pick up expert

[jkdood]

Re:

"After I've shown 16-18, ♣ hand I dont think 3nt holding xxxx ♠ and an opening hand is the smartest bid but then Im not an expert."

 

It's good policy to play a 3C rebid for about 15 HCP with a decent 7 card suit. Most experts reverse with better hands, often making up a reverse without the perfect shape. Of course, on BBO anyway reverses are a tact that many players (non-expert or so-called BBO experts) don't understand well so tread carefully.

 

I don't hate 3N but I think 3D caters to both questions about strain (when spades are the chink in the NT armor) and level (when pard has a max and slam is a good spot.) I also don't hate 1C but after choosing that and then 3C - 3N I don't see how I can move again despite some "worthy" suggestions to the contrary.

[jkdood]

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

 

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

[ArtK78]

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

 

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

True, it is unlikely.

 

But it is possible.

 

And it is not necessary that one opponent hold both spade honors. AT9xx opposite Kx or KT9xx opposite Ax is good enough on a spade lead if the opps don't destroy their high cards in the process. And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

[jdonn]

And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

:P

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, your replies make a lot of sense and at the same time don’t make me feel like a complete twit. :(

[ArtK78]

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades"

 

As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

True, it is unlikely.

 

But it is possible.

 

And it is not necessary that one opponent hold both spade honors. AT9xx opposite Kx or KT9xx opposite Ax is good enough on a spade lead if the opps don't destroy their high cards in the process. And AT9xx or KT9xx is not such an automatic 1♠ overcall.

In addition, neither partner can tell from their respective spade holdings that 3NT rates to be as good a contract as it is. The xxxx could be opposite a singleton and the QJ could be opposite xxx. It just so happens that 3NT rates to be a good contract due to a combination of circumstances (the combined six-card holding, no spade overcall).

[jtfanclub]

and the QJ could be opposite xxx.

If it is, then 5♣ is probably going down too. There's no evidence that partner has the diamond ace and the heart king.

 

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand. If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy. If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

 

It's only when you decide that the QJ is worth "Three! No wait, Zero! Hold on, Two Points! Can I go back to three?" that you getting into ridicluous bidding sequences. Pick a value for it, and then stick with it until the auction tells you to evaluate it differently. Personally, I think QJ is overwhelmingly likely to be a stopper. If partner has 3 spades, for example, the odds of him missing the A, K, and T is (8/11*7/10*6/9)=33.9%, so we have about a 2/3 chance of having a stopper, not including the inference that both opponents had a chance to show spades and both declined.

[jdonn]

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand. If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy. If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

 

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

[mikeh]

But this just shows the silliness of going back and forth on a hand.  If you think the QJ is worthless, then bid 2♣, and when you get a positive response from partner 5♣ is easy.  If you think the QJ isn't worthless, then bid 3♣, and if partner says 3NT then pass is easy.

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

 

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

All of the points about pulling 3N are valid... but surely they are reasons for opening 5♣ which, red at imps, is a strong call. If we open 1♣, I don't think we should be pulling 3N: we might well reach a 11 trick contract off 3 quicks, with 3N cold. Of course, the reverse may well be true!

[jkdood]

Sure 5C (or 3 or 4) could be right and it is imps.

And 3NT (and I won't quote Hamman) could be right.

But although I have an extra club and maybe short a HCP or even 2

Pard effectively took the responsibility to stop/help-stop all 3 suits

without anything specific from me,

and I would just let it play there if they feel it's their most descriptive call/best spot.

 

(stiff d: I could have one less club and AK dub of H and have 0 surprises and pard's aware of this, and maybe the T of dia is large card today!)

(PS - the opps not bidding diamonds is also somewhat reassuring )

[jtfanclub]

I'm so confused. Why do the value of our hand and the strain we should play in have to be connected in this way? What is illogical about believing my hand is good enough for 3♣ and that I don't want to play in notrump?

 

By the way, you also have a singleton diamond...

There are two points here, and I'm afraid I'm mixing them.

 

One is that I think QJ of spades is fine to consider a stopper when partner rates to have a few. So I think AK78's "if you see the N/S hands, and you mix the E/W hands, you could create something where you go down" isn't with the odds.

 

The other is, if you bid 1 club, then 3 clubs, then 4 clubs, I think partner has every right to expect you to have a very strong hand- that you're bidding past 3NT out of strength, not weakness. I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect partner to figure out that you valued your hand as strong enough for 3♣ then changed your mind.

 

That's what I mean by a silly auction. Strain isn't really involved- if you bid 5♣ over 3NT, that shouldn't be hard to figure out, but 4♣ (the bid actually made) is caused by overvaluing and then undervaluing the QJ...inviting game, partner accepting the invite, and then reconsidering whether you want to be in game.

