Hamman, or is there a better solution?

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hakdkt87cqt8653&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c1h1sp2c2h3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

3N, 4♦, ambiguous cue-bid, or something else?

[Siegmund]

MP or wIMP?

 

Ugly either way, knowing all my values are in the wrong places except that DK. I am fine with 3NT to hope for a plus and to cool down partner.(But at imps on this forum, I expect to be in a minority, somehow.)

[CSGibson]

MP or wIMP?

 

Ugly either way, knowing all my values are in the wrong places except that DK. I am fine with 3NT to hope for a plus and to cool down partner.(But at imps on this forum, I expect to be in a minority, somehow.)

 

 

X-Imps

[rhm]

I think slam prospects are excellent. Partner is showing at least 5-5 in the suits bid by him. The fact that ♥s have not been raised makes it unlikely that partner is short in ♥. Accordingly he is short in ♣, quite possibly void.

If partner has no ace, 3NT is as dead as 5♦ (unless partner is void in ♣, where 5♦ makes), but 3NT goes down more. If partner has one ace, 5♦ will often make when 3NT will not, while the opposite is extremely remote. If partner has 2 aces, 6♦ looks reasonable.

 

Accordingly bid 3♥ followed by 4♦, if possible and forcing or if that is doubtful, continue with 4♥. If partner jumps to 5♦ raise to 6♦. If 4♦ is minorwood, a direct 4♦ would also be reasonable.

 

3NT is a poor bid, especially when playing IMPs. Hamman would not bid 3NT here. A possible hand for partner:

 

♠ AKxxx, ♥xx, ♦Axxxxx, ♣--

 

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

3D strongly suggests playing in diamonds. With just some gameforcing 5-2-4-2 shape partner should double.

 

We don't have a great hand for partner, but we do have the best possible diamond support. I would not bid 3NT.

 

Usually I do not like bidding an ambiguous 3H and prefer 4D instead. However, if we bid 4D will bypass hearts to deny a control there, and we will be badly placed. I'll bid 3H for that reason.

[gnasher]

Everyone seems very sure that 3♦ shows a good hand. What would responder do with a competitive 5-5?

[JLOGIC]

With 5251 partner would double or pass. With 5152 partner would bid 3C.

[pooltuna]

IMPS - 4♦

MP - ...eggs in one basket

 

I have to abstain from voting because you didn't think method of scoring was relevant.

[MrAce]

I am not bidding 3 nt. We didnt show out ♦ suit due to reverse requirements, now pd bids it at 3 level, are we going to pretend like we didn't hear him ?

 

And of course 3♦ is good hand. I am bidding 3♥ now.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hakdkt87cqt8653&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c1h1sp2c2h3dp]133|200| 3N, 4♦, ambiguous cue-bid, or something else? [/hv]

IMO 3N = 10, 3♥ = 7, 4♦ = 5. Partnership agreements vary. For us: partner's 3♦ is GF but doesn't promise a five-card suit. 2♠, 2N and 3♣ by partner would have been non-forcing. And if he had doubled 2♥ that would have been a penalty suggestion.

 

Even without such an understanding, IMO, it seems more sensible for partner

• to double 2♥ with a ♣ shortage rather than a ♥ shortage.
• to bid 3♦ with ♣ tolerance rather than ♥ values.

[AlexJonson]

Siegmund certainly had it right.

 

I uneasily voted 3NT, but I've just remembered an argument - 3NT is two tricks less than 5D, though it does score less than 6D.

[Siegmund]

I should add that I was not expecting extras nor 5-5 from partner (in fact if pressed I would name 5242 and 5341 as the most likely distributions.) I am still too old-fashioned for it to cross my mind that partner would double 2H without a trick in hearts that he'll probably never have.

 

Perhaps the fact that partner failed to bid a westerncueish 3H should convince me he is strongly enough suit-oriented that we always belong in diamonds. I was thinking more of the fact some of partner's slamgoing monsters might cuebid, and that I had two heart stoppers so hands where partner passed up a chance to find 3NT if I had one stopper might still belong in notrump (mostly hands where partner turns up with Kx in clubs or something, for 3N to beat 5m.) Wish I knew just how partner decided between 3D and 3H!

