[Echognome]

K&R evaluate the hand at 17.25 and Danny Kleinman's as 17+. Partner has diamonds, so you are looking for 3NT. All depends on the quality of his diamonds. Will partner know that is what you are looking for when you bid 2NT?

If so, what is partner going to bid with:

xx
Kxx
Kxxxxx
xxx

Or with:

xx
Qxx
KQxxx
xxx

Or:

xx
xxx
KQxxxx
xx

In the last case, partner has already done all he can with the 2♦ bid.

[Chamaco]

Echognome, on Nov 21 2005, 02:43 PM, said:

Will partner know that is what you are looking for when you bid 2NT?

If so, what is partner going to bid with:

Quote

xx
Kxx
Kxxxxx
xxx

Very close.
I would pass at MP, 3NT at IMPS.

Quote

xx
Qxx
KQxxx
xxx

It's a max, I'll bid 3NT.

Quote

xx
xxx
KQxxxx
xx

Definitely a pass at MP, even if 3NT is laydown.
3NT at IMPS might be worth a shot.

===========================

I am not claiming that all 3NT will make or that all pass will be wise, of course, but there is not much space left to verify the best contract or do you suggest 3D is the way to show the Axx holding in diamonds ?

If the raise to 3 diamonds MUST absolutely com from Hxx, then, well, it wrks wonder here, but then we should not raise with any other hand type, and I am not sure this "feels" right....

[olegru]

Chamaco, on Nov 21 2005, 05:48 AM, said:

I have instead a question to the 3D bidders:
assume responder has

Kxx-Tx-KJxxxx-xx

Or anyways a good maximum.
What should he expect from a 3D raise ? a balanced hand ? unbalanced ?
Should he probe for NT ? etc etc

Nothing special. Support in ♦
Not complete minimum for 1♣ oppening, but not too strong. Not necessary balanced, but could be.
3♦ is kind of invitational bid.

What to do with a good maximum hand? - Just one more bid to describe it.
3NT to show spades stopper looks right for me with Kxx-Tx-KJxxxx-xx.
With balanced hand 1♣ bidder will pass it, with unbalanced we will play in ♦. I am ready to pass 4♦ from my partner or play 5♦ if he will bid somethig else.

[keylime]

Then again 2 diamonds isn't the world's worse contract either with the zealous NT defenses out there. I try for a swing; pass. I can give delayed support later. (MPs of course, at IMPs, wholely different situation, now you bid 3NT unconditionally out of fear of +150 being offered against +600).

Don't hang pard. They will almost never have the KQxxx that is needed.

[Al_U_Card]

It is the D support that makes the invite worthwhile. Whenever you can get pard involved (esp. at little cost) do so. If he has the right hand, you will get to the right place.

[inquiry]

Would 2NT here show a hand that says, "correct to 3♦ with a bad 2♦ bid, and bid 3NT with a good one?"

If so, that seems just about right. Seems like 3NT depends upon partners diamonds. Tell him that. The problem with pass, is when partner has KQxxxx of diamonds, at the other tables it goes 1NT then some kind of bid game with diamond fit response.

IF you had balanced, no diamond fit, you would pass 2♦. IF you had big balanced with diamond fit, you would bid 3NT.. .so 2NT should carry this meaning I think. I don't see how 3♦ is ever going to get you to 3NT.

[hrothgar]

Agree with Matt's reasoning...

Opposite Kxxxxx in Diamonds game is a wonderful proposition
Give partner a "perfect hand like

♠ xx
♥ Kxx
♦ KTxxx
♣ xx

And game also has great play.

However, I'm sure that we can all construct any number of hands where 3N (or even 2N) is an abysmal contract. Unless your response structure is more complicated than you let on - suit quality requirements and the like - you aren't going to be able to achieve perfect results... At the very least: What types of 5332 patterns should be described as holding "Diamonds" rather than "Balanced"?

Personally, I lean towards a conservative pass: My Diamond length cuts down the chance that partner holds a six card suit. I don't feel like gambling that partner has a perfect dummy.

Equally significant, if I'm playing strong club, I've already decided that I don't care about field protection... I'm not going to second guess myself now.

[mikeh]

3♦

Partner will expect me to have Hxx for this bid: yes, I might have xxxx. but he should assume, for the purposes of inviting game, that I have Hxx.

In other words, if he holds KQxxxx in ♦ he can make an invitational 3♥ call, getting us to 4♦ if I hold xxxx: after all, he knows that I know that his ♦ are not solid.

