Responder's options

[peachy]

Expert team match on BBO. All vul. Partner opens 1C in second seat.

Playing 2/1. Relevant agreements: inverted minors, 2N to 1m = invit, 3N to 1m = 13-15.

 

What is your call as responder with

Q103

Q2

AK98

Q943

 

I wasn't quite happy with my action, but what calls are reasonable?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3NT.

 

If you are worried about missing slam, or about

missing stoppers than bid 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

I'll bid 2♣.

 

I'm not a fan of responding 3NT to any opening bid, and would probably only do so with 4333 hands.

[kfay]

This hand really looks like it wants to play 3NT from my side.

 

Generally I only like to make big jumps like this with specific hands, for instance 13-15 here with 3=3=4=3 shape. I wouldn't mind my partner breaching agreements on this hand though. Slam isn't a huge concern for me since if it's on partner either has the shape/controls or the power to take another bid.

 

I guess I've talked myself into it. 3NT. I'll leave it to someone else to explain why I should just stick to a mundane 2♣ if they think that's right.

[miguelm]

3NT.

 

Too many losers... 3 Queens... what else :)

[helene_t]

If 3NT is "to play" then I think it's a good idea to bid 3NT with this hand. If you only do it with standard hands you guide the defense too much when you do use it, and besides when you don't bid 3NT directly, p should be able to take some inference from that fact.

 

If I don't bid 3NT, I prefer 2♣ rather than 1♦. Three reasons:

- There is plenty of bidding space after 2♣. It can't be right not to allow 4-card raises.

- We are not going to play 6♣ in a 3-4 fit since I am not gong for slam opposite a balanced opener.

- After 1♦ the auction get clumsy since I will have to use fsf.

[kenrexford]

IMO, all blasts to 3NT should have some hand type as far as honor type, not so much a HCP range. There is a vast difference between 13-15 prime and 13-15 junk. It makes it a lot easier for Opener to know what to do if your type is one or the other.

 

If you like the "immediate is crap" school, then 3NT is perfect. Partner will expect quacks and won't pursue a slam that requires primes.

 

If you like "immediate is primes," then this hand is obviously wrong.

 

If you do either, I think you will have long-run problems. Better, IMO, to bid something forcing with the primes hand. I could be sold that "immediate with primes" is also workable, as far as discussion between partners in the bidding, but I think that style would wrong-side contracts too often.

 

The "must be 4333" school seems inferior. I think honor type is much more important than strict shape.

 

BTW, I think this same issue is present if 1M-P-3NT shows 13-15; you should still have some agreement as to honor type.

[jdonn]

Of course this all just shows how much better it is to find a systemic way to play 2NT game forcing, since you can then bid it on essentially all hands people are talking about, let partner raise to game on his balanced hands and you have not given away unnecessary information, and let partner investigate on his unbalanced hands and you won't get to the wrong contract.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

2C. My inverted minor scheme normally gets us to the best contract.

 

1C-3NT with a partial heart stopper and a thin spade stopper looks a bit much.

 

Regards,

Robert

[skjaeran]

Playing transfer responses over 1♣, I can respond 2NT; 13+ balanced.

[MarkDean]

1♦ for me. I also like to play 2NT as nat and forcing if possible. I would not bid 3NT unless I had to, and it had a very specific meaning.

[peachy]

Appreciate all comments so far. At the table, I downgraded my hand to a good 12 and bid 2C, semiworried that 2NT could be passed and semiworried about both majors being stopped. Probably just worthless worry? The auction proceeded:

1C (P) 2C (P)

2S (P) 3C (Dbl)

Rdbl (P) P (3D)

P (3H)4C (P)

5C (P) P (P)

 

I felt we are in the wrong place.

What do you expect opener to hold in this auction? 2S promised spades stopped and either no heart stopper or a hand that will go on after potential signoff.

[mike777]

3nt KISS

[cherdanno]

Appreciate all comments so far. At the table, I downgraded my hand to a good 12 and bid 2C, semiworried that 2NT could be passed and semiworried about both majors being stopped. Probably just worthless worry? The auction proceeded:

1C (P) 2C (P)

2S (P) 3C (Dbl)

Rdbl (P) P (3D)

P (3H)4C (P)

5C (P) P (P)

 

I felt we are in the wrong place.

What do you expect opener to hold in this auction? 2S promised spades stopped and either no heart stopper or a hand that will go on after potential signoff.

I really don't like your bidding sequence. You are suggesting a shapely limit raise of clubs that is low in high cards. I would bid 2NT rather than 3♣, and I don't think 4♣ is an option over 3♥ after partner has suggested to play for penalties. You have extras in defense not offense.

