ATB

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjh7daqt9543cat8&n=sakt73hajtdk7cq65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1s3c3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I was the N player. Our 1 NT is (14+) 15-17. I thought my 17 with good spots and a 5 card suit is too goof for 1 NT and found myself in huge problem over partner's 3♦. My Qxx ♣ started to look ugly after 3♣ except than having a value in 3 NT.

 

What do you all think I should have done better? Or is it partner to make another move, as he says he should have and I actually disagree that it is clear for him to make another move. After all I could have opened with an everyday 12 hcp and a stiff or even void ♦!

 

Or should we just say "preempts work"? I feel like I could have done something better than 3 NT but not quite sure what that would be.

 

Edit: IMP and 4 NT would be RKCB on ♦

[cherdano]

Don't like 3N. If 3N makes, then you are almost certainly making an overtrick. Hence bidding 4N is safe, and shows your values.

However, 4D looks even better. Why gamble that Qxx is a stop? And now you have room to explore slam.

[MrAce]

Don't like 3N. If 3N makes, then you are almost certainly making an overtrick. Hence bidding 4N is safe, and shows your values.

However, 4D looks even better. Why gamble that Qxx is a stop? And now you have room to explore slam.

 

4 NT was not available. It would unfortunately be key card asking. I thought about it. I will add it to the OP. Otherwise I definitely would, really wanted to bid 4 NT at the table.

[mcphee]

I think you forced 3N on yourself feeling this was most likely the last chance to bid it. Partner most likely holds 6 diam or a 5 card suit that is a source of tricks plus a spade fit. This has me feeling that raising diamonds is far more likely to locate the best contract.

[SteveMoe]

We play 3♦ GF, so going past 3N with extras is not a concern. Too bad 4N isn't quantitative. I'd raise to 4♦ as the least bad continuation.

[Phil]

Can't believe 4N would be RKC here. You can bump diamonds with that hand type.

 

3N is a big underbid. I'd rather bid 4D.

[MrAce]

We all know 3♦ is game force. That does not mean we will be dealt hands that perfectly fits to our agreements.

 

QJ

x

AQJxxxx

xxx

 

Should we pass 3♣? Should we double?

 

How about

 

QJ

KQ(x)

AJxxxx(x)

xx

 

are you happy to be in 5!D?

 

I agree that to play 4 NT as quantitative is much better. But bumping diamonds with RKCB hands is not risk free unless partner is not allowed to bid 5♦. Unless pd is not allowed to bid a natural 4♠ instead of this being a cue.

I told Arend that 4 NT quantitative was not available because our agreements is it is RKCB unless it is agreed otherwise. This one we did not agree. I did not ask him (my pd) but I am % 100 positif that he would have taken this as rkcb.

 

I have another question. Would 4♣ by me over 3♦ promise a ♦ fit?

[Cyberyeti]

I have another question. Would 4♣ by me over 3♦ promise a ♦ fit?

 

I'm not sure it promises a full on fit, but you won't be bereft, Hx or so upwards.

[rhm]

We all know 3♦ is game force. That does not mean we will be dealt hands that perfectly fits to our agreements.

 

QJ

x

AQJxxxx

xxx

 

Should we pass 3♣? Should we double?

 

How about

 

QJ

KQ(x)

AJxxxx(x)

xx

 

are you happy to be in 5!D?

 

I agree that to play 4 NT as quantitative is much better. But bumping diamonds with RKCB hands is not risk free unless partner is not allowed to bid 5♦. Unless pd is not allowed to bid a natural 4♠ instead of this being a cue.

I told Arend that 4 NT quantitative was not available because our agreements is it is RKCB unless it is agreed otherwise. This one we did not agree. I did not ask him (my pd) but I am % 100 positif that he would have taken this as rkcb.

You make a good case why minorwood (4♦) is an underrated convention

This allows to play 4NT quantitative and allows you to suggest 4NT as a resting place after a disappointing minorwood repsonse as well.

My impression is that such scenarios where I simply want to find out particularly in a crowded auction whether the necessary key-cards are on board are much more common than wanting to agree a minor suit and suggest to start cue-bidding.

 

I have another question. Would 4♣ by me over 3♦ promise a ♦ fit?

What else can it be if you bypass 3NT in an already game forcing situation?

However, partner will assume a club control as well if you bid 4♣. There are not too many ways to find out thereafter whether he does.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

You make a good case why minorwood (4♦) is an underrated convention

This allows to play 4NT quantitative and allows you to suggest 4NT as a resting place after a disappointing minorwood repsonse as well.