 

I'm willing to play 3NT because I consider myself to have a stopper in one of the unbid suits. I don't think partner would bid 3NT without stoppers in at least one of the unbid suits. So I'm willing to take my chances.

[jdonn]

I really don't feel like debating the bridge judgment of the given hand since I don't particularly mind being disagreed with (although no stoppers in some suit isn't the big problem, more likely is one stopper and no king of clubs.) My point is that pulling 3NT isn't inherently illogical, or isn't some an auction that shouldn't exist. I await being corrected on the following, but it looks like jt was essentially saying "if you decide your QJ of spades aren't useless then it would inherently be silly to pull 3NT" which makes no sense.

 

I now see you posted before I did. What you said makes even less sense. How can 4♣ be bid based on hand strength when you are already within a given strength range that partner has said is enough for game?? You then mention the QJ of spades again, which still have nothing to do with it. You are attributing a reason to 4♣ bidders that might not be a reason or might not be the only reason.

 

Did you consider that someone might bid 4♣ because they think it's very likely they belong in clubs instead of notrump?

[jkdood]

Re: "point is that pulling 3NT isn't inherently illogical"

 

I DO agree with that, and I only suggested living with 3N is my pref.

 

I also think winning an imp-based National Championship 2 days ago

suggests your judgement is far from "inherently illogical" in these matters

(Not that your judgements weren't well-respected before that:-)

[awm]

It seems to me that the 3♣ bid describes a hand pretty tightly. Something like 16-18 "playing points" (can easily be fewer high card points especially with 7+♣) and a good 6+ card club suit.

 

Obviously one can make the point that this hand "doesn't really fit" the 3♣ rebid, having too many clubs or too few overall values or some combination thereof. This is a good argument for opening 5♣ on this hand.

 

But having bid 3♣, it does seem weird to pull 3NT. This auction seems to me something like bidding 1♠-2♠-4♠-cuebid; sure you could have some weird hand where it's not clear that a single raise was really "right" the first time (say ♠Kxx ♥- ♦xxx ♣Kxxxxxx) but just because you could easily make slam opposite partner's 4♠ bid (say ♠AQxxxx ♥Kxx ♦x ♣Axx) doesn't mean you should now remove 4♠.

 

Sure, the example hand doesn't have a diamond stopper and the spade stopper is dubious. But a 3♣ rebid doesn't promise a diamond stopper last time I checked. Partner should have something in the pointed suits. And while it's certainly possible that partner has the right stuff to make slam (or the wrong stuff for 3NT) we should trust our own bidding (and our partner's) here.

[jdonn]

But having bid 3♣, it does seem weird to pull 3NT. This auction seems to me something like bidding 1♠-2♠-4♠-cuebid

That comparison is not applicable. On that auction and this one, your strength is limited. On this auction your length/distribution are NOT limited. Note I'm not looking for slam, I'm trying for what I think is likely to be a better game.

[ArtK78]

My argument in favor of bidding 5♣ earlier focused on the possibility that the spade suit could be run against us. But my main point is that 5♣ rated to be at least as good as 3NT and potentially better. There might be a flaw in one of the outside suits, not necessarily spades. Perhaps partner has good spades and is weak in one of the red suits and missing the ♣K.

 

I have a singleton diamond. Last time I checked, partner's 3NT bid did not promise a solid diamond stopper. His diamonds suit could be Jxxx or worse. A possible hand:

 

AKx

KQxx

Jxxx

xx

 

In any event, it seems to me that 5♣ should be the right contract.

[jkdood]

There are of course countless hands that will support the outcome success (or failure) of either 5C or 3N.

 

I chose 3N because on frequency I think it not only more likely that scattered values in the non-C suits will ensure 3N, there's the known difficulty in defending 3N... starting with choice of opening lead, which could be low from an Ace that would not occur in a suit defense, or just not optimal for the defense.

 

I know my example hand is no better than yours, but just for the heck of it, imagine:

 

Axx JTxx QJxx xx or Axxx JTxx Q9xx x or similar.

 

If the club K is offside, 5C has no chance against any opp with an awake brain.

 

Yet 3N could very well see a spade lead, perhaps FROM the offside K, and be cold at this juncture.

 

For more details, talk to Hamman:-)

[jtfanclub]

But my main point is that 5♣ rated to be at least as good as 3NT and potentially better.

I guess in my case, I was just focusing on spades. I don't have a strong opinion about 3NT vs. 5♣ in IMPs.

 

I just have a strong opinion about 4♣. :)

[han]

Strongly agree with the point jdonn is making in this thread.