3NT ends all auctions?

[MarkDean]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak83htdaj862cj98]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Opps silent, partner opens

 

1C 1D

1H 1S

2C 3C

3NT ?

 

We play walsh, so 1H showed an unbalanced hand.

We have the further agreement that 1S was both natural and game forcing.

Should 3NT end this auction?

[gwnn]

What else do we want to do? We described our hand perfectly. I trust partner and pass happily.

[jdonn]

So we have shown about 4153, game forcing strength, and the question is do we overrule partner? Just making sure...

[Echognome]

We've made 3 calls to describe our hand and have been quite fortunate to be able to do so accurately. Dare I say a WTP hand?

[Guest Jlall]

Didn't partner show 6-4 in these methods? Doesn't that mean 3C could easily be bid with 5422? Just checking.

[jdonn]

Didn't partner show 6-4 in these methods? Doesn't that mean 3C could easily be bid with 5422? Just checking.

That's probably true, but I don't think it makes pass any less obvious. Partner had several other choices below 3NT.

[Guest Jlall]

Didn't partner show 6-4 in these methods? Doesn't that mean 3C could easily be bid with 5422? Just checking.

That's probably true, but I don't think it makes pass any less obvious. Partner had several other choices below 3NT.

Ok, now that we've established that we have not in fact shown our hand (we have an extra club, a singleton, and prime values) hopefully we can have a meaningful thread about:

 

1) What type of hand does partner bid 3N on over 3C rather than 3 of something else.

 

2) Similarly, what would 3 of something else have shown?

 

3) What hands is it right to play 3N opposite given that partner is 6-4.

 

I don't understand how people think about these type of situations without constructing hands for partner that fit his bidding and then seeing where we want to be on average opposite those hands. In fact I am sure now the people will do the problem backwards and find the few hands where 3N is the right spot and assign those to partner as what the 3N bid "shows."

[awm]

Certainly partner's 3NT call doesn't show a lot of stuff in the pointed suits. I'd suggest that instead, it shows slow heart cards (no ♥ cuebid), good clubs (fairly likely to run in 3NT without losing control, in case we have only one stopper in spades), and minimum values. I'd picture something like:

 

♠x

♥KJxx

♦xx

♣AKTxxx

 

Obviously this is a minimum and partner could have a slightly better hand, maybe something like:

 

♠xx

♥KQxx

♦x

♣AKQxxx

 

While we don't have a lot of losers opposite such a hand, there is also something of a shortage of tricks for a club game or slam (especially on a club lead). I'd count us for 9 tricks (six clubs, ace, ace-king) plus maybe a heart trick and however many ruffs we can score in our hand (one on a trump lead, maybe two otherwise). So I like a pass of 3NT here.

[jdonn]

I don't understand how people think about these type of situations without constructing hands for partner that fit his bidding and then seeing where we want to be on average opposite those hands.

Partner should also be constructing hands for us, so IF we have exactly what we have shown and nothing extra or very different from that then we assume partner has his job and we shouldn't need to repeat it. Anyway having said that I agree with you, this particular hand is different enough from the worst we could have to be considering partner's hand and I was too hasty to not consider bidding on. But even thinking about it more, I don't think partner should bid 3NT with like A AK type hands, he should bid a doubleton or 3♥ with very good hearts, or something. I picture something like Jx KQTx x AQTxxx, in contrast to the second AWM example which I think is definitely a 3♥ bid to emphasize the suitability in context for a suit contract.

[kenrexford]

1♣-P-1♦-P-

1♥(unbalanced, probably 4♥/5+♣)-1♠(GF, Artif.)

2♣(4♥/6+♣)-3♣(club strain agreed as only option other than NT)

 

As Justin noted, this seems to be the set-up to Opener's 3NT call.

 

The key questions, as Justin noted, are what the partnership agreements are as to the meaning of 3♦, 3♥, and 3♠, all of which were bypassed, 3NT, which was bid, and maybe even some of the higher calls, that were not selected.

 

For me, personally, in my style, 3NT can be figured out.

 

I bid diamonds earlier. Thus, Opener could bid 3♦ with the Ace, King, or Queen of diamonds. He lacks these, because he did not bid 3♦.

 

Opener has hearts. To bid 3♥, he needs two of the top three honors in hearts. He has at best AJ in hearts, because he did not bid 3♥ either.

 

My 1♠ call was artificial. Therefore, Opener could cue 3♠ to show either the Ace or King, which he cannot have while I am looking at these cards, or a stiff or void in spades. Therefore, I am certain that he has at least two spades, which gives him shortness in diamonds perforce.

 

He did not jump to 4♦, but that tells me nothing, as I know that his hearts are not good enough for that.

 

So, I have a basic picture as probably 2-4-1-6 shape with no diamond honor.

 

If partner has the maximum for this hand pattern, something like...

 

♠Qx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣AKQxxx

 

...then he would most assuredly have cuebid trumps. 3NT in a minor sequence is "non-serious" for me.

