Most unwelcome response to a 1 bid

[kereru67]

For me it's 3NT. There's really no excuse for making that bid without making a one round force to find out a bit more info about your partner's hand first. You are not in a position to decide the final contract without a good description of your partner's hand, which could be anything from a flat 12 to a 20+ near game force.

[LBengtsson]

For me it's 3NT. There's really no excuse for making that bid without making a one round force to find out a bit more info about your partner's hand first. You are not in a position to decide the final contract without a good description of your partner's hand, which could be anything from a flat 12 to a 20+ near game force.

 

Most players would use 3NT as some artificial bid over a one level opening here, especially a major suit. But even without that, if the 3NT no-trump bid is a good range (13/14-15) like a one no-trump opener then opener can decide where the best contract lay.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and you hold this hand, 3NT could well be the best bid though many might use a off-shape 2♣ bid to force and end in wrong contact when partner is strong and has ♣ support. Bidding the poor ♥ suit at the 2 level is not good imo.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s63hj8642dak8caq5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp3n]133|200[/hv]

[mycroft]

If it's specific enough, you don't have to "hear about partner's hand", assuming you trust your partner. They have sufficient knowledge of both hands to set the contract, and frequently it's "with the 12-20 random hand hidden".

 

Now, whether 13-15 balanced, no 4cM (what is commonly played in the ACBL these days) is specific enough for that (knowing you have a quantitative 4NT available, and assuming 1♣-3NT; 4♣ both isn't Gerber and can stop in 4NT) I am not sure. Definitely the old-fashioned GF 2NT (13-15 or 18+) with 3NT 16-17 balanced works better for slam hands (but the very common 10+-12 hands are frustrating).

 

But 1 suit-3NT is not "placing the contract", no matter how it is for many other auctions. It's "describe your hand well enough for a double jump, and let partner place the contract (which, granted, is most of the time, "pass").

 

Over 1M, it's even more precise, whether you play it flat-with-2, or flat 3M433, or however else.

 

Frankly, the one I hate is 1♦-1NT. On a minimum, 2NT could be way too high; on a maximum, the same hand is gin for 3. And if partner has the 20-almost-game-force with say 2=4=6=1, do you blast the MP 3NT, or try for 6♦, knowing that it's very hard to stop anywhere but 5♦? Of course it's worse for me in my regular K/S partnership, where either we play the KSU "not interested in game opposite 17 BAL", and deal with the 8-10 somehow, or play "strong NT standard" 8-10/♣, 6-bad10/♦ and, well, ick.

[Cyberyeti]

We play 3N specifically as 4333 13-15 with 3 of partner's suit and no 4 card major, partner usually doesn't have a big problem over it.

[pescetom]

If it's specific enough, you don't have to "hear about partner's hand", assuming you trust your partner. They have sufficient knowledge of both hands to set the contract, and frequently it's "with the 12-20 random hand hidden".

 

Now, whether 13-15 balanced, no 4cM (what is commonly played in the ACBL these days) is specific enough for that (knowing you have a quantitative 4NT available, and assuming 1♣-3NT; 4♣ both isn't Gerber and can stop in 4NT) I am not sure. Definitely the old-fashioned GF 2NT (13-15 or 18+) with 3NT 16-17 balanced works better for slam hands (but the very common 10+-12 hands are frustrating).

 

But 1 suit-3NT is not "placing the contract", no matter how it is for many other auctions. It's "describe your hand well enough for a double jump, and let partner place the contract (which, granted, is most of the time, "pass").

 

Over 1M, it's even more precise, whether you play it flat-with-2, or flat 3M433, or however else.

Damning with faint praise :)

I like 3NT as some kind of splinter in the other major.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and you hold this hand, 3NT could well be the best bid though many might use a off-shape 2♣ bid to force and end in wrong contact when partner is strong and has ♣ support. Bidding the poor ♥ suit at the 2 level is not good imo.

Hiding a 5-card major without fit in the other is not good imo.

Partner is almost bound to hold ♥AQT and massacre me in the post-mortem.

Playing 2/1 GF, I see 2♥ as near-automatic, we have RKCB to check for the top trumps if necessary and if we end up in 3NT with no stop then you're in the same boat anyway.

I do agree that blasting 3NT is better than a semi-artificial 2♣, not because I'm unhappy that partner can bid 3♣ but because my next bid is going to give partner a hopelessly distorted vison of my hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi

 

why?

