Little Kid Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s954h2dakqjt73cj4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] N E S WP 1♣ ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 3♦. Not really an underbid since partner's a passed hand, LHO isn't, and we're red on white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3D. Seems pretty textbook to me, given the conditions stated. If 1C-(2D) is one of the most hated auctions in natural bidding, lets see how they handle 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3C. I am not ruling out 3NT yet, even though partner is a passed hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3C. I am not ruling out 3NT yet, even though partner is a passed hand. Far from ruling it out, opposite a stopper you seem to be requiring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3♦ for me. Not very close to a 3♣ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3NT. Pard will pull without major suit stops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flameous Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Put a king into my other major and it's a 3C, now 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3♦ at this vulnerability, 4♦ at others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Kid Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 It seems like there is more or less a consensus to bid 3♦. At the table I bid the slightly optimistic 3♣, which I now realise is probably too agressive. The hand had an interesting development though when 3♣ got passed out after about about 30 seconds of thought from partner. The full hand was: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj763ht964d9652c2&w=sq8hkq873d84cak87&e=sakt2haj5dcqt9653&s=s954h2dakqjt73cj4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This made for a grand total of 0 tricks and -900. As soon as I had recovered from the shock of playing my 1st 2-1 fit and having my trumps drawn in two rounds, it suddenly dawned upon me that if the diamonds dont break, they probably have grand slam! At the other table our team mates got to 7♥ making, shipping us a nice 12 IMPs for going down 9 r/w! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 3c sucks, it is not just a little aggressive. You don't have a hand that will just have good play for 3N opp a club stopper and max of 11. It is also commonly played as natural in USA at least (in BWS it is natural for instance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 3c sucks, it is not just a little aggressive. You don't have a hand that will just have good play for 3N opp a club stopper and max of 11. It is also commonly played as natural in USA at least (in BWS it is natural for instance). Extremely odd comment. 3C only "sucks" if your agreement is that it shows 1) a natural bid or 2) that it shows a solid C suit AND outside cards. As many play that it JUST shows a soild suit, and as the op's post was non system specific, to say it "sucks" is naive and quite silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 3c sucks, it is not just a little aggressive. You don't have a hand that will just have good play for 3N opp a club stopper and max of 11. It is also commonly played as natural in USA at least (in BWS it is natural for instance). Extremely odd comment. 3C only "sucks" if your agreement is that it shows 1) a natural bid or 2) that it shows a solid C suit AND outside cards. As many play that it JUST shows a soild suit, and as the op's post was non system specific, to say it "sucks" is naive and quite silly. If your agreement is that it shows a solid suit with nothing outside, then I would say it's your agreement that sucks. But certainly you would be following your agreement on this hand, which could not be criticized. I don't think he was saying it sucks because it's often played as showing clubs, that was simply a side comment. FWIW I play it as natural over a minor, stopper asking over a major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Agree wiith the suckage. 3C just showing a solid diamond suit is not playable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I've never heard of 3♣ being just a solid suit. Anyone that plays this most likely has misinterpreted what the call shows. It's kind of what we used to call (insert a country you want to malign)"gambling 3N" where a 3N opening shows stoppers and pard is supposed to pass with a solid suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Apparently, I and the OP's partner are the only ones that play (1m) - 3m as natural and preemptive. Even if you think that (1♦) - 3♦ asks partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop (which I do not, although there is more of an argument for playing (1♦) - 3♦ as stopper asking than (1♣) - 3♣), why shouldn't (1♣) - 3♣ be natural? It comes up far more often than the hand that meets the criteria for bidding 3NT with the suit stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Apparently, I and the OP's partner are the only ones that play (1m) - 3m as natural and preemptive. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Apparently, I and the OP's partner are the only ones that play (1m) - 3m as natural and preemptive. LOL Somehow, I expected this response. Very well thought out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Somehow, I expected this response. Very well thought out.It was earned, because, speaking of well thought out, Apparently, I and the OP's partner are the only ones that play (1m) - 3m as natural and preemptive.which came after It is also commonly played as natural in USA at least (in BWS it is natural for instance).and FWIW I play it as natural over a minor, stopper asking over a major.neither of whom was the original poster's partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 neither of whom was the original poster's partner. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 OK - I missed those comments. Still, it took a long time before anyone mentioned the fact that (1♣) - 3♣ is not universally played as a stopper ask. The first 8 responses didn't question the fact that the 3♣ bid might mean something other than bid 3NT with clubs stopped. Most of them bid 3♦ anyway, presumably believing that a 3♣ bid asking for 3NT should be more than just a solid suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilgan Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Funny that this story is here, as I too got passed in what I felt was a western cue for the first time yesterday :P 1♥ - p - 1♠ - 3♠all pass Only went down 1 in my 4-1 fit! The opponents were held to their 5 spade tricks (5-3 break and partners 6432 of spades weren't winning any tricks). I would have taken your 3♣ there as natural though especially when not discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Agree wiith the suckage. 3C just showing a solid diamond suit is not playable. We haven't found it to be so. Quite the contrary as partner knows exactly what to expect. Mind you, none of these have a huge frequency of coming up.If you bid 3C on a variety of hands with a solid suit and cards outside, partner won't know what to do over many of your 3C bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s954h2dakqjt73cj4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] N E S WP 1♣ ? 1d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Agree wiith the suckage. 3C just showing a solid diamond suit is not playable. We haven't found it to be so. Quite the contrary as partner knows exactly what to expect. Mind you, none of these have a huge frequency of coming up.If you bid 3C on a variety of hands with a solid suit and cards outside, partner won't know what to do over many of your 3C bids. OK if you play that 3C shows a solid diamond suit and denies any other cards then that does indeed seem playable (partner will have a very good idea of what to do). In my earlier comment I was referring to 3C only showing the solid diamond suit and nothing about the other two suits then I think it is unplayable because partner would have to guess too much (especially when he has a good hand). But even though I can see the use for this gambling kind of 3C bid, it does seem like a very small target when partner is a passed hand. 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.