Fitting honors vs. discipline

[hammberry]

Both sides vulnerable, matchpoints

 

I dealt and held: ♠JT ♥A63 ♦AT9865 ♣QT

 

Me   LHO   Part     RHO

1♦   1♠     1NT     Pass

2♦   Pass   3♣     Pass

??

 

A direct 2♣ response would have been forcing one round only.

My clubs suggest 3NT but partner probably thinks this is a

part-score auction.

 

How should I evaluate this hand & what should I do?

[TylerE]

I would have passed 1NT.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting point of discussion, IMO. I'm not all that sure that you are reading this sequence correctly (or that partner is reading this sequence correctly if he had what you think he had).

 

IMO, I think that the meaning of 3♣ should not be long clubs and a correction of contract. If partner has a long club suit, is not good enough for 2♣ initially, has no diamond tolerance, and has a spade stopper, he should not bid 1NT or should bid 2NT at this point. Even if there is a possible hand for this sequence, it is much rare than the occurrance that I would expect.

 

For me, 3♣ should be a feature bid agreeing diamonds. I'd expect something like ♠Kxxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣Kxxx, perhaps. A spade stop, one of the top three diamonds and three-card support, and the Ace or King of clubs.

 

Opposite that, I don't like my chances at 3NT. So, I'd sign off at 3♦.

[ralph23]

You've already bid/overbid your hand twice... you have a bare min opening, partner has 6-9 or maybe (choke) 10 HCP on a good day... partner knows you have 6 ♦ and doesn't care for them, so he looks to be weak with long clubs. Pass.

[goodwintr]

Let's see the hand that is "weak with long clubs" and short in diamonds, that bids 1NT over 1S.

[han]

Clear and pleasant pass.

[jtfanclub]

Let's see the hand that is "weak with long clubs" and short in diamonds, that bids 1NT over 1S.

AQ9

xxx

x

K98xxx

[matmat]

Let's see the hand that is "weak with long clubs" and short in diamonds, that bids 1NT over 1S.

AQ9

xxx

x

K98xxx

i'd probably just pass 2d with that...

[pclayton]

I agree Ken's premise about 3♣, but I don't agree with his conclusions.

 

Its true a misfitting hand with clubs (and a spade stop) isn't pulling 2♦. However, it doesn't show diamond support and a club feature looking for 3N. That hand raises diamonds and you sort out the round suit stoppers at the 3 level.

 

3♣ is akin to:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♦ - 2♠

 

which should show some values. A very weak hand with a lot of spades should pass 2♦ or (gasp!) make a WJS.

 

I would place the 3♣ bidder with something more like: #1 - Axx, xx, xx, AJxxxx or: #2 - Qxx, xx, xx, AKxxxx.

 

Going back to the original question, I'd probably just pass. Even opposite a great hand like #2, we only have 8 tricks on a spade lead and a heart shift.

[ralph23]

Let's see the hand that is "weak with long clubs" and short in diamonds, that bids 1NT over 1S.

Uh .... you think it's hard to come up with one???? Sorry, I guess I missed the point of your post, I guess. :)

[hrothgar]

This is an interesting point of discussion, IMO.  I'm not all that sure that you are reading this sequence correctly (or that partner is reading this sequence correctly if he had what you think he had).

 

IMO, I think that the meaning of 3♣ should not be long clubs and a correction of contract.  If partner has a long club suit, is not good enough for 2♣ initially, has no diamond tolerance, and has a spade stopper, he should not bid 1NT or should bid 2NT at this point.  Even if there is a possible hand for this sequence, it is much rare than the occurrance that I would expect.

 

For me, 3♣ should be a feature bid agreeing diamonds.  I'd expect something like ♠Kxxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣Kxxx, perhaps.  A spade stop, one of the top three diamonds and three-card support, and the Ace or King of clubs.

 

Opposite that, I don't like my chances at 3NT.  So, I'd sign off at 3♦.