[gnasher]

Everyone seems very sure that 3♦ shows a good hand. What would responder do with a competitive 5-5?

With 5251 partner would double or pass. With 5152 partner would bid 3C.

 

In the sequence:

1

♦

1

♥

1

♠

2

♥

you would play 3♣ as just competitive, and double followed by 3♣ as stronger, wouldn't you?

 

But in the sequence:

1

♣

1

♥

1

♠

pass

2

♣

2

♥

you play 3♦ as forcing, and double followed by 3♦ as competitive.

 

What is it that causes the meanings to switch?

[JLOGIC]

I would never want to bid 3D just competitive I guess. Partner might have 7 clubs or 2-2 in the pointed suits (2326) or whatever, in all cases bidding 3D competitive will go past my ideal spot (3C or 2S). Even if I was 6-5 I would just bid 2S probably. I guess I could be 5-6 in spades and diamonds with a weak hand, but that seems like an unlikely case. I would rather bid 3D on hands where I don't want partner to pass, like a strong 6-5 or 5152 or something, and X and bid 3D with a more flexible strong hand, possibly even with 5-4 (like 5341 no heart stopper).

 

In the first auction I don't have a takeout double available the way I play but I understand your point. I think it is different because 3D is a reverse (or a high reverse or whatever it's called), and reverses in general are always strong. I don't know if this is technically a reverse but it takes us past 2S and 3C so it seems like logically it should be strong. Also we could always be raising clubs here with 2 since partner is a known 6 card suit, so I just think cases where 3D NF is needed are pretty unusual. I think in almost all auctions a new suit at the 3 level by responder is strong also, so it doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me.

[JLOGIC]

 

We don't have a great hand for partner, but we do have the best possible diamond support. I would not bid 3NT.

 

 

??? I thought our hand was orgasmic :P

[gszeszycki]

3N Very important bid at this point for the following reasons

 

1. we limit our hand. The upper limit for 2c is a lot higher than for 3n

 

2. It might be our last playable spot.

 

3. there is no strong reason to assume p isnt just making a forcing bid with 5 spades

raising dia here might lead to disaster.

 

4. we might avoid disaster and p can still bid 4d 4s etc with a really distributional hand

[the hog]

We have an excellent hand in support of Ds. This is a clear 3H bid followed by D support. 3NT is very poor indeed.

[dake50]

My partner means S+D upwards (not competing) on this auction.

I like 6D unless missing 2xA.

[mike777]

We have an excellent hand in support of Ds. This is a clear 3H bid followed by D support. 3NT is very poor indeed.

ditto

[Ant590]

I quite like a KISS 4♦

[han]

But in the sequence:

1

♣

1

♥

1

♠

pass

2

♣

2

♥

you play 3♦ as forcing, and double followed by 3♦ as competitive.

 

 

I know you weren't asking me, but if I had a competitive 5-2-5-1, I wouldn't be doubling planning to bid 3D, I would double and pass most of partner's calls.

[whereagles]

Well, I'll just stick to the boring 3NT bid.

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj8743h875daqjc8&w=sq9h96d98542ckj96&n=s2hakdkt76cqt5432&e=skt65hqjt432d3ca7&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c1h1sp2c2h3dp4dp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This was actually the full hand and auction (you may have noticed that some of the spots changed; these are the accurate ones).

 

I have some thoughts about this hand - One is that South's proper bid over 2♥ should be double, in my opinion, with 3♠ being a distant 2nd choice. This is no longer a game forcing hand on the auction, as our marginal game force has gotten worse and worse, so I would even think about 2♠ at matchpoints. I think that ♦ should be a serious suggestion of strain, not just a make-do force with values in the suit.