 

3NT showing 13-15, without 3 card support / 4 spades.

It will also not be 5332, so this leaves 4432, maybe 4333 in rare cases.

 

So the bid descripes responders hand pretty tight, and what is wrong with this?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

There is no unwelcome response as far as I’m concerned. If you have a coherent bidding system then there should be no response that troubles you.

 

I do, however, dislike partner passing my 1C opening bid, since I could have hands as I’ll-suited for 1C as a 4=4=3=2 11 count, vulnerable, or a 3=3=5=2 19 count😀

 

However, we strain to respond to 1C and in real life rarely get a terrible result.

 

Btw, the notion of responding 3N with any 5 card suit (let alone a major!) ought not to be part of any coherent bidding method. If you design methods in that fashion, I’m sure you’ll have a number of uncomfortable sequences.

[pescetom]

why?

 

3NT showing 13-15, without 3 card support / 4 spades.

It will also not be 5332, so this leaves 4432, maybe 4333 in rare cases.

 

So the bid descripes responders hand pretty tight, and what is wrong with this?

mycroft already said it, that is playable if well agreed and with 4NT quantitative, 4♣ and then 4NT natural, u.s.w.

That doesn't make it look like a good agreement to me, in particular it consumes vital bidding space if opener is 5-5 and interested in slam.

In the meantime, you are stuck with poor agreements like 1♠-4♥ as a singleton-void splinter, which is imprecise, error prone with some partners and an unnecessary sacrifice of a descriptive natural bid.

[Cyberyeti]

In the meantime, you are stuck with poor agreements like 1♠-4♥ as a singleton-void splinter, which is imprecise, error prone with some partners and an unnecessary sacrifice of a descriptive natural bid.

 

No you're not, 4♥=void, singletons thru the 2N raise for example.

[mycroft]

Alternatively, of course, in the 85% of hands(*) where partner has 12-16, bad 17 or so, guess what, you're on lead to 1m-3NT; p. Where, at the other tables with more scientific methods, the lead is less blind. Sure, on some of them the killing weakness will be found in the auction, and on some of *them* it will be found vs 1m-3NT, but surely "lead blind" has to be +EV on balance.

 

I love science as much as the next system freak, but I also know the value, both in energy expenditure and in information transmission, of system-enforced bang-bang mindless auctions, even if they concede some rare magic slams or Moysian only-makes.

 

(*) 90% of statistics are totally wild-assed-guessed, including this one. But tell me it's not close.

[pescetom]

Alternatively, of course, in the 85% of hands(*) where partner has 12-16, bad 17 or so, guess what, you're on lead to 1m-3NT; p. Where, at the other tables with more scientific methods, the lead is less blind. Sure, on some of them the killing weakness will be found in the auction, and on some of *them* it will be found vs 1m-3NT, but surely "lead blind" has to be +EV on balance.

 

I love science as much as the next system freak, but I also know the value, both in energy expenditure and in information transmission, of system-enforced bang-bang mindless auctions, even if they concede some rare magic slams or Moysian only-makes.

 

I agree with that, but above we were talking about 1M-3NT which is hardly the same. After a "natural" 1m (or even more 1NT) then bang-bang has a lot going for it especially at MP.

[mikeh]

No you're not, 4♥=void, singletons thru the 2N raise for example.

Much better, imo and on my experience, is that 1M 3OM shows an unspecified singleton (or in the case of 1H 3S, possibly also the much less common void spade).

 

Splinters are usually and imo should be played as limited in range.your range may vary but for me it’s just over a limit raise to just over an opening bid, so roughly 11-13.

 

Opener usually signs off in game and the opps don’t know what will appear in dummy and can’t usually get in a lead directing or sacrifice suggesting double.

 

Opener can ask if he has interest: cheapest bid asks and responses are LMH.

 

That leaves 1M 4m as void showing.

 

How you play 1S 4H is optional but must (obviously) be discussed. If it’s natural (as I play it….long, good texture hearts, less than opening values) then 1s3H includes a void heart, but now one can show it over 3S….3N is stiff club, etc, and 4H is heart void.

[mycroft]

Ah, I was still discussing "1-of-a-suit" in general. I didn't see the pivot to specifically 1M.