As for 2N: wonderful, if in your methods it promises a ♦ fit. It would not in my methods. I am somewhat old-fashioned, I guess: I support with support and when I bid something else, I deny a good fit.

What would we bid with AKx AQxx xx AJxx?

That is, for me, a 2N rebid. Note how little this is worth opposite KQxxxx and out.

Those who bid 2N expecting partner to field their Axx♦ support are playing with telepathic partners

[joker_gib]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

My Diamond length cuts down the chance that partner holds a six card suit.

Are 9 card fits so rare ?

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

I don't feel like gambling that partner has a perfect dummy

If you don't want to gamble, ask him with 3♦ !

[joker_gib]

mikeh, on Nov 21 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

Those who bid 2N expecting partner to field their Axx♦ support are playing with telepathic partners

Totally agree !

Well said Mike !

Alain

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Nov 21 2005, 11:36 AM, said:

What would we bid with AKx AQxx xx AJxx?

That is, for me, a 2N rebid. Note how little this is worth opposite KQxxxx and out.

Those who bid 2N expecting partner to field their Axx♦ support are playing with telepathic partners

What would you bid wht that hand? You said it yourself, How much is that hand worth opposite the 2♦ bid? Not much. I would happily pass and play 2♦ with that one. I thnk that was my point exactly.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

Equally significant, if I'm playing strong club, I've already decided that I don't care about field protection... I'm not going to second guess myself now.

Indeed. By playing strong club one is already assuming the system's advantages compensate the eventual problems of field protection.

That's the spirit.

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on Nov 21 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

Equally significant, if I'm playing strong club, I've already decided that I don't care about field protection...  I'm not going to second guess myself now.

Indeed. By playing strong club one is already assuming the system's advantages compensate the eventual problems of field protection.

That's the spirit.

Of course, *in general*, but there are indeed borderline cases, no?

I mean, I agree I would not make a gross distortion of the hand, to avoid going vs the field, but is a 2NT bid a "gross distortion" here ?

I think it's close.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2005, 11:54 AM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 21 2005, 11:36 AM, said:

What would we bid with AKx AQxx xx AJxx?

That is, for me, a 2N rebid. Note how little this is worth opposite KQxxxx and out.

Those who bid 2N expecting partner to field their Axx♦ support are playing with telepathic partners

What would you bid wht that hand? You said it yourself, How much is that hand worth opposite the 2♦ bid? Not much. I would happily pass and play 2♦ with that one. I thnk that was my point exactly.

I did not express myself well. If partner has KQxxxx and out, he can and probably should bid 3♦ over 2N.

The conditions of contest specified that partner was showing 5+♦ and 5-7 hcp.

He could have many hands on which 3N is playable and many more on which 2N scores better than 2♦.

My point was that we should not be deciding which of these hands partner has. We should cooperate by describing our hand and allowing partner to play a role.

If he has KJxxx in ♦, 2♦ may be the only contract that we can bid and go down in opp my specified 18 count. While on a good day, opposite a max, 3N may be very playable: picture AKx AQxx xx AJxx opposite xx J10x KJxxx Q10x. I'd rather play 3N than 2♦ at any form of scoring.


I see an recurrent theme in many postings on this forum: a perceived need to make the final decision when we can, instead, make a descriptive call that affords partner an opportunity to demonstrate why we play with him/her.

IMHO, 3♦ does just that. Neither pass nor 2N do.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Nov 21 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

IMHO, 3♦ does just that. Neither pass nor 2N do.

I see your point and tend to agree with it. At the table, a 1NT opening might have provoked a xfr to D with a 6 card suit. Do you think that the "max" 7 hcp hand would then find another bid after a "superaccept" by opener?

I didn't associate the 3D bid with an invite to NT, (that's what I thought the 2NT bid was under the circumstances) but then I don't play strong club so....

[awm]

This sort of situation is part of why I gave up playing the methods you describe.

It always seemed to me that there were very few hands where opener could comfortably pass responder's non-forcing advance. If opener has a decent fit for responder, then one extra card of length in responder's hand often makes game playable (here, give responder KQxxxx of diamonds and nothing else and game is excellent, or even KJxxxx and out and game is okay). If opener has no fit to speak of, then there could easily be a better contract in a different strain. You can surely construct hands that would want to pass, but I don't feel like they are common.