My impression is that such scenarios where I simply want to find out particularly in a crowded auction whether the necessary key-cards are on board are much more common than wanting to agree a minor suit and suggest to start cue-bidding.

 

You need either minorwood or kickback here to allow 4N to be quantitative.

[Trinidad]

You need either minorwood or kickback here to allow 4N to be quantitative.

Why? What is wrong with a straightforward natural diamond raise to 4♦, followed by cuebidding at the four level and then 4NT as RKCB?

 

The characteristic difference between a quantitative 4NT and a keycard ask is not in the bid that is made (4NT or something else) but when it is made. An immediate 4NT must be natural since no fit has been established, eventhough there would be room to do so. A 4NT after a fit has been established is part of a slam auction for that suit, which in straightforward bridge means that it is RKCB for diamonds.

 

For clarity, I am not disputing that minorwood and kickback have their advantages. But if one simply plays RKCB, one can invoke it after a raise to 4♦.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

For clarity, I am not disputing that minorwood and kickback have their advantages. But if one simply plays RKCB, one can invoke it after a raise to 4♦.

 

Yes, try invoking it over 5m which is far from impossible here, partner doesn't need a major suit control to make a slam.

[rhm]

Why? What is wrong with a straightforward natural diamond raise to 4♦, followed by cuebidding at the four level and then 4NT as RKCB?

Rik

Because it is almost impossible to check on keycards and stop at a minor suit game if the response shows an insufficient number of keycards for slam.

No point in asking for keycards if an unfortunate reply takes you beyond your safety level.

That's why lower key card asks have been invented in the first place.

 

Playing matchpoints the scenario is even worse.

There is often no point in playing in a minor suit game when notrump makes overtricks.

 

Got it?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

Because it is almost impossible to check on keycards and stop at a minor suit game if the response shows an insufficient number of keycards for slam.

No point in asking for keycards if an unfortunate reply takes you beyond your safety level.

That's why lower key card asks have been invented in the first place.

 

Playing matchpoints the scenario is even worse.

There is often no point in playing in a minor suit game when notrump makes overtricks.

 

Got it?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Dear Rainer,

 

My sincere apologies that I wrote my previous post so unclear that you didn't get it. I thought that the phrase:

For clarity, I am not disputing that minorwood and kickback have their advantages.

made it clear that my post was not about the advantages of minorwood and kickback. I was clearly wrong.

 

I tried to explain when for natural bidders 4NT should be natural (when no fit has been established) and when it should be a slam tool (when a fit has been established), but I clearly did a lousy job.

 

Apologies again,

 

Rik

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjh7daqt9543cat8&n=sakt73hajtdk7cq65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1s3c3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I was the N player. Our 1 NT is (14+) 15-17. I thought my 17 with good spots and a 5 card suit is too goof for 1 NT and found myself in huge problem over partner's 3♦. My Qxx ♣ started to look ugly after 3♣ except than having a value in 3 NT.

 

What do you all think I should have done better? Or is it partner to make another move, as he says he should have and I actually disagree that it is clear for him to make another move. After all I could have opened with an everyday 12 hcp and a stiff or even void ♦!

 

Or should we just say "preempts work"? I feel like I could have done something better than 3 NT but not quite sure what that would be.

 

Edit: IMP and 4 NT would be RKCB on ♦

 

I tend to like opening 1N whenever I can, so I rarely upgrade out of the range (and there are hands I'd open 1N playing either weak or strong NT), specifically to avoid having uncomfortable high-level decisions at bid 2. With Qxx and Kx both looking quite ugly here I wouldn't bother upgrading. Still, given the crap I know you open and rebid 1N on, I guess upgrading this makes a lot more sense for you :)

 

In that case though, isn't it partly just a price you pay for opening weak hands? Preempts work, but they work better the wider range of hands the preemptees can have.

 

That said, how likely are you to have a void D? Presumably you'd rebid 3H or 3S if either seemed plausible in preference to 3N, so your hand would have to be 5305, which looks unlikely or impossible from South's hand, depending on E's preempting style.

 

Still, given your weak openings, if 3N is consistent with (say) QJxxx Axx x Kxxx (or even if you need to add a random jack), maybe the N hand is worth a 4D bid? Assuming S's GF has taken into account weak openings, he presumably will have a pretty solid hand, so it's hard to imagine 5♦ having no play even in a 5-2 fit. And maybe you can still get out in 4N?

 

So, after dithering, I'm going with, South 25%, North 50% (two questionable decisions to S's 1 :P), bidding style 25%.

[aguahombre]

Our personal agreements after 3♦ don't really matter to this discussion, but 3nt does suck, IMO.

