Jump to content

1M-P-3NT?


kenrexford

What does this show?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. What does this show?

    • Roughly 13-15, 3-card, balanced, honors could be anything
      7
    • Roughly 13-15, 3-card, balanced, honors expected to be quacks
      0
    • Roughly 13-15, 3-card, balanced, honors expected to be Aces-and-spaces
      0
    • Roughly 16-18, 3-card, balanced, honors could be anything
      1
    • Roughly 16-18, 3-card, balanced, honors expected to be quacks
      1
    • Roughly 16-18, 3-card, balanced, honors expected to be Aces-and-spaces
      0
    • Some shortness bid
      7
    • Something really strange that I love to tell people about
      4
    • Something really stupid that my partner makes me play
      1
    • Other
      9


Recommended Posts

Curious on this. I have been playing "13-15 balanced raise" for some time, but I can never get partners to commit to an honors hand type (Aces and spaces, or quacks), except one person. This makes the pass-or-pull decision bad, and it makes the "I'm unbalanced and slammish" decision worse.

 

How do others play this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1M-3N is rarely the natural 12-14 or 13-15 flat IME.

 

The 2 most common uses I've seen are

a= "I have a splinter. Do you care?"

b= "I have a good 1M-4M preemptive raise." IOW, what few points you have contain controls and you may be exceptionally shapely as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi y'all from Nashville.

 

If given a choice, I like 2N as the balanced hand and 3N as a preemptive raise with an outside trick. This jams the bidding nicely and keeps slam options open. It also defines 4M as a really, really bad 5 card raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most partnerships, I play it as too good to bid 4M, not good enough to splinter.... almost always a side stiff, usually 5 trump, but can be 4 with real shape, and some stuff in a long side suit. The range depends on who I am playing with: one partner likes splinters to be relatively weak, so his 3N is lighter than those whose splinters may be decent opening hands.

 

In one partnership, I play that it is specifically 4333, with a 4 card minor, and stoppers in the unbid suits and 13-15 hcp. It is rare, but allows us to play 3N on 5-3 major fits, or even the odd 6-3. We haven't discussed (explicitly) the makeup of the hcp, but I would be astounded if either of us made the bid on 3 Aces and a King :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one partnership, I play that it is specifically 4333, with a 4 card minor, and stoppers in the unbid suits and 13-15 hcp. It is rare, but allows us to play 3N on 5-3 major fits, or even the odd 6-3. We haven't discussed (explicitly) the makeup of the hcp, but I would be astounded if either of us made the bid on 3 Aces and a King :P

That's in fact how I usually have played it.

With my current partner it show (23)44 and 13-15. (Doubleton in the opened major and 44 in the minors.) With our light opening style we should probably adjust it to 14-16 though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this "good 4M" treatment. It certainly would be nice to have any bid that replaces this "balanced GF" treatment, that I absolutely hate.

 

Playing that technique, is there any follow-up available to Opener when he has a player; perhaps a 4-loser monstrosity? I would imagine that 4 should probably ask for the stiff, perhaps, but what are the parameters of this call?

 

"Good" doesn't really tickle me as a definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing 2/1, I play 3N as a strong natural bid promising a doubleton in M, extra high card strength in the 16-18 range (slam invitational), and slow values and tenaces in the side suits.

 

Playing precision and all sorts of artificial raises, we play this as a strong balanced raise. Specifically 33(43) with 15-17 which is a choice of games and encourages slam opposite a maximum (of 15 for opener). Obviously this 3N with 3 card support gets pulled to 4M a lot more often than the other version, pretty much whenever partner has a 6 card suit or has opened a distributional minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this "good 4M" treatment. It certainly would be nice to have any bid that replaces this "balanced GF" treatment, that I absolutely hate.

 

Playing that technique, is there any follow-up available to Opener when he has a player; perhaps a 4-loser monstrosity? I would imagine that 4 should probably ask for the stiff, perhaps, but what are the parameters of this call?

 

"Good" doesn't really tickle me as a definition.

