big takeout

[manudude03]

I had an argument with a reasonably strong player over this one:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=saq6hk84dkqj94ca6&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cdp1dp]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid now at matchpoints?

[Lord Molyb]

2♣ to show general strength, then raise diamonds.

Or, you could just bid 1NT, since it's a minor suit fit and it's matchpoints.

[bigbenvic]

I'm in the 1NT camp.

 

We may not have enough for 3NT but I surely show better than a strong NT here, which is what I have. If partner has 6 ish points he can bid 2 or even 3NT.

[mike777]

1nt

 

 

2c shows much more.

[lipeng2076]

yes，of course 1nt rebidding

[mr1303]

I miscounted when I voted 2nt. 1nt is clearly right. Although it might play better by partner.

[rhm]

3♦

 

If partner is weak I doubt that a notrump partial plays better from my side than a diamond partial from partner.

If 3NT is on, it probably needs to be played by partner and West should be on lead.

There are some exceptions where notrump bids from my side will do well, e.g if partner turns up with the ♦A and ♠JTx. I bet against that.

 

3♦ gives the right encouragement. It is not a preemptive bid.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I am scared to admit that my first thought was the same as Rainer's - 3♦. 1NT seems like a proper MP gamble and while it might be great, it might also be a total disaster. Assuming the argument was between these 2 calls, I do not think it is a big deal. They both have upsides and either might work on a given hand. Of course ideal would be the agreement that 3♣ shows a 3♦ raise with (or without) a club stopper - does anyone do that? What is your agreement for a jump cue manu?

[gwnn]

Nobody has an agreement on what 3C shows here Zel, do you?

 

3D seems interesting but aren't we a bit strong for it? Maybe 2C and then raising 2D to 3D would be better (to stop sitting on the fence: that's what I would do). It seems that this sequence is not too often discussed.

[helene_t]

I would bid 2♣ and then pass 2♦. If partner has ♦A and out, I count 8 tricks in notrumps with the spade finesse on. With more than that I think he would make a move most of the time.

[Zelandakh]

Nobody has an agreement on what 3C shows here Zel, do you?

 

3D seems interesting but aren't we a bit strong for it? Maybe 2C and then raising 2D to 3D would be better (to stop sitting on the fence: that's what I would do). It seems that this sequence is not too often discussed.

Hey, I am sure Justin, Andy, Frances and Mike do, inter alia. With my current partner I do not; with the previous I did. One option is for a jump cue to be a GF raise with 4+ card support to remove that from the cue bid. I never played it as a good raise showing (or denying) something a stop in their suit but it might be reasonable when our suit is a minor - am genuinely interested in what others are playing. I guess that most people would understand some splinter if their partners did it on the "any unnecessary jump" meta-rule but I find it hard to believe that could be good.

 

As for the strength, I learned that a simple raise invites game if partner is a maximum while a jump raise invites game if partner is a non-minimum. So no, I do not consider this hand too strong. Would the route via 2♣ not suggest 3 card support rather than 5?

[gnasher]

Without discussion, I'd assume 3♣ was a splinter for diamonds.

 

At IMPs I'd agree with 2♣ planning to pass 2♦, but at matchpoints I want my 120.

[gwnn]

Care to bet Zel :)? Apparently even Meckwell had a misunderstanding on a basic strong club interference sequence and this really seems to be a rare situation. Anyway yes it would only suggest 3-card support if the suit in question were a major, I don't think it's so specific when it is a minor suit.

[PhilKing]

1NT. Partner is sometimes 3334 here (as he was when I had this sequence with Wank 3 weeks ago) and opening leader often fishes out a major suit lead anyway.

[wyman]

@Mike, Helene, gnasher:

 

Is 2C really that strong (Mike)? And (Helene/gnasher) are we expecting pard to rebid 2D that often?

 

Maybe I'm way off -- please let me know if so, since I haven't thought about or discussed this sequence much -- but I would have assumed that 2C either shows a strong hand or an off-shape tox (we're dbling with a lot of 4423, right?) looking for a major fit. And in particular, I would have expected that advancer's priority was to show a 4- or chunky 3-card major.

 

I guess we can bid 2N over 2C-2M, but that sounds really strong to me. Maybe I'd bid differently if I had incredibly sound agreements about auctions that start this way (what's forcing? how high? what calls agree diamonds? what are advancer's priorities? ...), but I'm bidding 1N on this hand.

[helene_t]

No, 2♣ can't be based on an offshape double without extras. We are inviting p to bid game with top of his range so we should have some 17 points.

 

I think partner will bid 2♦ over our 2♣ fairly often. If he bids something else then he has extras. With a minimum and 4M5♦ he would bid his major first. So if he bids 2M now he has extras, i.e. 4-8 points or such.

 

With 3334 and no club stopper I think he will have to rebid 2♦. Maybe he can't swallow that and tries 2♥ instead. In that case we will get too high.

