Bidding is hard

[jonottawa]

♠Q98 ♥K6 ♦T9752 ♣A43

 

Uncontested auction:

 

1♣ - 1N

2♥ - 3♣

3♠ - ?

[jdonn]

Early bidding is perfect. 4♣ now. If partner makes any noise at all over that then I'm good enough for keycard. If he just raises me to 5[C] I'll pass.

[georgeac]

im just intermediate player but i would bid 3nt. seems better then 5c. if 3nt is an option i would usually choose that.

[Ant590]

I think it depends on what 3♣ means. If you play Leb here, so 3♣ showed more than a poor 7 count I think you can bid 3NT to put the brakes on now.

 

<awaits the inevitable reply from someone saying 3NT is more encouraging than 4♣...>

[helene_t]

Yes we have only the 9 points we approximately promised (btw our initial 1NT response may have shown 8-10) but all our points are working in a club contract. OTOH it is bad news that we have only three clubs.

[effervesce]

4♣. If partner has indeed a hand with a diamond singleton, eg 3415, slam is looking good.

[Fluffy]

Our hand only misses a 4th trump, this should be enough for 4♥.

[effervesce]

Our hand only misses a 4th trump, this should be enough for 4♥.

4♥ looks like an offer to play in a Moysian. Ewwwww. I don't want to play in a 4-2 super-Moysian.

[y66]

Second jdonn's comments. And yes, bidding is hard! :P

[Finch]

I loathe 1NT.

I'm not mad on 3C either.

 

We have the most enormous hand.

Are the 4C bidders confident that it is forcing?

 

We responded 1NT showing a weak hand.

We gave preference to 3C over 2H showing a weak hand (if 2NT is conventional that we should have been told).

We make the minimum possible bid over 3S.

 

How would you have bid on xxx xxx Kxx Qxxx ?

 

We are closer to a 6C call than any form of sign-off or non-forcing bid.

Partner has shown a huge 3415 (or similar), if he has a diamond void I think a grand is possible.

[fred]

I'm confused.

 

Only one minor (haha) complaint about 3C so far, but I think 3C is a horrible bid unless you and your partner have the agreement (a most unusual one IMO) that 3C is forcing.

 

IMO the only possible reason to think that an undiscussed 3C might be forcing is because you are used to playing a convention over reverses that should not apply when the reverse is made over a 1NT response.

 

But even if you disagree with this, surely 4C cannot be forcing and it is getting a ton of votes! I would (far) sooner bid 6C than 4C here.

 

Maybe not having had my morning coffee yet is the source of my confusion. If I realize that I am the one who is crazy after I am fully conscious I will post again :P

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

I don't loathe 1NT as much as 3♣. That is a serious underbid unless you agreed that opener must bid again after a reverse (I don't like that method). Even then it would be hard to catch up, so the simple solution is to bid 4♣ over 2♥.

 

OK, so I did bid a NF 3♣ and yet partner was able to proceed with 3♠. In an ideal world, playing with myself, I would want 4♦ now to be the enormous hand I denied before with many good cards for a high club contract.

 

Since I might not even understand 4♦ myself, I had better jump to 6♣. I am not concerned that this is too high, just a little worried that we might have missed a grand slam when partner is 4-4-0-5 or particularly 3-4-0-6.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

How would you have bid on xxx xxx Kxx Qxxx ?

I would consider that hand too weak for 1NT and respond 1♦.

[Guest Jlall]

Is everyone confident partner cannot be 4414? Must he bid NT with that shape?

[mcphee]

Some players feel that 2H in this auction is a GF others may hyold less than GF values (which I prefer). If you are using Ingberman (like lebensohl) 3C sets a GF, great 7 or 8-10 hcp some folks may even have 11 for the NT response.

 

I am not willing to give up on slam at this stage and advance with 4C. When partner cue bids D I cue bid H.

 

The entire problem reverts to what is 3C, F or NF?

[fred]

The entire problem reverts to what is 3C, F or NF?

IM(Strong)O it is NF

 

IMO your system should allow you to bid 2H with hands like the following (where you could easily want to play in a partial, 3NT, or 5C and you would have no sensible way to find out if you could not bid 2H):

 

x

AKxx

xx

AKxxxx

 

It should also allow you to bid 1NT with hands like:

 

KQx

Qxx

Jxx

xxxx

 

So you need *some* way to stop in 3C.

 

Using an artificial 2NT here is a bad idea because 2NT is too useful a natural bid to give up.

 

So just bid 3C (NF) if you want to sign off in 3C. If your hand is too strong in support of clubs to sign off, then bid something else (you have lots of choices).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[han]

What about the auctions that start with 1m - 1NT - 2H? We play here that 2S shows a weak hand and other all other bids show extras. Is this a good idea?

 

It does seem good to have the natural 2NT call, is there any need to use 2S as natural too?

[fred]

What about the auctions that start with 1m - 1NT - 2H? We play here that 2S shows a weak hand and other all other bids show extras. Is this a good idea?

 

It does seem good to have the natural 2NT call, is there any need to use 2S as natural too?

Well sometimes 2S will be your most useful naturalish forward going bid. For example, you (or at least I!) would really like to be able to bid 2S and have it mean "spades" with something like:

 

AKx

Jxx

xxx

Jxxx

 

Then there is the matter of your artificial negative not being available when the bidding goes 1C-1NT-2S. For some partnerships having symmetry in auctions like these reduces strain on memory as well as the chances of an accident. Note you already have some assymetry to contend with since things change if the opening bid is 1D (because playing in clubs is a possibility).