 

As to the decision to open 1♠ (again not relevant to your result) -- we, too, will upgrade a 17'r to a pretend 18 and open 1M if it is slightly more prime-card oriented than this one. Here, I think 1nt is just fine. But, we don't have the wide spread of fudging 14's and that probably makes a difference.

[ggwhiz]

With the lack of a negative double I would think 3♥ is a safe values showing bid. It's very unclear what happens after that but I'll bid 4♦ next over anything partner chooses, including 3nt since we can get out in 4nt in a pinch.

[Finch]

I have no way of asking for aces in this auction with my regular partner whether it is 4NT, minorwood or kickback.

I agree that at some point there may come a hand where I'd like to do so, or that in theory it might be handy, but it hasn't worried us yet and I have played many thousands of boards in this partnership.

4NT immediately is definitely far more useful as natural

4D immediately is definitly far more useful as setting diamonds as trumps and looking for a cue

4H is possibly more useful as kb than as a splinter, but I'm not certain.

[rhm]

The North hand is clearly out of range for a 15-17 notrump.

K&R values the hand at 18.5, which in this case looks to me about right.

 

Whatever your agreements are, at some point you have to make a distinction between 12-14 and 18-19 balanced hands before the bidding is likely to end.

For this reason 3NT can not be an option for North second bid.

Given the actual agreements North rebid choices are 3♥ and 4♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

The North hand is clearly out of range for a 15-17 notrump.

K&R values the hand at 18.5, which in this case looks to me about right.

 

Whatever your agreements are, at some point you have to make a distinction between 12-14 and 18-19 balanced hands before the bidding is likely to end.

For this reason 3NT can not be an option for North second bid.

Given the actual agreements North rebid choices are 3♥ and 4♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Yep, I hated my 3 NT too.

[Zelandakh]

Edit: IMP and 4 NT would be RKCB on ♦

This is your problem. If you decide to use a convention then you need to decide what to do when you hold the natural hand. Logical would be to play 4♣ followed by 4NT as natural as a workaround but I daresay you did not have this agreement. In any case, it seems clear that bidding 4 of a minor here is better than 3NT. Which minor to bid depends on your agreements (and perhaps also your partner too).

[MrAce]

As to the decision to open 1♠ (again not relevant to your result) -- we, too, will upgrade a 17'r to a pretend 18 and open 1M if it is slightly more prime-card oriented than this one. Here, I think 1nt is just fine. But, we don't have the wide spread of fudging 14's and that probably makes a difference.

 

I tend to like opening 1N whenever I can, so I rarely upgrade out of the range (and there are hands I'd open 1N playing either weak or strong NT), specifically to avoid having uncomfortable high-level decisions at bid 2. With Qxx and Kx both looking quite ugly here I wouldn't bother upgrading. Still, given the crap I know you open and rebid 1N on, I guess upgrading this makes a lot more sense for you :)

 

 

 

I do not even think it is anywhere close to opening 1 NT. But I posted it in BW incase you want to see it with your own eyes. It was not a "Timo upgrade" If you think this is close to open 1 NT, you really need to work on your hand evaluation IMO. OTOH I take all the blame and "boos" for bidding 3 NT.

 

http://bridgewinners...=376424#c376424

[Cyberyeti]

I do not even think it is anywhere close to opening 1 NT. But I posted it in BW incase you want to see it with your own eyes. It was not a "Timo upgrade" If you think this is close to open 1 NT, you really need to work on your hand evaluation IMO. OTOH I take all the blame and "boos" for bidding 3 NT.

 

http://bridgewinners...=376424#c376424

 

Agreed, nowhere close to 1N. I think it would be a more difficult decision if I had "any old 19 count" as my minimum for 2N whether I upgraded, the two major suit 10s would cause me to treat it as a very decent 18 with a 5 card suit.

[Fluffy]

I would put some blame in south as well.

[gszes]

3h over 3d

 

ggwhiz brings up a point that is often overlooked. How can 3h possibly feel wrong unless it promises 5 in your system (because of the lack of negative x)? We have reasonable extra values even completely discaounting the club Q opposite a partner that has a very high deree of probability of being short in clubs. do we really want to mimic a minimum opening bid with say Kxx in clubs? nah There are many good reasons to hate bidding 3n so why not make a bid that has almost zero downside and keeps the bidding open for a wide range of possible contracts. 3N might indeed be our final resing spot but that is hugely unlikely since exactly 9 tricks would be odd looking at our hand 10 or 11 in NT (if it is right) would seem much more likely.

 

Blame goes almost solely to north for putting handcuffs on the south hand and pretending they had something like a min with Kx (or some such) in clubs. The rest is preempts work.