1S:1N, 3H:??

[MickyB]

1S:1N, 3H:?

 

x Jxx JT8xxx AJx

 

I know some people bid 3S on these hands, if so what do bids mean over 4m from partner?

[Fluffy]

I don´t understand, partner bid 1♠+3♥?, well I obviously don´t bid 3♠ now, I bid 4♥ id 3♥ must be 5-5 or 3NT otherwise, if partner will routinely pass 3NT with 5 hearts then maybe I should support.

[Phil]

4♥.

[aguahombre]

We have no toy alternatives to the 3x jump rebid holding only 5-4 in the two suits, so 3NT would be fine. With 5-5, pard can judge to rebid the hearts or not; and if she chooses not to, it probably will be right this time.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3NT. With slightly better hearts I'd bid 4♥. I don't understand 3♠.

[MickyB]

Yeah sorry, think I was misremembering the situation where giving preference on a stiff has some following - maybe it was 1H:1S, 3D:3H.

[gnasher]

Yeah sorry, think I was misremembering the situation where giving preference on a stiff has some following - maybe it was 1H:1S, 3D:3H.

In the original sequence, if you gave me K xxx Axxxxx xxx I'd bid 3♠, because now 4♠ opposite a 6412 shape might be quite a good idea.

[JLOGIC]

I am with gnasher, this is an easy 3N. I have both minor suits well stopped and no fit.

 

That said, this is probably the auction where "people" are most likely to false preferece to a singleton, a more typical hand would probably be 3 small in a minor and stiff honor in spades. Anyways, I have never false preferenced to a singleton in this kind of auction, maybe it is theoretically possible but I think too much is made about the possibility in print. It always comes up in MSC.

[bluecalm]

I bid 4H.

I would bid 3NT if I knew partner is 5-4 but he is sometimes 5-5 and won't bid 4H in this case it's disaster to be in 3N while it's only slightly inferior to be in 4H opposite 5-4 imo.

[ggwhiz]

Chunkier diamonds and weak clubs is an easy 4♥ bid for me but this one is 3nt.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S:1N, 3H:?

 

x Jxx JT8xxx AJx

 

I know some people bid 3S on these hands, if so what do bids mean over 4m from partner?

If you use mikeh's system, as put forth again recently, Opener here would definitely have shown at least a 5/5 in the Majors .

So, you would have an easy 4H bid .

 

[ His sequence to show 5s/4h would start with a 3C! artificial jump-shift. ]

 

Although 3NT may be the final contract in some of these SJS auctions, it is usually the last place you want to be.

[JLOGIC]

I bid 4H.

I would bid 3NT if I knew partner is 5-4 but he is sometimes 5-5 and won't bid 4H in this case it's disaster to be in 3N while it's only slightly inferior to be in 4H opposite 5-4 imo.

 

Slightly inferior? Playing 4H in a 4-3 looks like a disaster to me. Even if partner is 5-5 in the majors I don't see why I expect 3N to go down if he passes, he will have some minor suit cards and we have the HCP and stoppers to play 3N, and if he has a pure 5-5 AKQxx AKQxx xx x or something I would expect him to bid 4H over 3N.

[bluecalm]

Why disaster? We will often score several spades ruffs or establish them via ruffs arriving at tricks not available in NT.

Meanwhile they will often beat us via clubs in NT.

Do you see any way dd simulation could help with that ? I tried some assumptions and 3NT is way worse every time opposite whole range and very similar opposite 5-4.

I feel your intuition is way off here but I have no idea what I could do to prove/disprove that.

[nigel_k]

I also think 4♥ could easily be right. Hearts will usually play a trick better than NT when partner has only 4 hearts, and sometimes zero or two tricks better. When partner has five hearts, two tricks better is a lot more likely than zero. If the hearts were Qxx I would prefer 4♥, as it is I think it's very close.

[the hog]

3NT. There is no reason in the world partner needs to be 5/5.

[Fluffy]

I never have this problem as I bid 2NT with GF bal or semi bal hands leaving 3x (Except 1♠-3♣) as 5-5 at least.

[TimG]

I'd bid 3NT. With slightly better hearts I'd bid 4♥. I don't understand 3♠.