 

But 1M-3NT is even more well-organized. As I said, either 2M BAL or 4333M, 13-15, depending. The first, choice of games means we're still in (fairly) blind lead territory; the second gives away a lot if we pass, sure, but frequently is a "makes the same" hand - and when that's 9, it's magic, and when it's 10, it still wins at MPs. And opener's decision is pretty much laid out. Sure, 5-5 majors - but doesn't that just bid the known fit (see MikeH's comment about hiding a 5-card suit)? Sure - 5-5 majors with slam interest...

 

One of my partners likes it "a 4M raise with an outside A or K". Given that that's a hand type that's difficult to show without a specialized sequence, or without partner misreading and getting to unmakable slams, I'm happy to play that. The added benefits of "finding the otherwise unbiddable slam" and "knowing what to do over their 5x" is nice, but rare.

 

I'd be happy to play other things as well, as people are discussing here; I can see the use of all of them. But don't discount 1♠-3NT; p as a "energy saver and blind lead maker". Whatever you play it as, had better be worth at least as much as that.

[nullve]

6NT

[smerriman]

6NT

Hey, if this shows a specific enough hand like the 3NT bid, exactly the same argument applies there too :)

[kereru67]

OK what I'm getting from this is that the 3NT response should have a very specific meaning. If you have a 4 card major you should show it first because that may be the best spot. Something like 1♣-1♥-2♥-3NT is a good way to give the option to your partner, in case they raised you with 3 card support or a flat hand. So 4-3-3-3, no 4 card major, 13-15; or else some conventional treatment. It will almost never be the correct response to 1♣.

[P_Marlowe]

OK what I'm getting from this is that the 3NT response should have a very specific meaning. If you have a 4 card major you should show it first because that may be the best spot. Something like 1♣-1♥-2♥-3NT is a good way to give the option to your partner, in case they raised you with 3 card support or a flat hand. So 4-3-3-3, no 4 card major, 13-15; or else some conventional treatment. It will almost never be the correct response to 1♣.

Hiding a 4 card diamond suit is ok, with 44 in the minors, if your values are in the majors, 3NT will also be

perfect.

[Cyberyeti]

Much better, imo and on my experience, is that 1M 3OM shows an unspecified singleton (or in the case of 1H 3S, possibly also the much less common void spade).

 

Splinters are usually and imo should be played as limited in range.your range may vary but for me it’s just over a limit raise to just over an opening bid, so roughly 11-13.

 

Opener usually signs off in game and the opps don’t know what will appear in dummy and can’t usually get in a lead directing or sacrifice suggesting double.

 

Opener can ask if he has interest: cheapest bid asks and responses are LMH.

 

That leaves 1M 4m as void showing.

 

How you play 1S 4H is optional but must (obviously) be discussed. If it’s natural (as I play it….long, good texture hearts, less than opening values) then 1s3H includes a void heart, but now one can show it over 3S….3N is stiff club, etc, and 4H is heart void.

 

Not prepared to lose my 3♥ SJS over 1♠.

 

Also there are often 2 ways to bid these hands if I hold AJxx, x, AQJ10x, xxx I respond 3♦ to 1♠ and show my source of tricks rather than my singleton.

[mikeh]

Not prepared to lose my 3♥ SJS over 1♠.

 

Also there are often 2 ways to bid these hands if I hold AJxx, x, AQJ10x, xxx I respond 3♦ to 1♠ and show my source of tricks rather than my singleton.

To each his own.

 

Personally, strong jumpshifts seem to me to:

 

a) come up infrequently

 

b) preempt our constructive auctions on precisely those hands on which we most often need bidding space

 

With your AJxx x AQJ10x xxx my view is that splintering is bizarre and would reflect a very weak understanding of bidding concepts.

 

Bidding 3D seems, I say with respect, almost as bad.

 

While I would never use J2N with that hand, I can at least understand those who would. At least that gets across two of the four critical elements of the hand: a big fit and some slam interest.

 

Me: I’d force to game via 2D and then raise spades. Since for me 1S 2D 2S doesn’t show extra length (hence is a fairly common rebid) I may get to bid 4H next…showing (drumroll, please) 5+ diamonds, good spades,short hearts and slam interest.

 

And if partner makes the second commonest rebid, 2N, again I can bid 4H.

 

Funny how those sequences seem to describe my hand😀

 

2/1 has become the dominant bidding philosophy in the expert game (most big club methods, which are very popular with NA pairs, use 2/1 principles…I’m discussing this aspect, not the family of standard based methods grouped as 2/1) for a very good reason: conservation of bidding space.

