[Chamaco]

Matchpoints, all vulnerable

Playing precision with (12)13-15 1NT, you deal, and open an artificial strong club (16+).

Axx-AJxx-Axx-Axx

1C-(1S)-2D*-(p)
?

After the overcall 1S, 2D is natural, 5+ cards, nonforcing (about 5-7 hcp).

What do you bid ?

[mike777]

if 2d=5-7 and 5+d..is pass ok?

assume p can bid 3d with long d and invite hand? If not Change System!

[Echognome]

I was very disappointed to learn that this thread was about evaluating hands and not Hannie.

I would simly pass here. 4 bullets is quite nice, but if partner can only produce a NF 2♦, I think we're far away from game. If partner happens to have KQJxxx and 3NT makes, then that's a bit unlucky. I don't know your styles here, but I don't see how I can find out if partner holds that hand or a hand with Qxxxx of diamonds and 3 other points scattered about.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Nov 21 2005, 08:29 AM, said:

if 2d=5-7 and 5+d..is pass ok?

assume p can bid 3d with long d and invite hand?

No , 3X is natural GF, selfsufficient suit.

2D is in itself an invite, 5+ cards, but we ignore whether the suit length is 5 or 6 or more.

Double would have been 2-way = either a GF not worth a jump (no self sufficient suit), or invitational + with a semibalanced hand, more or less a negative double hand-type with a minimum of 5-7 hcp.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Nov 21 2005, 03:33 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 21 2005, 08:29 AM, said:

if 2d=5-7 and 5+d..is pass ok?

assume p can bid 3d with long d and invite hand?

No , 3X is natural GF, selfsufficient suit.

2D is in itself an invite, 5+ cards, but we ignore whether the suit length is 5 or 6 or more.

Double would have been 2-way = either a GF not worth a jump (no self sufficient suit), or invitational + with a semibalanced hand, more or less a negative double hand-type with a minimum of 5-7 hcp.

1c=(1s)=3d=game force ugggggg really hate that.

[PMetsch]

If the "field" plays a strong NT, then I don't want to be in 2♦. I don't get too many MP's making +90 or +110, so lets try 2NT. With a real bad diamond holding, partner can always bid 3♦.

[P_Marlowe]

I would show my shape,
and clarify the point range.

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

3♦ (support with support) and up to partner. I don't like 2NT which should show more points I think (I'm not playing precision) and maybe no ♦ fit (-> more difficult to judge for partner)

Alain

[Chamaco]

Thanks to anyone has replied so far.

I have another question to the freinds who posted.

I understand the rationale of the 2NT bidders (worried by the strong notrumper field).

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

I am worried that the 3D raise might be just too nebulous for responder to be able to evaluate properly, comments ?

[joker_gib]

Chamaco, on Nov 21 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

I am worried that the 3D raise might be just too nebulous for responder to be able to evaluate properly, comments ?

Hi Mauro,

IMO, raising a minor under 3NT in those kind of auction is first NT oriented.

If you don't bid 3♦, partner can't judge his hand. Here, with the hand you give (Kxx-Tx-KJxxxx-xx), this is a max and 6-card suit so I accept the invitation and bid 3♠ (ok for 3NT and nothing in ♥) or 3NT directly.

Alain

[whereagles]

Obvious 3NT at imps. At matchpoints it not so obvious because at other tables it will go

1NT pass

I'd try 2NT then.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Nov 21 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

I was very disappointed to learn that this thread was about evaluating hands and not Hannie.

I would simly pass here. 4 bullets is quite nice, but if partner can only produce a NF 2♦, I think we're far away from game. If partner happens to have KQJxxx and 3NT makes, then that's a bit unlucky. I don't know your styles here, but I don't see how I can find out if partner holds that hand or a hand with Qxxxx of diamonds and 3 other points scattered about.

I don't know Mauro's style either, but I would hope he wouldn't bid 2♦ with Q-5th and more points somewhere else IMO, such a hand should make a takeout double or pass. You can't waste your possibly only chance to bid for such a suit.

It was matchpoints that made me bid 2NT. 3♦ is right on values, but I share Maruo's doubts that we will ever get to 3NT when partner doesn't have a spade stopper (or any stopper, for that matter).

[mr1303]

I want partner to bid 3NT if his diamonds are a source of tricks, not whether or not he has a spade stopper. As a result, I try 2NT. If partner's diamonds are a pile of rubbish, then he should realise that 3NT looks iffy and bid 3D, otherwise he should bid 3NT.

[Gerben42]

I bid 2NT also. If partner has a 6-card ♦ he will know that 2NT is forcing to the holder of a 6-card suit. Either bid 3♦ (crappy ♦) or 3NT (good ♦). If he has 5 and a minimum, pass will be the right thing.

