptive effect

- The partner of the 3♦ bidder has a penalty double of 3♥ available and he will know when to use it

 

OK, make your hand somewhat more extreme, say x-xxxxxxx-(-)-AKxxx and I can imagine a pass followed by a 3♥ bid in this auction. But to me, 3♥ suggests a hand with which 3♥ now is at least as safe as a 2♥ opening would have been.

[jdonn]

Preempting carries much more of a message about suit quality than merely bidding a suit does. x Q86432 xx AKxx, if you want to open this with a preempt then by all means you are not alone, but passing is hardly ridiculous on a suit this lousy, and then of course there is no reasonable choice later but to bid 3♥. I think your agreement is fine for people who will preempt on anything that moves.

But you would be much more comfortable opening 2♥ with your example hand than making a 3♥ freebid with the same hand, wouldn't you?

- it's a level lower

- partner's 1♠ opening in your singleton is bad news

- 3♥ now has now preemptive effect

- The partner of the 3♦ bidder has a penalty double of 3♥ available and he will know when to use it

 

OK, make your hand somewhat more extreme, say x-xxxxxxx-(-)-AKxxx and I can imagine a pass followed by a 3♥ bid in this auction. But to me, 3♥ suggests a hand with which 3♥ now is at least as safe as a 2♥ opening would have been.

There are other factors beside safety. Are you saying that if you passed before, you wouldn't bid now since it's too dangerous? There are lots of players who would have passed that hand originally, but passing the second time around would just be stupid.

 

I am not more comfortable misdescribing my hand (given a partnership or player for whom opening 2♥ would be a misdescription).

[hrothgar]

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does but even they don't agree (some think 4 cards, some think 3, some think 2 card "tolerance"). There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

I think that there are there are several reasonable interpretations for a a 3♥ bid in an auction like

 

P - (P) - 1♠ - (3♦)

3♥

 

Option 1 The flawed preempt

 

3♥ shows a hand with sufficient playing strength for the three level which, none-the-less, was unsuitable to open or preempt in first seat. As Josh suggests, this will typically be some form of two suited hand that couldn't be shown. Alternatively, its possible that the partnership is playing some highly disciplined preemptive scheme in which a void or scattered side suit values would disqualify the hand for 2M or 3M

 

Option 2 The fit non-jump

 

Originally, the hand didn't evaluate as strong enough for a 2M or 3M opening, however, the hand has re-valued after partner's opening bid. The hand contains both a Hearts suit and a fit for partner's Spades

 

Option 3 Something completely artificial

 

In theory, one might chose to use 3♥ as some form of artificial response. For example, one could use an immediate 3♠ bid as strictly competitive, while 3♥ shows any one of a variety of different game invites

 

Moving on to the question of "Bridge Logic". Personally, I think that the definition for the 3♥ bid will very much depend on the nature of the opening system in first/second seat. For example, if I'm playing MOSCITO or some other light opening system with lots of two suited preemptive methods, the "flawed preempt" interpretation goes right out the window. There simply aren't enough flawed preempts to warrant allocating a bid to describe this rare a hand type. In a similar vein, if I were playing EHAA or - for that matter - Roth-Stone the flawed preempt interpretation doesn't seem reasonable. Alternatively, I'm sure there are some opening styles where the "flawed preemptive" interpretation makes more sense.

 

In a similar vein, lets compare the fit non-jump to the artificial "limit raise". I general, I prefer to be able to describe shape + values rather than simple showing values. Lets assume for the moment that the actual auction was

 

P - (P) - 1♠ - (3♣)

3♥

 

In this case, I'd very much like to be able to use both 3♦ and 3♥ as fit non-jumps. However, the actual auction is MUCH more cramped. If I use 3♥ as a fit non-jump, I can't show any other type of invitational hands. Its quite possible that the generic quantitative interpretation would be more useful.

 

Regardless, without any discussion, I'd assume that the fit non-jump interpretation to be more frequent than any of the others. maybe I just play in different circles.

 

I suspect that a BRBR study might shed some light on what type of hands people actually have for this auction.

[HeartA]

Unless I can be sure that my pd understands 3H, I would bid 4S, assuming pd has an average opening hand.

[the hog]

To my mind there is no hand that would not open with a pre empt and yet bid 3H now. 3H for me in auctions like this is logically ALWAYS a fnj. Having siad this, I agree that this suit is not suitable for a fnj, and I would bid a simple 3S.

[Fluffy]

To my mind there is no hand that would not open with a pre empt and yet bid 3H now. 3H for me in auctions like this is logically ALWAYS a fnj. Having siad this, I agree that this suit is not suitable for a fnj, and I would bid a simple 3S.

But ron, partner could have only 4♠ and we could beong to hearts, doesn't that make 3♥ more atractive?