Comment 1: Whatever meaning that you define for 3♣, it looks to be a damn rare bid.

 

If we go with Ken's meaning, partner needs to have a hand that made a natural and non-forcing 1NT response yet has somehow re-evaluated after partner's (weak) 2♦ rebid to be worth a game try in NT. To some extent, the frequency of this bid will depend on the minimum strength promised by a 1♦ opening in your partnership.

 

If we go with the majority decision (3♣ shows clubs) partner needs a hand that was

 

A. Is willing to play 3♣ with no hint of a fit from partner

B. Can't tolerate Diamonds at the 2 level

C. Preferred to advance 1NT rather than showing his club suit

 

Both these targets look damn small, so I'd like to offer a third alternative:

 

3♣ shows a Diamond raise and a club fragment

 

♠ KJxx

♥ xx

♦ Jxx

♣ KQxx

 

Partner doesn't much feel like defending 2♥. He's making a lead directing bid on the way to 3♦. (If you're playing very sound openings, it might make sense to use 3♣ as a probe for 3N. Here, once again I'd argue that the fragment bid might make more sense than Club length)

[whereagles]

Well, I dunno what 3♣ is but I do know people tend to bid their suits even when it's technically wrong.

 

Pass.

[han]

Clear and pleasant pass.

I actually misread. There is nothing clear about this auction and it depends a lot on how much I trust my partner.

[kenrexford]

This meaning of a feature is not all that difficult to imagine.

 

1A. Partner needs about three diamonds. Most balanced hands without four hearts will feature three diamonds.

 

1B. If partner has three diamonds, he does not care about entering the three-level, because of total tricks reasons and because the opponents must have a fit and likely will not sell out to 2♦.

 

2. A raise to 3♦ preempts any ability to show a club feature below 3NT.

 

3. Opener's 2♦ call is not all that limited. To make game with six diamonds coming in (A-K-Q = 9 HCP), we need three more tricks. As Responder can easily have 9 HCP's, then a simple 13-count needs to produce the remaining three tricks. That's not too hard to fathom.

 

4. As I mentioned, the typical hand will be a spade stopper, three to an honor in diamonds, and a club card.

 

5. The hand provided for a 3♣ call as natural makes no sense. Why convert past 2NT into an emaciated six-card club suit rather than declare 2♦, when Opener might have a void?

 

6. Even if 3♣ might occasionally be superior, will that meaning grab as many gains as a means of showing value location on a power diamond raise?

 

I understand that this is not mainstream. I have argued this point for years with people, with little success. However, I very strongly believe that sequences are much better used as diamond-support calls. As a person who has used this, I can assure you that it comes up way more often than freak hands I cannot even construct.

[helene_t]

Strange bid, if he's weak he could have bid 3♣ immediately, or passed now. If he has invitational values he could have bid 2♣ immediately.

 

In such a situation it's probably vice to listen to our strange-bid expert, Ken Rexford, and bid 3♦.

 

But if I'm allowed to pass 3♣ I must certainly do so. My hand could hardly be worse, and given its over-all lousiness it could hardly more suitable for a club contract.

[hrothgar]

Strange bid, if he's weak he could have bid 3♣ immediately, or passed now. If he has invitational values he could have bid 2♣ immediately.

 

In such a situation it's probably vice to listen to our strange-bid expert, Ken Rexford, and bid 3♦.

 

But if I'm allowed to pass 3♣ I must certainly do so. My hand could hardly be worse, and given its over-all lousiness it could hardly more suitable for a club contract.

Many of us would treat an immediate jump to 3♣ as fit showing...

[kenrexford]

I would also play 3♣ immediately as fit-showing.

 

The difference is that an immediate 3♣ would show something approaching decent 4-card diamond support with a trick-source side five-card club suit, whereas this delayed 3♣ would show a club feature rather than a trick source.

 

In other words, the former is oriented toward suit contract declaring, whereas the latter is a facilitator of 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Pass

 

Partner does not want my ♦ and I have QT in ♣....