 

I don't think your 2S gadget is a "terrible idea" or anything, but my sense is that it gains little (if anything) over natural from a theory point of view. So, on the basis of note-bloat, I would not want to play this convention (sorry!).

 

But if you do stick with 2S=artificial, I suggest you consider using it as an artificial positive and bidding 3C (NF) when you want to sign off.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

I'm not convinced that you really want 2NT as a natural bid. Opener's reverse usually shows one of:

 

(1) A very unbalanced hand with extras, like Fred's example of ♥AKxx + ♣AKxxxx

(2) A very strong hand

 

With a moderately strong, fairly balanced hand, it seems reasonable for opener to bid 2NT.

 

Responder's original 1NT bid also shows a balanced hand over a 1♣ opening. In fact this bid is very likely to include 3-4♣ (with 2♣ you have either a 4M or 5♦ and might bid that instead). So it seems quite rare that after 1♣-1NT-2M you will want to play in 2NT. Even after 1♦-1NT-2M responder will often have 3+♦ or 6+♣.

 

Now it could be that when Fred said you need 2NT as a natural bid, he meant a natural and forcing bid. But with forcing hands it is again easy to argue that you could make some other call (such as naming a good five-card suit in the other minor, or bidding your strong three-card major, or raising opener's major with Hxx). And those who want to use 2NT as a "slow down" bid are also treating it as forcing, so you can still bid 2NT...3NT or 2NT...3OM when that is appropriate to show a good hand.

 

In fact it seems very useful after 1m-1NT-2M to be able to show all of:

 

(1) A weak hand that just wants to play 3m unless opener is super-strong.

(2) A hand with a good fit for opener's minor that might prefer 6m or 5m to 3NT.

(3) A hand with game values but a substantial weakness in one of the unbid suits.

 

It seems like the forcing 2NT bid lets you show all of these pretty easily, whereas a "natural" 2NT bid creates some awkwardness on one hand type (presumably 3m is now hand 1, so you are stuck on hand 2 unless bidding a new suit shows that hand, in which case you are stuck on hand 3).

[fred]

Now it could be that when Fred said you need 2NT as a natural bid, he meant a natural and forcing bid. But with forcing hands it is again easy to argue that you could make some other call (such as naming a good five-card suit in the other minor, or bidding your strong three-card major, or raising opener's major with Hxx). And those who want to use 2NT as a "slow down" bid are also treating it as forcing, so you can still bid 2NT...3NT or 2NT...3OM when that is appropriate to show a good hand.

The (natural) message that 2NT delivers to me would be:

 

I have strength in the unbid suits so I am suggesting that 3NT might be right, but I am reserving the right to Pass if you retreat to 3C.

 

This is an important message to be able to deliver both because of the big reward of getting to 3NT when you belong there and also because responder will be dealt an appropriate hand for this message with reasonable frequency.

 

Note that the suggestion pertains to playing 3NT, not 2NT. So from that point of view, I would agree with you that 2NT should be treated as forcing. Besides that, as you point out, in practice 2NT is forcing because opener will "always" bid over it.

 

3NT is also a possible rebid for responder, but that bid is a strong statement of "I think it is likely that we make 3NT" rather than just a suggestion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

edit

One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

 

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.

On this auction 3c=weak and has maybe 3+ card support.(Our first response was 1nt).

 

http://www.reginabridge.com/conventions/rvstr.txt

[ArtK78]

One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

 

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.

On this auction 3c=natural, game force.

 

http://www.reginabridge.com/conventions/rvstr.txt

Mike:

 

I believe you misread the text that you cited.

 

In the case of a 1NT response, a preference to 3 of opener's minor is a weak bid.

[mike777]

One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

 

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.

On this auction 3c=natural, game force.

 

http://www.reginabridge.com/conventions/rvstr.txt

Mike:

 

I believe you misread the text that you cited.

 

In the case of a 1NT response, a preference to 3 of opener's minor is a weak bid.

yes i will edit.

[Fluffy]

I am surprised of fred's strong opinion about 3♣ being non forcing. In Spain only the weak players play that way, stronger always use catch all for weak and many strong ones towards slam.

 

Maybe on this specific secuence this is different, but know of nobody who ahs specific agreements on this kind of bids.

 

BTW I use 2♠ as general force asking opener to partern out (even on 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠)

[fred]

The considerations of "normal" reverse auctions (ie when responder bids a suit instead of 1NT on the first round) do not apply here because:

 

1) The 1NT response puts serious constraints on both the strengh and distribution of responder's hand.

 

2) There are only a few possible target contracts when the bidding goes this way. The vast majority of the time the bidding will end in either 3C, 3NT, or 5C. Only rarely will a slam be a possibility (and 6C is pretty much the only slam in play). Only rarely will it make sense to investigate playing in some other trump suit.

 

These rare cases tend to work themselves out (because opener will have an extreme hand so he will later make an extreme bid).

 

In a "normal" reverse auction like:

 

1C 1S

2H

 

it is very different. Responder could have just about anything in terms of strength and shape and playing in almost any contract between 3C and 7NT is a live possibility.

 

In such cases an artificial negative really helps resolve some of massive ambiguity regarding the nature of responder's hand.

 

An artificial negative is not necessary in the auction in question because there is a very little ambiguity about responder's hand. Given that responder has already more or less described what he has, he is usually in a strong position to make a naturalish bid that moves the partnership toward one of the few possible final contracts.

 

IMO comparing the followups of 1C-1S-2H with 1C-1NT-2H is like comparing apples with oranges. If you are serious about bridge and if your textbook or local experts use analogous methods in both auctions, I suggest you ignore them and think this through for yourself.

 

Or you could just ignore me instead :(

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com