[Phil]

1♦ for me. I also like to play 2NT as nat and forcing if possible. I would not bid 3NT unless I had to, and it had a very specific meaning.

Me too. Why are we making an IM raise with 4 when we have a good alternative? The opponents bidding hearts will help with our hand evaluation IMO.

[mikeh]

I feel like I am on another planet, with very little company.

 

To me this looks like an absolutely routine 1♦.

 

Yes, on occasion, 3N by my side will play better due to my heart Qx (and maybe my spade holding), but most of the time it won't matter.

 

In the meantime, other than that problem (which usually won't matter) what can go wrong with 1♦?

 

And lots can go right.

 

If partner rebids a major, showing (I assume) an unbalanced hand, we can usually work out whether to play clubs or notrump, or even a club slam.

 

If partner rebids 1N, we jump to game and RHO, the player least likely to hold a good 5 card major, is on lead.

 

Put it this way... AKxx xx xx AKxxx.... you reach 3N on an uncontested auction, after 2N or 3N by responder, down 1 and moan that there was nothing either of you could do about it. Nice bidding. Surely, by this time bridge has evolved beyond this?

 

Now, inverted is a reasonable alternative, but I don't like playing inverted without complex agreements, since complex opening hands become very difficult to bid absent such agreements. I'd rather use 1♦ here... even if we are playing inverted.

[kenrexford]

...what can go wrong with 1♦?

Two major things come to mind.

 

#1 -- the opponents find something out. In a blank auction, the opponents have to find a lead with very little info, and they have to work out more as to what you have even later in the defense. A slow auction to 3NT reveals which major partner has (if any(, how many diamonds and clubs you have, and the like.

 

#2 -- and this is a key one, IMO. If 1♣-P-3NT shows this hand (I'm not saying that it does necessarily, but stay with me), then 1♣-P-1♦...3NT shows something else. Two different sequences to the same contract do not show the same thing. That might not matter in some sequences, but it may very much matter to partner in some situations. If partner, for example, has some strongish hand with slam interest, he might make a wise pass after a 3NT "I have quacks" jump but force beyond 3NT after a slower auction because he thinks you must not have quacks, and hence must be more prime, which might be what he needs.

 

All of this does not lead to the conclusion that 1♦ is wrong. It might well be right. But, you did ask what could go wrong with bidding 1♦.

[Phil]

...what can go wrong with 1♦?

Two major things come to mind.

 

#1 -- the opponents find something out. In a blank auction, the opponents have to find a lead with very little info, and they have to work out more as to what you have even later in the defense. A slow auction to 3NT reveals which major partner has (if any(, how many diamonds and clubs you have, and the like.

 

#2 -- and this is a key one, IMO. If 1♣-P-3NT shows this hand (I'm not saying that it does necessarily, but stay with me), then 1♣-P-1♦...3NT shows something else. Two different sequences to the same contract do not show the same thing. That might not matter in some sequences, but it may very much matter to partner in some situations. If partner, for example, has some strongish hand with slam interest, he might make a wise pass after a 3NT "I have quacks" jump but force beyond 3NT after a slower auction because he thinks you must not have quacks, and hence must be more prime, which might be what he needs.

 

All of this does not lead to the conclusion that 1♦ is wrong. It might well be right. But, you did ask what could go wrong with bidding 1♦.

I like 1♦ for the specific reason that my LHO will tell me about the heart suit.

 

Yes, the one that he was about to lead against my 3N bash.

[kenrexford]

...what can go wrong with 1♦?

Two major things come to mind.

 

#1 -- the opponents find something out. In a blank auction, the opponents have to find a lead with very little info, and they have to work out more as to what you have even later in the defense. A slow auction to 3NT reveals which major partner has (if any(, how many diamonds and clubs you have, and the like.

 

#2 -- and this is a key one, IMO. If 1♣-P-3NT shows this hand (I'm not saying that it does necessarily, but stay with me), then 1♣-P-1♦...3NT shows something else. Two different sequences to the same contract do not show the same thing. That might not matter in some sequences, but it may very much matter to partner in some situations. If partner, for example, has some strongish hand with slam interest, he might make a wise pass after a 3NT "I have quacks" jump but force beyond 3NT after a slower auction because he thinks you must not have quacks, and hence must be more prime, which might be what he needs.

 

All of this does not lead to the conclusion that 1♦ is wrong. It might well be right. But, you did ask what could go wrong with bidding 1♦.

I like 1♦ for the specific reason that my LHO will tell me about the heart suit.

 

Yes, the one that he was about to lead against my 3N bash.

Yes, that is a pro to the slow auction. I also sometimes like slow auctions for that reason.