[billw55]

.... If partner has ♦A and out, I count 8 tricks in notrumps with the spade finesse on. With more than that I think he would make a move most of the time.

 

At IMPs I'd agree with 2♣ planning to pass 2♦, but at matchpoints I want my 120.

Agree with both. Helene, did you see it is matchpoints?

 

Also in general, I thought that double then 1NT shows a notrumpy hand that is too strong to overcall 1NT directly. Isn't that exactly what this hand is? OK it got better when partner bid diamonds, but partner is still limited and slam seems unlikely. Or maybe you are thinking that 5♦ could be on while 3NT is down on a club lead?

[gwnn]

Agree with both. Helene, did you see it is matchpoints?

 

Also in general, I thought that double then 1NT shows a notrumpy hand that is too strong to overcall 1NT directly. Isn't that exactly what this hand is? OK it got better when partner bid diamonds, but partner is still limited and slam seems unlikely. Or maybe you are thinking that 5♦ could be on while 3NT is down on a club lead?

3NT from partner might be cold while 3NT from us go down.

[manudude03]

I am scared to admit that my first thought was the same as Rainer's - 3♦. 1NT seems like a proper MP gamble and while it might be great, it might also be a total disaster. Assuming the argument was between these 2 calls, I do not think it is a big deal. They both have upsides and either might work on a given hand. Of course ideal would be the agreement that 3♣ shows a 3♦ raise with (or without) a club stopper - does anyone do that? What is your agreement for a jump cue manu?

 

No agreement, and partner doesn't know a lot about bidding theory.

[wyman]

No, 2♣ can't be based on an offshape double without extras.

 

So are we supposed to pass 1D holding KJxx / Q109x / Qx / Axx? Or are we just not making off-shape dbls of minor suit openings?

 

edit: or if you object to my hand choice, feel free to vary it as you like so that it's 4423 or (45)13 or (45)22 or 4414 or whatever you want.

[ArtK78]

I have to admit I am very old school, but double followed by a cue bid indicates to me the old rockcrusher game forcing direct cue bid.

 

So I like Rainer's 3♦ call. It shows great support for diamonds, a very strong hand, but not game forcing. Partner will bid on with almost any excuse.

[mikeh]

Seems to me, with all respect to rhm, that this is a straightforward value bid of 1N, showing 19-20, a balanced hand and a club stopper. Seems to match what we have. Surely that was our plan over 1M.

 

As for all this fear of this playing from the wrong side, that presupposes that the opps can hurt us in clubs AND that LHO will lead clubs and that positionally playing from the other side will both be better and feasible.

 

We have a number of hints that this is probably not going to happen.

 

Firstly, our diamond length suggests that partner is not very long there. And we know he lacks any 4 card major...he'd never bid 1♦ with a 4 card major. This means that he probably has some club length. That, in turn, suggests that opener's clubs are probably not long enough to hurt us or that, if they are, responder will choose to lead one of the majors. Indeed, if opener has 5 clubs, I'd expect responder to hold no more than xxx and often to hold a 5 card or longer major and to lead that suit. We know that opener's club suit is probably more than 3 cards long, but his partner doesn't, and we have rebid 1N! I think that the 3♦ bidders are assuming that the opps always do the right thing, while the 1N bidders make it more difficult for them to work out what that 'right thing' is.

 

Meanwhile, by bidding 3♦, we are gambling that we can only make 3N when partner has a club stopper. In addition, we are gambling that we can make 2 more tricks in diamonds than we can in notrump. We won't fare well in a mp field for +110 when 120 was available.

 

 

I was going to suggest that opposite a mediocre hand such as xxx Qx Axxx xxxx, we'd want to be in 3N not 3♦, but I'd be cherry picking. There are undoubtedly many hands where 1N works badly and 3♦ fares better. But I think that those who bid 3♦ are guilty of something that I often do: I think they are over-thinking the problem.

[gwnn]

mikeh you are ignoring the more important question: Do you have an agreement over what 3C means by doubler? :)

[mikeh]

mikeh you are ignoring the more important question: Do you have an agreement over what 3C means by doubler? :)

I always ignore questions to which I have no answer :P

 

In fact, I don't think I have ever discussed with with anyone, partner, teammate, opp, kib, etc. If my partner did it to me, I'd look at my club length. If unexpectedly short, I'd take it as natural since I'd expect the opps to have bid more than 1♣, by the time he got to bid 3♣, if they held 11 clubs. I'd take it as a splinter otherwise.

 

IOW, I would NOT take it as stopper ask. 2♣ fills that role, for all practical purposes. Not that 2♣ IS a stopper ask, just that we'd tend to bid 2N over 2♣ if we held a stopper.

[MrAce]

I would bid 1 NT

 

To me 2♣ (cue after dbl over pds simple response) shows a giant, just like Art.

 

If i had to choose anything else than 1NT, that would be 3♦, not 2♣.