 

Strong jumpshifts violate that principle. Of course, one can argue that tightly defining jumpshifts clarifies other strength showing sequences, since partner can exclude the jumpshift hand types when not used. Fwiw my view is that one ought very carefully to weigh the other uses to which the SJS bid can be put, so as to weigh the net costs and benefits.

 

For example, using 1S 3H as an unspecified singleton (or void heart) is a net, if often modest, winner when opener signs off, and loses very little, if any, compared to normal splinters when opener is interested. Plus it allows 1M 4m to show a void….while such hands are rare, there is a very big difference, in terms of slam potential, between a void and a stiff

 

In the other of my two partnerships, we use 1S 3D as invitational in hearts or a strong jumpshift in hearts, with 1S 3H showing a 4 card limit raise in spades. While I prefer the splinter usage, this other approach has worked well when it arises.

[DavidKok]

Me: I’d force to game via 2D and then raise spades. Since for me 1S 2D 2S doesn’t show extra length (hence is a fairly common rebid) I may get to bid 4H next…showing (drumroll, please) 5+ diamonds, good spades,short hearts and slam interest.

 

And if partner makes the second commonest rebid, 2N, again I can bid 4H.

 

Funny how those sequences seem to describe my hand😀

I'd go so far as to say it shows exactly 5 diamonds, or a weak 6(+) suit (very improbable). With a good 6(+) diamonds you can presumably jump to 4♦ on the second round.

[Cyberyeti]

To each his own.

 

Personally, strong jumpshifts seem to me to:

 

a) come up infrequently

 

b) preempt our constructive auctions on precisely those hands on which we most often need bidding space

 

With your AJxx x AQJ10x xxx my view is that splintering is bizarre and would reflect a very weak understanding of bidding concepts.

 

Bidding 3D seems, I say with respect, almost as bad.

 

While I would never use J2N with that hand, I can at least understand those who would. At least that gets across two of the four critical elements of the hand: a big fit and some slam interest.

 

Me: I’d force to game via 2D and then raise spades. Since for me 1S 2D 2S doesn’t show extra length (hence is a fairly common rebid) I may get to bid 4H next…showing (drumroll, please) 5+ diamonds, good spades,short hearts and slam interest.

 

And if partner makes the second commonest rebid, 2N, again I can bid 4H.

 

Funny how those sequences seem to describe my hand

 

2/1 has become the dominant bidding philosophy in the expert game (most big club methods, which are very popular with NA pairs, use 2/1 principles…I’m discussing this aspect, not the family of standard based methods grouped as 2/1) for a very good reason: conservation of bidding space.

 

Strong jumpshifts violate that principle. Of course, one can argue that tightly defining jumpshifts clarifies other strength showing sequences, since partner can exclude the jumpshift hand types when not used. Fwiw my view is that one ought very carefully to weigh the other uses to which the SJS bid can be put, so as to weigh the net costs and benefits.

 

For example, using 1S 3H as an unspecified singleton (or void heart) is a net, if often modest, winner when opener signs off, and loses very little, if any, compared to normal splinters when opener is interested. Plus it allows 1M 4m to show a void….while such hands are rare, there is a very big difference, in terms of slam potential, between a void and a stiff

 

In the other of my two partnerships, we use 1S 3D as invitational in hearts or a strong jumpshift in hearts, with 1S 3H showing a 4 card limit raise in spades. While I prefer the splinter usage, this other approach has worked well when it arises.

 

2♦ not GF for us. It sounds like your sequences never conclusively show the 4th spade. 2N in our sequences as a rebid may be a very different animal to what I suspect it is in yours and not necessarily most common. I'd put odds on 2♥ being most common, now your stiff heart may be awkward to show.

 

3♦ is actually pretty precise, enough to GF, 4 spades to a top honour and 5+ good diamonds (or the old fashioned rock crushing single suited GF).

 

I agree you should weigh the uses of the other bids, presumably you play 3m as raises of 1M, playing 4 card majors as I do this is much less popular.

[mikeh]

I'd go so far as to say it shows exactly 5 diamonds, or a weak 6(+) suit (very improbable). With a good 6(+) diamonds you can presumably jump to 4♦ on the second round.