 

An example of an ugly hand would be...

 

♠Jx ♥KJxx ♦x ♣AQxxxx

 

...where he could technically and definitionally cuebid 4♣, as he holds two top clubs, but where a non-serious 3NT makes more sense.

 

=============================================

 

One aspect of this sequence and its analysis, however, is missing.

 

Back up to Opener's 2♣ call. Opener also had the option to jump to 3♣. I think that should show a COV with 6-4. Not sure. I am also not sure what Opener would mean by 3♦ or 3♠ at this point.

[pclayton]

3N is pretty definitive. We have a good trick source and pard knows about our short hearts. Agree with Justin that partner can punt with a doubleton ♠/♦, with doubt, but thats a good reason to pass 3N IMO.

 

As I construct some typical hands, however, 5♣ looks way better, even with pard's likely secondary heart cards.

 

4♣ for me.

[fred]

1♣-P-1♦-P-

1♥(unbalanced, probably 4♥/5+♣)-1♠(GF, Artif.)

2♣(4♥/6+♣)-3♣(club strain agreed as only option other than NT)

 

As Justin noted, this seems to be the set-up to Opener's 3NT call.

 

The key questions, as Justin noted, are what the partnership agreements are as to the meaning of 3♦, 3♥, and 3♠, all of which were bypassed, 3NT, which was bid, and maybe even some of the higher calls, that were not selected.

 

For me, personally, in my style, 3NT can be figured out.

 

I bid diamonds earlier.  Thus, Opener could bid 3♦ with the Ace, King, or Queen of diamonds.  He lacks these, because he did not bid 3♦.

 

Opener has hearts.  To bid 3♥, he needs two of the top three honors in hearts.  He has at best AJ in hearts, because he did not bid 3♥ either.

 

My 1♠ call was artificial.  Therefore, Opener could cue 3♠ to show either the Ace or King, which he cannot have while I am looking at these cards, or a stiff or void in spades.  Therefore, I am certain that he has at least two spades, which gives him shortness in diamonds perforce.

 

He did not jump to 4♦, but that tells me nothing, as I know that his hearts are not good enough for that.

 

So, I have a basic picture as probably 2-4-1-6 shape with no diamond honor.

 

If partner has the maximum for this hand pattern, something like...

 

♠Qx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣AKQxxx

 

...then he would most assuredly have cuebid trumps.  3NT in a minor sequence is "non-serious" for me.

 

An example of an ugly hand would be...

 

♠Jx ♥KJxx ♦x ♣AQxxxx

 

...where he could technically and definitionally cuebid 4♣, as he holds two top clubs, but where a non-serious 3NT makes more sense.

 

=============================================

 

One aspect of this sequence and its analysis, however, is missing.

 

Back up to Opener's 2♣ call.  Opener also had the option to jump to 3♣.  I think that should show a COV with 6-4.  Not sure.  I am also not sure what Opener would mean by 3♦ or 3♠ at this point.

Ken - it was nice while it lasted, but I am afraid we are going to have part ways on this hand :D

 

IMO when a minor suit is proposed as trump at the 3-level, the first priority has to be to investigate 3NT ("game before slam"). Sure it makes sense that 3D suggests a diamond honor (or just a doubleton diamond if your partnership is obsessed with pattern) and sure it makes sense that 3H suggests "good hearts". But to me these are just "natural bids". I suppose you could call them "cuebids" if you want - maybe it is just a matter of semantics.

 

But I can't deal with the notion of 3S being a "cuebid" (especially if it could be based on a singleton as opposed to a high honor) and 3NT being artificial. Much better IMO to play:

 

3S means: I can't bid 3NT, can you?

3NT means: I think this might be the right contract

 

True that opener might bid 3S and then pull 3NT and perhaps this converts the meaning of 3S to "cuebid" (or perhaps not), but I really think it is important to use 3S and 3NT to decide upon 3NT or not (rather than helping to decide whether to play 5C or more clubs which your methods seem to be doing).

 

There seems to be at least some disagreement as to whether or not 1S was natural. If not, then you have not come close to describing your distribution. You might have, for example:

 

xxx

Axx

AKQxx

Qx

 

If 1S is natural then you have come close to showing your distribution, but I agree with Jlall that this does not imply that you are supposed to blindly Pass 3NT because "partner knows what you have". If it is right to Pass 3NT, you should still go through the sort of thinking process that Jlall suggested before you do so: think of hands for partner and plan the play in various contracts.

 

When all is said and done bridge is still about winning enough tricks to make your contract. You don't get a bonus for "showing your hand" along the way.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak83htdaj862cj98]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Opps silent, partner opens

1C 1D

1H 1S

2C 3C

3NT ?

We play walsh, so 1H showed an unbalanced hand.

We have the further agreement that 1S was both natural and game forcing. Should 3NT end this auction?[/hv]

IMO 4♣ = 10, _P = 7.

