Innocuous Hand

[ArtK78]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=satxhakxdxxxxcqxx]133|100|1♦ - (P) - ?[/hv]

 

This seems so obvious to me at the time.

 

How about you?

 

Try to forget that this is being submitted as a problem.

[Codo]

In Sayc this is a 2 NT, showing 13-15 isn't it?

 

But I still wait for a partner to play this way, so I bid 3 NT, showing a balanced 13-15 where I live.

[bid_em_up]

I would initially respond 2D inverted (however, 1D openings in my partnerships are 4+, so I know there is at least a 4-4 fit already). A leap to 3N just about kills any possibility of finding 6D.

[mtvesuvius]

2NT: 13-15 Balanced... 2♥ would be 10-12 Balanced or a SJS, leaving 2NT for this purpose.

[JLOL]

It would help to know something about our system

[rogerclee]

If I had to bid 3N to show this hand, I would bid 2♦.

 

If I could bid 2N to show this hand, I would do that.

[hanp]

I prefer 3NT over 2D.

[jdonn]

If I had to bid 3N to show this hand, I would bid 2♦.

 

If I could bid 2N to show this hand, I would do that.

That's how I feel too. Slam is way too likely for me to bid 3NT, if partner has long diamonds and some shape. He might pull 3NT on such a hand but he might not and I don't want to make him guess.

[skjaeran]

2♦ GF with support.

Unless partner makes a positive move, 3NT next.

I'll cooperate if partner makes a slam move.

[kenrexford]

This is, in a sense, the same "problem" that drives me nuts with the old "13-15" 3NT response to a minor opening. The bid should either show a primed hand or a quacks hand. I can live with either, but not both. But when it could be anything, it makes partner's head explode trying to decide what the heck to do at the four-level, if anything.

 

There's something to be said for 2NT and 3NT responses showing the same basic range (12-15 or so), but one primed and one quacked. Never heard of that, though.

[jdonn]

There's something to be said for 2NT and 3NT responses showing the same basic range (12-15 or so), but one primed and one quacked. Never heard of that, though.

There is no point, why not just have 2NT show both? That's way more playable than 3NT showing both.

[whereagles]

Hands like these are the reason why I designed a proper inverted raise scheme.

 

Under normal circumstances I'd just bid 2♣ (or 3NT if I feel like hogging the hand). If opener has a stiff heart, the hand will play better in diamonds.

[kenrexford]

There's something to be said for 2NT and 3NT responses showing the same basic range (12-15 or so), but one primed and one quacked.  Never heard of that, though.

There is no point, why not just have 2NT show both? That's way more playable than 3NT showing both.

Well, true. Maybe, though, it would be nice if 3NT showed a tight-range quacker and 2NT showed a wider range primer?

 

Just thinking...

[ArtK78]

Here is the hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skjxxhjxxxdaqjxxc&s=satxhakxdxxxxcqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♦ - (P) - 3NT - All Pass[/hv]

 

As many do, we play that 3NT shows a balanced 13-15 and the 1♦ opener only promises 3 cards. So I bid what seemed like a perfectly normal 3NT. The opps took the first 5 clubs and the ♦K was offside (fortunately).

 

At the other table, RHO overcalled 2♣ so my opponents avoided 3NT. They wound up in 5♦ losing a trick in each suit (rather unluckily) other than clubs for down 1.

 

I would rather be in 6♦ than in 3NT on these cards.

 

As several posters have noted, using 3NT to show this type of hand, while common, is flawed. This hand shows one of those flaws. My partner didn't think his hand merited a move over 3NT. His decision could have been right.

[kgr]

Similar bidding: [hv=d=s&n=skxhkxdaqtxxc98xx&s=sjxhaqxdjxcaktxxx]133|200|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

South opened 1♣ (openings are 5=5=4=2, 1♣ is 2+ card).

North bid 3NT, protectecting twice Kx, to play (typically 12-14 pts).

3NT is passed out.

Lead is a small ♠ for the K to North. Making 3NT+4.

Should bidding be different here?