A "good" 1M-4M means your HCP contain an A or a K in your non stiff suits.

You have no more than a J more than an A or a Q more than a K.

 

Thus to be forward going, Opener must have a =very= nice hand.

You essentially have to have a hand that rates to have 5 level safety opposite the above +and+ a hand that thinks 6M or 6N is plausible if Responder has the correct shape and A or K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this "good 4M" treatment. It certainly would be nice to have any bid that replaces this "balanced GF" treatment, that I absolutely hate.

 

Playing that technique, is there any follow-up available to Opener when he has a player; perhaps a 4-loser monstrosity? I would imagine that 4 should probably ask for the stiff, perhaps, but what are the parameters of this call?

After 1-3N you could play the same as I suggested for 3-4

1-3N

4-?

4= stiff or no stiff. 4 asks for a sign-off if no stiff and otherwise for keycards or such.

4=stiff

4=stiff

 

After 1-3N you have less bidding space. You could play

1-3N

?

4=interested in stiff or sign-off. 4 now shows the stiff .

4=interested in stiff

4=interested in stiff

 

But this doesn't allow opener to shows interest opposite, say, a stiff in either clubs or spades. Besides, it points opps to declarer's weak point. So maybe some other scheme would have higher frequency of succes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some kind of splinter bid for me.

 

After 1♥-3N you have less bidding space. You could play

1♥-3N

 

Not if you make 1 - 3 the corresponding asking bid.

That seems rather useful as well. 3NT would apparently be the spade splinter, and 3 the "3NT" holding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play it as showing exactly 2 spades and one of:

 

A) 12-15 hcp and balanced, or

 

:) 9-11 with a 5+ card minor with only one loser in the suit.

 

In other words, the hands most likely to want to play in 3NT.

 

I suppose I've missed some slams this way- I don't remember. I don't use it very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one partnership:

I like to play 2-tier splinters. 3oM = 10-12 HCP, unspecified splinter

1S - 3H = 10-12 unspecified splinter

1H - 3S = 10-12 unspecified splinter

 

That leaves the 13-15 natural splinter:

1S - 4C/4D/4H = 13-15 splinter

1H - 4C/4D = 13-15 splinter

1H 3N = 13-15, spade splinter since 3S is used for lower splinter

That leaves 1S 3N undefined

 

In another partnership:

1M 3N = 3-card support, 13-15 balanced, no 5-card side suit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In different partnerships, I have different agreements.

 

The most common seems to be that 1M-3NT is a "good" raise to 4M (although I have not had a serious discussion on exactly what constitutes a "good" raise to 4M - sort of you know it when you see it).

 

In one partnership I play that it is 13-15 with 4333, 3 card support, most cards outside of the trump suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Good 4M raise with a stiff somewhere" has been around since at least the 1970's and I recall an article by Joe Silver I think called "Sliver Bids" which was a neat name combining the anagram of Silver and a "sliver" being something less than a splinter!

 

On a separate note, I think you should differentiate between 1S-3NT

and 1H - 3NT as in the first case it is one step beyond the double raise, while in the second it is 2 steps.

 

On any symmetric basis the equivalence should be DR+1 so that 1S- 3NT should be analogous to 1H-3S in order to allow equivalent room for exploration/differentiation - whatever meaning is assigned.

 

I experimented in a relatively standard framework with sliver bids for about a decade : but the right hand did not come up.

 

I found whether playing Acol/standard or something freakier, that the minimum forcing balanced raise was the most useful treatment ie just enough to force to game, at least enough trumps to ensure an 8 card fit, no shortage no side 5+card suit....in standard that means that a delayed game raise actually shows a decent suit (or length at any rate) and allows you to maintain a still stronger ie slam invitational raise somewhere in your system.

 

If asked for a definition of the values I would say 4-4.5 cover cards with a maximum of about 14HCP.

 

A preferred continuation is for opener to indicate shortage (by coding or one-unders) if interested in slam opposite no wastage.

 

regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...