Finch Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 I disagree the auction doesn't exist, because partner held this hand at IMPS. AxAxxQTxxxxxx Auction1D-1N2D-3N Unfortunately, I had thexxxxxAKxxxAxx hand, but certainly partner was correct in bidding 3N. He thinks, I probably have 6 top tricks in diamonds, and 2 Acess. If partner has a 9th trick for me, we just bid a good very light game at IMPS. No, I'll stick with the auction doesn't exist. Since when is 4-card support with 2 honours and 2 outside aces a 1NT response? It's not as if it has any particularly positional holdings that mean it wants to declare NT. I show this is a limit diamond raise in whatever way my methods allow. If partner has 6 diamonds and 2 aces he won't find it hard to bid 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 Oooooh noooooooooo I'm starting to agree with Ken..... In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive. But I would never assume anything like that agreement. Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds). It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT. You play 1♣ - 1N - 3♦ as natural and non-forcing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 Oooooh noooooooooo I'm starting to agree with Ken..... In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive. But I would never assume anything like that agreement. Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds). It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT. You play 1♣ - 1N - 3♦ as natural and non-forcing? I hoped that the "three obvious" 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences would exclude that one (which I play as an autosplinter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 If you play that opener will rebid 1N with all balanced hands, including one or two 4 card majors, then I think that responder should bid 1♦, and I don't think that this is remotely difficult or close. What is it that makes this a good hand to declare 1N, with those wonderful major suit cards? If opener rebids 1N, we have no problem: this hand has no reason to think it missed a game, so has the world's easiest pass. If opener rebids a major, showing an unbalanced hand, we may have an issue: 2♣ or 3♣? But that hasn't happened yet. Yes, 1♦ makes it easier for the opps to get in, but if 4th seat has a major suit overcall, he's leading that suit, probably successfully, against 1N (or higher) or he may be bidding 2Major anyway.. so this loss is not as great as it may seem. If you don't play this method (and this hand is a classic illustration of some of the advantages of doing so) then I accept 1N, since the hand is impossible after an up the line major suit, which might be based on 1=4=3=5 or 4=4=2=3 and so on. Assuming that 1N was blameless in context, 2♣ strikes me as semi-idiotic. We have a balanced minimum, and partner suggested 1N as a destination. Yes, maybe on a bad day we go down.. but partner has at least 3 clubs, so we can realistically see 5 or 6 tricks in our hand.. why the pessimism? The kindest thing one can say about 3N is that it makes 2♣ seem like an almost normal bid. 3N shows an utter failure to have the slightest clue about standard bidding, or it is intended as an insult to partner. If one wanted to express doubts about partner's bidding of 2♣, the way to do so is to bid 3♣.. conveying the message that 'your clubs are running, and I have a super-max... wanna try for game?'. BTW, another issue not canvassed, that impacts the assessment of blame, is the meaning of 1N. In NA many players define 1N as 8-10, in which case pulling 1N becomes less semi-idiotic, and more purely idiotic, while bidding 3N passes the outer limits of idiocy. Not that I have any strong feelings on the bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 I like the Ken-Frances switch only after 1C-1NT, not after 1D-1NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 3Nt is just too lame. If i would make a move over 2C i would just bid 2D. For me 2C doesnt show extra it just say that i prefer 2C to 1Nt. The argument that 2C help the opponent to compete more than its help your side doesnt hold. Responder has 8-10 and a balanced hand and opener might easily have 4M or a balanced 5332. So competing inst safe at all. You might have the agreement that 2C is invitationnal so that with minimum hand you are forced to pass 1NT, I dont really like it & i would consider this not standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 1C-1NT-2C Invites the opps to compete in the major...but were I play opps will also compete over 1C-1NT-Pass. My partner prefers then that I have bid 3C and that he knows that I have real Clubs. 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.