More interesting at Pairs.

[Finch]

We are told that 1S was natural and FG. If 1S was artificial that puts a whole different feeling to the auction, as now 3NT shows a spade stop.

 

I don't think partner absolutely has to have 6 clubs for his 2C bid, though he would like to. What would you bid looking at Qxx Qxxx x AKQxx? Wouldn't you worry that 3NT is in danger on a heart lead?

 

On the auction given, where we have shown spades, diamonds and clubs in that order, then I think partner's 3NT bid says:

 

- I have a poor hand for the auction to date

- I am not worried about a heart lead against 3NT

 

That implies he doesn't have a top diamond honour, because that would not be a poor hand for the auction to date (unless it's very soft outside).

 

Maybe

 

Qx

QJ10x

x

AKxxxx

 

The hand I have is very control-rich, and looks good opposite poor hearts and short diamonds, I think it's worth a move but it's very close.

[mike777]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AK83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> T </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AJ862 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> J98 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

Opps silent, partner opens

 

1C 1D

1H 1S

2C 3C

3NT ?

 

We play walsh, so 1H showed an unbalanced hand.

We have the further agreement that 1S was both natural and game forcing.

Should 3NT end this auction?

I play this style.

 

It seems I have shown my hand given 1s is natural and game force. Game force by responder shows a pretty good hand by responder for me....so I feel comfortable passing 3nt...

 

Bidding minor suit slams is tough.

 

If I was 4=2=5=2 I would have rebid 2nt with some hands, 3c with (honor x) I guess. 3c is a pretty big bid, I did not rebid 2nt.

 

As a side note, I would have started with one spade here, not quite good enough to game force in my lite style.

[fred]

It seems I have shown my hand given 1s is natural and game force.

Mike,

 

You have not "shown your hand". You have (approximately) shown your distribution.

 

If you had, say, the same hand with the Ace of clubs instead of a small club you would have bid the same way up until now but you would not Pass 3NT claiming you had "shown your hand" - you would move toward a club slam.

 

Even if you have no more HCP and the exact same distribution as the hand in question, you could have a very different layout of honors and bid the same way. For example:

 

QJ10x

x

KQJxx

Axx

 

With this hand it is easy to Pass 3NT since it is not at all unlikely that 5C is down off the top. With the actual hand that started this thread, being down off the top in 5C is one thing you should not be worrying about.

 

That does not imply that you should necessarily bid over 3NT - just that the "I have shown my hand" argument is flawed. Even if you would only bid this way with 4153 distribution, the strength of your hand and your honor structure are still very much up in the air.

 

3c is a pretty big bid

 

No - it is just a suggestion that the partnership might belong in clubs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

What would (should?) 3♥ have meant over 2♣? Not that I would blame someone for not wanting to risk it.

[mike777]

What would (should?) 3♥ have meant over 2♣? Not that I would blame someone for not wanting to risk it.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

I also wonder what 3h means after:

 

1c=1s

2c=3h if we play reverse flannery.

[MarkDean]

Thanks all for your responses.

 

I passed at the table. Partner had

xx

Axxx

x

AKTxxx

 

So slam is very good.

 

3H probably would have been a better call over 2C, assuming partner played it for shortness. We did have the agreement that we do not make weird calls partner will not understand, not sure how that affects anything.

[xcurt]

I passed at the table. Partner had

xx

Axxx

x

AKTxxx

I'm a little late to this thread so rather than opine on your auction I'll just say 3NT was a poor call since it's going down often when clubs aren't running (and some other cases too).

[han]

I think 3NT was clearly wrong. Partner suggested clubs and we have a great hand for clubs, especially if partner has heart shortness.

[mike777]

Thanks all for your responses.

 

I passed at the table.  Partner had

xx

Axxx

x

AKTxxx

 

So slam is very good. 

 

3H probably would have been a better call over 2C, assuming partner played it for shortness.  We did have the agreement that we do not make weird calls partner will not understand, not sure how that affects anything.

Thank you for a very interesting post with lots of side issues to think about.

 

tough hand......to bid 6c on.....lots of interesting side issues throughout the bidding. ty.

[skjaeran]

What would (should?) 3♥ have meant over 2♣? Not that I would blame someone for not wanting to risk it.

Obvious splinter to me. I'd not consider it a risk at all with a reasonably experienced partner.

[RichMor]

Thanks all for your responses.

 

I passed at the table.  Partner had

xx

Axxx

x

AKTxxx

 

So slam is very good. 

 

3H probably would have been a better call over 2C, assuming partner played it for shortness.  We did have the agreement that we do not make weird calls partner will not understand, not sure how that affects anything.

OK, assume 3♥ shows shortness. Then what does 3♣ mean after responder has bid Diamonds and Spades naturally ?

 

Maybe the difference could be the quality of Club support. Raise with Qxx or better and show shortness with lesser Clubs.