 

All I was saying is that there are pros and cons, and you cannot get a true answer by focusing exclusively on the pros of your instinctive preference without seeing the cons of your preference, understanding the cons of the alternative (often observed) and the counters to those cons (not as often observed), and also understanding the pros of the alternative.

[hanp]

I don't understand 1D. If you don't want to bash 3NT with this hand then you can just bid an honest 2C? If you don't play a good system over 2C then you can change your system.

[peachy]

Appreciate all comments so far. At the table, I downgraded my hand to a good 12 and bid 2C, semiworried that 2NT could be passed and semiworried about both majors being stopped. Probably just worthless worry? The auction proceeded:

1C (P) 2C (P)

2S (P) 3C (Dbl)

Rdbl (P) P (3D)

P (3H)4C (P)

5C (P) P (P)

 

 

I really don't like your bidding sequence. You are suggesting a shapely limit raise of clubs that is low in high cards. I would bid 2NT rather than 3♣, and I don't think 4♣ is an option over 3♥ after partner has suggested to play for penalties. You have extras in defense not offense.

I usually wait til the end to butt in again. You said 2C suggested a shapely limit raise in clubs. Actually, it promises a limit or better raise in clubs. Maybe you meant that 3C suggested shapely? Dunno why. 3C suggested "limit raise but not necessarily gameforcing; passable".

 

Partner's 2S initially denied a heart stopper (or: he had both majors stopped with spade suit and was going to continue after a possible 3C signoff from partner). It seemed to me at the time that we don't have enough trumps ♥ to defend 3HX, me having Qx and partner not known to have heart stopper or length in hearts.

 

I think my initial mistake was to downgrade the quacky 13 to a non-gameforce hand I should have just blasted 3NT.

[jdonn]

Peachy I have to agree with cherdano. Think of it this way. You have a balanced hand that is half queens, and four card support for your partner's 3+ club suit. And the three bids you took were clubs, clubs, and clubs. How can that be the best description, even if your hand had been a hair weaker and thus not a game force?

[cherdanno]

Just to clarify, I didn't think 2♣ promises a shapely limit raise, but your sequence 2C-3C-4C should show one. Also, if your partner redoubles AND doubles 3♥, then with your AK and Qx of trumps you shouldn't be ashamed of your defensive holdings at all. I would expect down 2 if you forced me to guess. And if partner passes out 3♥, I would still rather defend than play 4♣.

I also still think 2♣ was fine.

I hope you don't mind my strong language, but my opinion that bidding 4♣ is a mistake is very strong indeed. IMO it is much more of a mistake than any of 2N, 3N, 1D, 2C at your first bid could be, and that this is the most useful thing to give my opinion about in this thread.

[mikeh]

...what can go wrong with 1♦?

Two major things come to mind.

 

 

 

#2 -- and this is a key one, IMO. If 1♣-P-3NT shows this hand (I'm not saying that it does necessarily, but stay with me), then 1♣-P-1♦...3NT shows something else. Two different sequences to the same contract do not show the same thing. That might not matter in some sequences, but it may very much matter to partner in some situations. If partner, for example, has some strongish hand with slam interest, he might make a wise pass after a 3NT "I have quacks" jump but force beyond 3NT after a slower auction because he thinks you must not have quacks, and hence must be more prime, which might be what he needs.

 

3N doesn't show this hand. 3N shows a balanced hand with all side suits stopped. Qx is yet to be defined as a stopper, when opposite anywhere from AKJ10 to a void.. now, maybe he won't/shouldn't pass 3N with, say, AJxx void QJxx AJxxx... but where is he going? And he sure as heck is passing with AJxx x QJx AJxxx and so on.

 

Ok, I would bid 3N on Qxx... and on some hands that is no more a stopper than is Qx... but it is usually a more effective holding :) .

 

I admit that if we ran this as a simulation, there will be hands on which the notrump bidders prevail, and many hands... the majority, I would think, on which any plausible auction will reach the same spot. But I also think that there will be more downside, in terms of size of loss and frequency of loss, from the blind bashing on this hand than from use of science.. and I include 1♦ as science.. even tho it isn't at all complex.

 

The problem with 2♣ is that unless we play a good method, we will often be groping in the dark as to what partner holds... the OP revealed that his partnership was so afflicted... and I have seen a whole lot of pairs screw up inverted minors as soon as either partner has anything out of the ordinary or the opps interfere. IM is a powerful tool, but most who use it don't use it properly.

[jdonn]

Mike I don't know why you are so worried about the method. If you are worried about a heart stopper, then bid 3NT over 2♥ or 2NT, or 3♦ over anything else. That seems like it will get you through.