Just a nice hand

[foo]

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

 

Comments?

yep. A 1-♠ minimum 2/1 with ♦'s that could not be bid or that was too weak to raise 3C.

 

J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx

+

AKT9xx_Qx_x_KQxx

 

3N by N looks acceptable to me.

 

12 tricks may there DD, but being in slam looks greedy. Not SD odds on.

[RichMor]

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

 

Comments?

Comment #1: 3NT is not our best spot.

 

Comment #2: The example hand makes sense in the context of 2NT/3NT expressing doubt.

[gnasher]

Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N

 

So  1S-2H;2S-2N  starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT

Not a shapely 5431 or 5521.

 

But when the auction continues  ...;3C-3N  Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N.  Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point.  Where are the ♦'s?

 

The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

I'm surprised that you can't think of a better meaning for this 3NT bid than to say that responder's previous action was a misbid. At least you seem to have dropped the suggestion that he might be 1552.

 

If 2NT showed a doubleton spade, and (as you've previously told us) 3♣ showed 6-4, wouldn't 3NT be some sort of slam try for spades?

[JLOL]

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

 

Comments?

LOL

[JLOL]

Comment #2: The example hand makes sense in the context of 2NT/3NT expressing doubt.

LOL

[foo]

Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N

 

So  1S-2H;2S-2N  starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT

Not a shapely 5431 or 5521.

 

But when the auction continues  ...;3C-3N  Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N.  Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point.  Where are the ♦'s?

 

The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

I'm surprised that you can't think of a better meaning for this 3N bid.

 

If 2N showed a doubleton spade, and (as you've previously told us) 3♣ showed 6-4, wouldn't 3NT be some sort of slam try for spades?

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction. As they were here in fact. (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N , with J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx or the like?)

 

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

 

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

[mike777]

edit

[gnasher]

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction. As they were here in fact. (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N , with J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx or the like?)

 

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

 

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

So when you said that this auction was "nigh unto impossible" because "We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N", you actually meant that 2NT followed by 3NT is a perfectly normal action, showing a 1534 or 1543 shape with a poor second suit?

[foo]

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction.  As they were here in fact.  (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N ,  with  J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx  or the like?)

 

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

 

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

So when you said that this auction was "nigh unto impossible" because "We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N", you actually meant that 2N followed by 3N is a perfectly normal action, showing a 1534 or 1543 shape with a poor second suit?

It's both "perfectly normal" and not.

 

With the hand type given, it's "perfectly normal"

 

What's relatively rare is having a hand of that type that is good enough to 2/1 GF.

 

J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx

 

...is a control rich 5431 minimum opening with almost perfect value placement. Only something like

J_AKxxx_(AJxx_xxx) or

x_AKJxx_(AJxx_xxx) would be better.

 

But relatively rare or not, these are important hand types that we must have a way to bid.

 

So 1S-2H;2S-2N;foo-3N is likely to be better as natural rather than Serious 3N unless "foo" was 3S and irrevocably set trumps.

[han]

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

[CSGibson]

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

+1

[foo]

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

+1

WiTW are you complaining about?

 

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision. I gave both. They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

 

Someone else asked about using a different meaning for the sequence given and I tried to answer that logically. Even included examples.

 

So what's your beef? Please PM it since I do not want to derail this thread any further or air private dirty laundry in public.

[Finch]

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision. I gave both. They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

Correct?

 

Having seen partner's hand it's clear that 4H or 4S are both better contracts than 3NT.

[foo]

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision.  I gave both.  They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

Correct?

 

Having seen partner's hand it's clear that 4H or 4S are both better contracts than 3NT.

I did not say 3N was perfect. I said it was acceptable. *shrug* it is.

 

The best contract looks to be 4S. But IMHO the only realistic way to get there is for Opener to mastermind and bid 4S over 3N.

 

...and how's that going to play compared to 3N if Responder has the ♠x instead pf ♠J?

 

I'm reminded of the AJ Simon quote about the best result possible vs the best possible result.

[jdonn]

Comment 1: 4♥ seems obvious to me over 3NT.

Comment 2: This thread is fun. I disagree with you han, I think foo's arrival has made the thread more interesting not less.

[Fluffy]

maybe to you Josh, but I just cannot read a single word he writes.

[jdonn]

maybe to you Josh, but I just cannot read a single word he writes.

I think it all hinges on your definition of "interesting". :)

[655321]

I vote with Han & Fluffy.

[the hog]

"It's both "perfectly normal" and not."

 

I think that makes perfect sense and it doesn't. I both disagree and agree with Han and Fluffy because I can and can't read Foo's posts.

[benlessard]

I play that 2S is a catch all bid, so its an easy 3C rebid (and 2S is a poor bid). If 2S show 6 Ill probably rebid 2S followed by 3H. I think that Qx in partner suit is a more relevant feature for slam or for COG than showing my 4 card minor. If my hand was stronger ill bid S+C+H but here its not clear that 4H will always make so bypassing 3Nt is a bit dangerous (slightly i agree).

[benlessard]

Also i think that 2Nt should show positionals values and is rarely a catchall bid. Here however you are a bit screwed since both 3C and 3D are misbids so 2Nt is probably correct.

[the hog]

I play that 2S is a catch all bid, so its an easy 3C rebid (and 2S is a poor bid). If 2S show 6 Ill probably rebid 2S followed by 3H. I think that Qx in partner suit is a more relevant feature for slam or for COG than showing my 4 card minor. If my hand was stronger ill bid S+C+H but here its not clear that 4H will always make so bypassing 3Nt is a bit dangerous (slightly i agree).

I take issue with the comment that 2S is a "bad bid". For me and for many, 3C would show more strength. Hard to believe that anyone can call rebidding a 6 card suit a "bad bid."

I would need to know more about the style that is played to determine whether i would bid 4H. Does the given sequence show a minimum as Cherdano suggests, or does it show extra strength?

[gwnn]

I vote for 655321 and Josh.

[cherdano]

I would need to know more about the style that is played to determine whether i would bid 4H. Does the given sequence show a minimum as Cherdano suggests, or does it show extra strength?

In NA, it is pretty universal that responder's sequence does not show extras.

[gnasher]

In NA, it is pretty universal that responder's sequence does not show extras.

Does it deny extras?