For me, jumping to 4D over either 2S or 2N would show a solid diamond suit (AKQJxx and usually longer) and strong slam interest.it wouldn’t show primary spades…indeed, it would deny primary spades. It forces to 4N (over 2N) or higher (over 2S, I won’t be passing 4S should opener bid it). Opener is expected to cue 4H if he can.

 

Edit: with 6 diamonds, not including six solid plus strong slam interest, I just rebid 3D. We’re committed to game already.

[mikeh]

2♦ not GF for us. It sounds like your sequences never conclusively show the 4th spade. 2N in our sequences as a rebid may be a very different animal to what I suspect it is in yours and not necessarily most common. I'd put odds on 2♥ being most common, now your stiff heart may be awkward to show.

 

3♦ is actually pretty precise, enough to GF, 4 spades to a top honour and 5+ good diamonds (or the old fashioned rock crushing single suited GF).

 

I agree you should weigh the uses of the other bids, presumably you play 3m as raises of 1M, playing 4 card majors as I do this is much less popular.

 

If I bid diamonds then splinter, I’m not saying I have four spades and heart shortness. I don’t need to be so precise.

 

I’m saying I have 5+ diamonds, primary spade support, heart shortage and at least mild slam interest.

 

Partner will evaluate his hand. He doesn’t need great spades in order to move…he’s looking at his club holding, his diamond holding, his heart holding and his spade holding. In that context, does he like his hand?

 

He’ll upgrade the heart Ace, downgrade lesser heart cards, upgrade the diamond King, downgrade if lacking the club Ace, upgrade a sixth spade, see KQxxx as neutral, and so on. Note that none of this involves assigning numerical values to any holding. We like or dislike aspects or the entirety of a hand based on what we learn with each round of the bidding. Hands we like…we push. Hands we don’t like…we stop cooperating.

 

And,yes, we play 5 card majors. I have played four card majors quite often so my dislike of them is not due to a lack of experience. Simply put, 2/1 doesn’t work well with 4 card major methods and of the many methods I’ve played, 2/1 (in various forms including relay, big club, variable notrump, multi, etc) seems to work best for me. YEMD.

 

Note that I would not splinter with, say, AJx x AQJ10x KJxx. I’d bid 3S, which shows a mild slam try and either no shortness or extra values of some kind.

 

When I consume space by a second round splinter, he’ll know I’m unlikely to hold a club control, yet I’m still interested in slam.

 

I’d be very surprised to miss a good slam, and definitely won’t miss it ‘because he can’t tell how long my spades are’.

[DavidKok]

2♦ not GF for us. It sounds like your sequences never conclusively show the 4th spade.

The way I play it, at least, the jump on the second round shows four-card support. With only three you show the diamonds, then raise the spades, and hopefully get to show your control later. With something like AKx we may bluff a bit ('it looks like 4-card support').

 

For me, jumping to 4D over either 2S or 2N would show a solid diamond suit (AKQJxx and usually longer) and strong slam interest.it wouldn’t show primary spades…indeed, it would deny primary spades. It forces to 4N (over 2N) or higher (over 2S, I won’t be passing 4S should opener bid it). Opener is expected to cue 4H if he can.

 

Edit: with 6 diamonds, not including six solid plus strong slam interest, I just rebid 3D. We’re committed to game already.

Ah, I show the solid diamond suit by bidding 3♦ then 4♦, although that usually shows 7(+). The jump shows 4(+) spades and a good suit, similar to 1♦-1♠; 4♦. Of course without a special type of hand you just rebid 3♦, no need to burn perfectly good bidding space.

[nullve]

Me: I’d force to game via 2D and then raise spades. Since for me 1S 2D 2S doesn’t show extra length (hence is a fairly common rebid) I may get to bid 4H next…showing (drumroll, please) 5+ diamonds, good spades,short hearts and slam interest.

 

And if partner makes the second commonest rebid, 2N, again I can bid 4H.

 

Funny how those sequences seem to describe my hand��

But maybe because of vagueness?

 

"5+ diamonds" = ? [♦xxxxx and ♦KQJTxx both ok?]

"good spades" = ? [♠Axx and ♠xxxx both ok?]

"short hearts" = ? [singleton and void both ok?]

"slam interest" = ? [AJx x AQJTx xxxx and AJxx x AQJTx Kxx both ok?]

 

Is AJx x AQJTx KJxx a possible hand?

 

Note that I would not splinter with, say, AJx x AQJ10x KJxx. I’d bid 3S, which shows a mild slam try and either no shortness or extra values of some kind.