Besides I evaluate Han as a nice guy but somehow there was no option for that in the poll.

[SchTsch]

Echognome, on Nov 21 2005, 03:29 AM, said:

I would simly pass here.  4 bullets is quite nice, but if partner can only produce a NF 2♦, I think we're far away from game.

If partner has only sixth diamond king 3NT is on 2-2 diamonds, so 40%. I bid 2NT on both MPs and IMPs. That is exactly what I have so I'll bid it.

[Echognome]

Part of the issue here is (1) what is partner's style for offering up a suit here and (2) what does my 2NT bid mean.

For (1), is partner going to bid on any 5 diamonds and 5-7 points? Will partner pass or double sometimes? I don't know, as I don't know partners tendencies. Second point is why do I want to declare NT? Partner hasn't asked me for a spade stopper yet. If partner is looking at a source of tricks in diamonds and I like diamonds, then why not raise 2♦ to 3♦? What if partner has

♠Qx
♥xxx
♦QJTxxx
♣Qx

Now we want partner to declare NT or we will get killed on a club lead. Holding all the aces and only one possible tenace (hearts) is not usually best for NT. How to express this to partner is difficult. On the other hand, many will open my hand 1NT, so will have to declare from their side. At least we will flatten the result.

Also, in line with the MPs aspect, since many will open 1NT, partner will often transfer to diamonds. We will super-accept and partner will either sign-off in 3♦ or bid 3NT. Alternatively, it will go 1NT - All Pass. Thus, I don't mind playing in 2♦ as we will do as well as or better than all those in 3♦. We will either win or lose to those in 3NT, and we will either take an extra 2 tricks in diamonds or we won't compared to those in 1NT. If I bid 2NT, partner will either pass us there, correct to 3♦ or bid 3NT. If he passes us in 2NT, we will probably get a poor result unless there are exactly 8 tricks available in NT where we will get an average. If he corrects to 3♦ (as some people said with a poor suit), then we will probably get an average result. If he bids 3NT, then we get an average plus if it makes and an average minus if it goes down. Note that we are under-strength for 3NT and many will not even invite (with 5-7 opposite 15-17).

The second point is what does 2NT mean in my system? Does it show that I had a 16-18(19) point opener? Is a 2NT opening 19-20? Does it show a variety of 16+ hands with a spade stopper that is now inviting to 3NT? Does it deny (4)5 hearts? etc. etc.

[Chamaco]

Quote

For (1), is partner going to bid on any 5 diamonds and 5-7 points?  Will partner pass or double sometimes?  I don't know, as I don't know partners tendencies.

This was undiscussed, and is part of the reasons why I am posting this hand, to hear some feedback.

Quote

The second point is what does 2NT mean in my system?  Does it show that I had a 16-18(19) point opener?  Is a 2NT opening 19-20?  Does it show a variety of 16+ hands with a spade stopper that is now inviting to 3NT?  Does it deny (4)5 hearts?  etc. etc.

This is easier.
2NT CANNOT be GF, so it shows a hand in the 17-18 range, probably suggesting to play 3NT.
With any 19+ or equivalent opposite a 5-7 responder, responder would just force game.


I agree with all the doubts you formulated and - unfortunately- I am hre on BBF not so much to answer these doubts but to ask to you folks to help ME clarifying these bidding style issues

[zasanya]

I play precision regularly.My vote is for 2 NT because on majority of the hands if 2!d makes 2 NT will also make.Its invitational of course.

[han]

Very glad that this thread isn't about me, I thought that I had done something wrong. (or rather, that I was caught doing something wrong, which is much worse)

I voted for pass. I think that partner should force to game with some hands having suits like KQJxxx even if they have less than 8 HCP's.

[Chamaco]

Hannie, on Nov 21 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

Very glad that this thread isn't about me, I thought that I had done something wrong. (or rather, that I was caught doing something wrong, which is much worse)

I voted for pass. I think that partner should force to game with some hands having suits like KQJxxx even if they have less than 8 HCP's.

Ok, here is my view:

I think that Aces are worth more than 4 hcp even for balanced hands, say about 4.5 hcp.

When opener learns that responder has something, he *knows* responder will have soft values (we've got all the aces !!), but that our aces wil reinforce anything useful from pard.

We also know that responder (becasue of his lone soft values) is unlikely to make any move towards reevaluating hi hand, unless we do not show him signs of interest.

Besides, despite the 4333 shape, I evaluate this hand closer to a 18.5 hcp rather than a 17, and if we find either 6 diamonds running OR 5 diamonds + a side trick we should be home in NT.

This is why I would have invited with 2NT.
And yes, with KQJxxx I agree with Han, I think the hand might be treated as a minimum GF hand.