This is not going to be a difficult hand for the standard bidders. Their auction will start with 1NT. There are decent odds this is a better partial than diamonds. If responder has six decent diamonds we will see an accepted diamond invite. If responder has six junky diamonds, we will see a diamond signoff.

Anyways, I am endplayed by the methods, and will bid 2NT because I can't stand to miss a game opposite six decent diamonds. Opposite five decent diamonds I expect eight tricks in both diamonds and notrump and want the higher scoring matchpoint spot. If partner's diamonds are lousy we may well have lost the board by this action. Since I would accept a "diamond invite" I can't really see passing here.

[adhoc3]

I play precision with my regular pd. The 2♦ here promised decent suit, at least KQJxx or KQTxxx. A pass could be more appropriate with enough hcps but poor suit. In our style the bidding would be:

1♣--(1♠)--2♦
2♠*--------3♦ *our immediate cuebid shows fitting or very strong hand. It's not GF.
Pass//

2♠-------------2NT*, 3C* *max, feature
3NT

Maybe 3♦ or 3NT will -1, we just accept it as cost for the lucky games we catch.

2♠ is not an option here.

Welcome your comments.

Jack

[Robert]

Hello echognome

If you are playing take out doubles here that xx Qxx KQxxx xxx
example hand should double. Whatever partner bids, you protect his possible spade holding.

I did not study the conditions of contest before I wrote this, so 'if' double would not be takeout, please pretend that I did not 'post' this reply.

Hello everyone

Those posters agreeing that KQJxxx should force to game might be right.

If partner holds xx in a balanced hand or an unbalanced hand with 'x' or xx in diamonds, this is not going to be a great dummy.

Maybe some invitational auction would be better?

Is this bidding an advertisement for 14-16 or 15-17 range 1NTs? Partner could rebid 1NT 'showing' somewhat more than the minimum values shown by a 16-18NT rebid.

I know, I know. You open 12+-15HCP so that you can play 1D=4(5)+ Ds

I play a 2+ D suit and 1C=16+ unbalanced or 18+ balanced.

Whatever methods work for you. Enjoy.

Many also play that 1NT-2NT- and opener can express or deny interest with the two 3m bids.

If you do not play 1NT-2NT as a diamond transfer, substitute whatever method here that you do use.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hello adhoc3

What do you bid with KJxxxx diamonds and a side king?

At first glance, I like your auction of 1C-(1S)-2D-2S* showing a fit or a
strong hand.

The people who wanted to use KQJxxx as a game force could now bid two
diamonds and pass a raise to 3D since it would not contain Ax or Axx

What exactly do you 'define' as a 'fit' with your 2S cuebid? xxx or xx might not be the 'answer' opposite KQxxxx or KQJxxx or KQJxx or KQxxx

Even Qxx or Jxx might not be the 'answer' opposite KQxxxx or KJxxx suits

I saw one method where the 3NT invitation was made by either KQxxxx or AQxxxx
where an Ace or King opposite the suit 'plus' quick tricks would make 3NT.

What this method bids with AJ10xxx plus a Quack or two, they did not bother to mention.

You can bid 3NT with KQxxxx opposite four Aces for a 21HCP 3NT with very good chances playing the method.

I suspect that you might want to play 2S*-2NT either asks or tells about a spade stopper. Partner could bid 2S*-2NT*-3C showing a stopper and 2NT*-3D denying a spade stopper.

This way you could show your Axx fit and responder could either pass 3Ds 'if' a spades stopper was not present or bid 3NT 'if' the combined holding showed a spade stopper.

With two spade stoppers 'known'(when partner claims a stopper and you are also looking at one!)

I also feel that the 3C* bid should also be pressed into service to help find out if we have nine tricks in 3NT. If your goal is 5Ds, you have a lot of space to check out those details.

1C-(1S)-2D-2S*-2NT-3C might ask for a partial stopper, 3D would show a weak suit and 3NT would show a spade stopper. or ?

Thanks for the idea. It is going into my Big Club system.

Regards,
Robert

[Rebound]

My brothers and I play a rather eccentric variant of precision, however, I believe that our meaning of 2♦ is similar enough to the given auction to make it worthwhile commenting here. I agree with mikeh in that my vote went to 3♦ although I would have some sympathy for pass. I believe that if I am going to bid NT, I will just take a shot at 3, and I don't have a good enough feeling about this hand for that.

Of course, the usual "I may have no clue what I am talking about" disclaimer applies :-)