 

The idea behind 3S with this shape (not necessarily this hand) is to avoid an immediate commitment to what might be a 4-3 heart fit. I believe I read about it in a book by Al Roth though I am sure the theme has appeared elsewhere.

[gszes]

when we make this 3h jump shift we are doing it in the hopes the hand

is not a total misfit (otherwise we would open 2c). That means one suited

minor hands can bid their suit at the 4 level w/o fear opener will take the bid as

a cue bid and warning p of the total misfit and the non viability of 3n. Having

said that this hand is not a total misfit.

 

This hand also rates to make at least 1 if not 2 extra tricks just from

spade ruffs (who knows maybe even setting up extra spade tricks(s)

and we even have a side ace. 3n does indeed provide minor suit

stops but the lack of entries makes this hand mostly unuseable except

for stops and the extra tricks a heart contract can provide are almost

a sure thing vs a lot of hopefuleness in 3n. P should not rebid 4h

with AKQXX AKQxx xx x mostly just because we cannot support

either major when we bid 3n and the hand will most likely play just

as wll in 3n as 4M.

 

4H

[nigel_k]

The idea behind 3S with this shape (not necessarily this hand) is to avoid an immediate commitment to what might be a 4-3 heart fit. I believe I read about it in a book by Al Roth though I am sure the theme has appeared elsewhere.

The implication is that, after 3♠, partner is going to rebid hearts with 5-5 when he would not do so if you bid 3NT. This seems as though it could work though I have never heard of it before. And if partner is 6-4 in the majors, maybe 4♠ will play better than 3NT anyway.

[han]

I tried some assumptions and 3NT is way worse every time opposite whole range and very similar opposite 5-4.

 

I don't know which assumptions you tried but I found that 4H is down 33% and 3NT only 16%. I simply gave opener exactly 5-4 in the majors and 18-19 HCP.

 

Back to the discussion, I don't know anybody who plays that 3H could be either 4 or 5 hearts and it seems quite impossible.

[the hog]

You do now.

I don't know which assumptions you tried but I found that 4H is down 33% and 3NT only 16%. I simply gave opener exactly 5-4 in the majors and 18-19 HCP.

 

Back to the discussion, I don't know anybody who plays that 3H could be either 4 or 5 hearts and it seems quite impossible.

 

You do now.

[bluecalm]

I don't know which assumptions you tried but I found that 4H is down 33% and 3NT only 16%. I simply gave opener exactly 5-4 in the majors and 18-19 HCP.

 

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, will rerun later and update this post as those layouts are slow for dd. I tried 17-21 from I remember and 5-6spades.

 

I don't know anybody who plays that 3H could be either 4 or 5 hearts and it seems quite impossible.

 

It sucks but it's standard in America from what I gather.

 

I run dd simul again:

a)17-21 with 5-6spades-4hearts:

3NT 62%

4H 56%

 

b)17-21, 5-6spades-5hearts:

4H - 95%

3N - 72%

 

I could improve a bit maybe by removing 5-5 "pure" hands but I doubt it affects overall score by much.

[han]

You do now.

 

I am sure that mickyb does not play this convention with his regular partner.

 

It sucks but it's standard in America from what I gather.

 

It's standard among Dutch beginners as well, but I was assuming that we are not discussing beginners bridge here. I realize that most Americans don't play Gazzilli (although I am not sure why) nor 2NT as GF, but I thought that this 1S - 1NT - 3C gadget to distinguish 5-4 from 5-5 was popular among American experts. I certainly learned it from Americans.

 

I stand by my comment that you can't play 1S - 1NT - 3H as either 6-4, 5-4 or 5-5.

[han]

Bluecalm, doing it separately for 5-4 hands is good because then you know partner won't correct to (for example) 4S. He might with some 6-4's, and certainly with many 6-5's.

 

Also, 5-4 17-counts wouldn't usually rebid 3H and 6-4 21-counts wouldn't open 1S.

[gnasher]

I have to confess that with Catch22 I play the equivalent sequence as any of 5-4, 5-5 and 6-4. When we first started playing together, we agreed something simple with a note that at some point we'd replace it with Gazilli, and we never got around to changing it. I can't remember any hand where this has cost us - the sequence is fairly rare, hands where responder's action is unclear are rarer, and often there's not much to choose between the different games.