han Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Red against white, IMPs: A83Q875AKJ1076 1C - (1D) - 1NT - (p)?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3NT TBH, I am not too sure of the difference in meaning between 3NT and 3♣? Presumably partner is allowed to bid 3NT if we bid 3♣, but with this hand, vul at IMPs, I prefer an immediate 3NT. Not sure when I would prefer 3♣? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3♣. Pard knows the value of his club length / Q and diamond cards better than me. 3♣ / 3N or 5♣ might be the right spot. Playing with a weak partner, I'd just shoot 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3♣ is right on for values. Partner know its imps and know we are red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3♣ for me as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 will we really really like it if pd passes 3♣? i don't think so... 3n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 will we really really like it if pd passes 3♣? Only if 3NT doesn't make :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3♦, just in case pard is one of those "I don't care about stoppers" jokers, like ME :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I think 3NT is too much. We need partner to have good cards and/or something extra to make game. 3♣ seems more descriptive than 2NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmunte1 Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3NT for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 2♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 2♦ Woah you know something weird...I saw last poster in this thread was kenrexford and before opening it I was like "I bet it's 2D"... these are the kinds of things that happen when its 8:30 am and you haven't been to bed :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Maybe 2♠ is the safer way of reaching 3N. After all p needs to have some help in hearts. Then again, if p bids 3N over our 2♠, opps will know to switch spades after having won trick one with ♦A. I think I bid 3N, not sure how partner is supposed to know when to bid 3N over 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3 ♣ looks like a good invite. xxx,xxx,Axxx,Qxx is not enough for him to make 3 NT. And with xxx,Jxxx,AQx,xxx we still need some luck to make 3 NT, so an invitation is more then enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3 ♣ looks like a good invite. xxx,xxx,Axxx,Qxx is not enough for him to make 3 NT. And with xxx,Jxxx,AQx,xxx we still need some luck to make 3 NT, so an invitation is more then enough for me. those are some awesome 1N bids lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 3 ♣ looks like a good invite. xxx,xxx,Axxx,Qxx is not enough for him to make 3 NT. And with xxx,Jxxx,AQx,xxx we still need some luck to make 3 NT, so an invitation is more then enough for me. those are some awesome 1N bids lol Oh sorry Auntie Justin is passing with these hands, a free 1 NT bid promises 8-11 HCPs, bad me to forget this. You need something around xxx,Jxx,AQxx,Qxx to make 3 NT 99 % laydown and no pd will pass 3 Club with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I think I bid 3N, not sure how partner is supposed to know when to bid 3N over 3♣. Helene said it best imo. We likely have 5 clubs tricks even when partner has a stiff club. I don't want partner to look at his club suit to decide whether we want to be in game! It helped that I was playing with aunty Justine who is a sound 1NT bidder and sometimes makes games that are less than 99%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't think 5♣ tricks will be enough opposite a minimum 1N, so I involve partner via 3♣. Partner will/should know that I would bid game with AKQxxx of clubs and an outside trick or AKJxxx and 2 outside tricks, so should be well-positioned to make the final decision. Incidentally, and unusually for me, I disagree with helene's point: in fact I think that 3♣ is so descriptive that I can't imagine partner going wrong very often... certainly, I expect partner to make the right decision over 3♣ more frequently than I expect the blast to 3N to be right. But it does depend on who I am playing with: with a poor partner, I blast. With a good partner, I involve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 agree 100% with mikeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Oh sorry Auntie Justin is passing with these hands, a free 1 NT bid promises 8-11 HCPs, bad me to forget this. You need something around xxx,Jxx,AQxx,Qxx to make 3 NT 99 % laydown and no pd will pass 3 Club with this. I think the criticism has as much to do with the major suit holdings as it doesnt the badness of the hands. People get so hung up on preempting the opponents from bidding 1 of a major that they often bid 1NT on silly hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Maybe I'm missing something. I'll try more explanation. I have opened 1♣, a 1♦ overcall, and partner bids 1NT. This is always going to feature diamonds stopped and a club "fit" if clubs are real. So, I make the call that is forcing and establishes the fit (2♦) as real, maximizing the space to further describe the hand for 3NT purposes, or for 5♣ purposes, or for whatever purposes we may have in mind. What I don't get is 3♣. To my way of thinking, and please don't be shy about noting this possible insanity (people are so shy here), if 2♦ establishes the club fit and is forcing, then 3♣ should not show that same hand. Seems logical enough. However, what would it actually show? It seems to me that an immediate 3♣ call is actually a semi-preemptive call. I mean, if 1NT is in fact implicitly a club "raise" in this sequence, does this not change the analysis substantially? Does not the availability of a cue change the analysis? Does not the ability to reverse change the analysis? I would expect 3♣ to show some garbage six-bagger reaching the ideal problem contract immediately, jamming their major exploration and jamming their diamond exploration. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Can you not be 3-3-5-2 for bidding 1NT? Opener can have xxx, responder can have xx, so I would not describe this as an implicit club raise. I do think that your suggestion (3C as preemptive, therefore 2D as the game-try with clubs) is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Can you not be 3-3-5-2 for bidding 1NT? Opener can have xxx, responder can have xx, so I would not describe this as an implicit club raise. I do think that your suggestion (3C as preemptive, therefore 2D as the game-try with clubs) is fine. 3-3-5-2 is a hand with support of a six-card suit, technically. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Maybe I'm missing something. <snipped> What I don't get is 3♣. To my way of thinking, and please don't be shy about noting this possible insanity (people are so shy here), if 2♦ establishes the club fit and is forcing, then 3♣ should not show that same hand. Seems logical enough. However, what would it actually show? It seems to me that an immediate 3♣ call is actually a semi-preemptive call. <snipped>Am I missing something?Yes, Ken, I think you are missing something. At least, I think so. To me, 2♦ is a different hand. 1. we really do not need 3♣ as semi-preemptive. Yes, there may be hands on which LHO is about to act again, despite knowing that our partner is sitting behind him with diamonds and about 8-10 points and his partner passed. But we can still bid later if it appears (to either of us) reasonable to do so... and, in the meantime, we do not needlessly get too high. 2. 3♣ for this hand is ideal. It is descriptive. It invites 3N but expresses the inability to make the bid ourselves. It certainly, to my way of thinking, denies say Axx xxx x AKQJxx.. that is a 3N call. 3. But we may occasionally have a HUGE hand. The consensus in this forum, with some exceptions, seems to be that we need a very good hand, indeed, to open 2♣ with a minor. So we will sometimes have a near-2♣ opener with long clubs. While this is low-frequency, it is the meaning I would reserve for 2♦. A game force with clubs.. and this 14 count, good tho it is, is more than an Ace short of what I would need. Give me Axx AQx x AKQxxx and I'd bid 2♦. Opposite an ideal fitter such as xxx Kx AJxx Jxxx and we can reach slam. While, opposite Qxx Jxx KJxx Jxx, we play 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Mike, I don't think AKJ10xx is an ideal suit for 3C. How does partner know that we have this suit instead of, say, AQ10xxx with better majors? If you bid 3C then partner is rarely going to bid 3NT with xx in clubs, after all, that is about the worst possible holding he could have. Give me AJx KJx x AQxxxx and then I will bid 3C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.