 

2nd is the problem I gave to you as North - what to do over 3♦. I agree with those of you who said 3♥ was the best call over this, with 4♦ the 2nd best call in my opinion (and the call I made at the table). I have no sympathy for those that bid NT, however, because of the negative inference given by partner not bidding 3♥ - if partner had a fitting club A or K, he would have just asked for a stopper, assuming his fitting honor would give you a decent chance of running the suit. When he doesn't bid 3♥, you are never going to be able to use your clubs as a source of tricks for NT, because you "know" it's going to take at least 2 rounds of the suit to get them going. That means that you have to depend on partner for approximately 6-7 tricks while only allowing for losing the lead once. It seems that you won't have the tempo for 3N except when 5 or 6 ♦ is on ice anyway.

 

 

3rd is a different problem - what do you bid as South with semi-solid spades, diamond values, and a hand too good just to go to 4♠ directly? Then is the other time when I think 3♦, planning on converting to spades at the appropriate level, maybe made on a shorter suit like this - you know the strain already, you are just delaying the auction to get more information/help partner evaluate.

 

Anyway, having thought about this hand for too long, this is what I came up with. Please feel free to agree or disagree with any of my reasoning (like you need my permission...), I'm interested in finding out what other thoughts there are out there about the hand or anything I've said here.

[whereagles]

 

1. I have some thoughts about this hand - One is that South's proper bid over 2♥ should be double, in my opinion, with 3♠ being a distant 2nd choice. This is no longer a game forcing hand on the auction, as our marginal game force has gotten worse and worse, so I would even think about 2♠ at matchpoints. I think that ♦ should be a serious suggestion of strain, not just a make-do force with values in the suit.

 

2. 2nd is the problem I gave to you as North - what to do over 3♦. I agree with those of you who said 3♥ was the best call over this, with 4♦ the 2nd best call in my opinion (and the call I made at the table). I have no sympathy for those that bid NT, however, because of the negative inference given by partner not bidding 3♥ - if partner had a fitting club A or K, he would have just asked for a stopper, assuming his fitting honor would give you a decent chance of running the suit. When he doesn't bid 3♥, you are never going to be able to use your clubs as a source of tricks for NT, because you "know" it's going to take at least 2 rounds of the suit to get them going. That means that you have to depend on partner for approximately 6-7 tricks while only allowing for losing the lead once. It seems that you won't have the tempo for 3N except when 5 or 6 ♦ is on ice anyway.

 

3. 3rd is a different problem - what do you bid as South with semi-solid spades, diamond values, and a hand too good just to go to 4♠ directly? Then is the other time when I think 3♦, planning on converting to spades at the appropriate level, maybe made on a shorter suit like this - you know the strain already, you are just delaying the auction to get more information/help partner evaluate.

 

Anyway, having thought about this hand for too long, this is what I came up with. Please feel free to agree or disagree with any of my reasoning (like you need my permission...), I'm interested in finding out what other thoughts there are out there about the hand or anything I've said here.

 

allright, I'll be free to disagree with or without permission :P

 

1. If you really think the hand is no longer game forcing, by all means bid 2♠ or dbl or whatnot. But gimme 100 experienced good players and at least 99 of them are going to drive to game regardless. It's red at imps: you bid first and ask questions later.

 

In light of that, I find pard's hand quite difficult to bid. Even if you play 3♥ here as just a strong hand, it's not clear to opener what to rebid. That makes 3♦ a reasonable bid in context, but yes, dbl is probably the better bid. Certainly better than 3/4♠, which puts the eggs all in one basked.

 

 

2. Being a 3NT bidder, I confess if pard has his bid, say e.g.

 

AJ87xx

xx

AQJx

x

 

I'd prefer 6♦ to 3NT :) At least it has some play for.. lol. Going for my 3NT bid I have only the fact sometimes people don't have their bids, plus some cherry picked scenarios.

 

 

3. I don't think that hand will come up often and even if it does, you're better off going quietly at 4♠.

 

Well, whaddayaknow... I only disagreed in nr.3 :)

[han]

I may be way out there for saying this but.. I don't bid 3D here on a 3-card suit.