[paulhar]

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15? 13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not. Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

[whereagles]

paulhar, on Feb 25 2006, 12:19 AM, said:

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15? 13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not. Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

[paulhar]

whereagles, on Feb 25 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

paulhar, on Feb 25 2006, 12:19 AM, said:

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15?  13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not.  Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

It was addressed to the original poster who wanted to know what to do with his 16-18 point hand when he played 1x-3NT as 13-15. My point was simply that if he played the 3NT response as 16-18, he would not have to ask what to do with 13-15; he would have known. So, for people that play as infrequently as I do (which may have included the asker), playing the 3NT response as 16-18 usefully solves a problem whereas playing it as 13-15 creates a hole of ambiguity.

[kenberg]

paulhar, on Feb 25 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 25 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

paulhar, on Feb 25 2006, 12:19 AM, said:

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15?  13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not.  Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

It was addressed to the original poster who wanted to know what to do with his 16-18 point hand when he played 1x-3NT as 13-15. My point was simply that if he played the 3NT response as 16-18, he would not have to ask what to do with 13-15; he would have known. So, for people that play as infrequently as I do (which may have included the asker), playing the 3NT response as 16-18 usefully solves a problem whereas playing it as 13-15 creates a hole of ambiguity.

I agree, Paul. It has become more-or-less standard to play 1m-3NT as 13-15. It seems to me that this is an error unless there is some established way to handle the stronger hands. With 13-15 you can get to game which is usually where it ends. With more, you need a way to show your strength without distorting the auction so that partner cn judge the chances of a slam. After this hand, I decided it was past time to address the issue. Either we need a definite way to handle the balanced 16-17 point hands, or we need to revert to the historical method of using 3NT. I have now agreed with one partner that 1m-3NT is the 16-17 balanced. This seems right to me. I intend to think some more about this.

Ken

[awm]

I think the reasoning is that bidding 3NT over 1m can make it hard to find slams. There are many hands where opener has fairly minimum values with a bit of extra shape, and needs to know whether to pass or bid. The principle is that with 13-15 hcp, you usually want to play 3NT. Bidding it directly deters partner from looking for slams: shapely minimums for partner should just pass. With 16-17 hcp there will often be a fitting slam, and it can be good to bid more slowly and let partner pattern out.

[kenberg]

awm, on Feb 26 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

I think the reasoning is that bidding 3NT over 1m can make it hard to find slams. There are many hands where opener has fairly minimum values with a bit of extra shape, and needs to know whether to pass or bid. The principle is that with 13-15 hcp, you usually want to play 3NT. Bidding it directly deters partner from looking for slams: shapely minimums for partner should just pass. With 16-17 hcp there will often be a fitting slam, and it can be good to bid more slowly and let partner pattern out.

Possibly, but let's take the hand I held as an example. Partner had a minimum balanced hand and, although 6C was on, I think there is agreement that staying out is fine. In general, partner won't have 15 balanced, since we play a strong NT. Suppose he is modestly endowed and unbalanced. Let's give him five clubs and four of something else. If it's four diamonds he certainly knows there is a strong fit, quite likely a double fit, in one or both minors. With a four card major on the side he will be less ecstatic but he can still trust that there is an eight card club fit at least, and he knows pretty well what strength to expect. It's true that the jump to 3NT used up a lot of space for exploration but it's also true that at least one person has given an accurate and fairly detailed description of his hand. If I, as responder, have to start with some invented bid to feel partner out, it will be far more difficult to describe my own shape and strength. Perhaps I can gather enough information from partner to place the contract, and perhaps he will let my choice stand, but it seems like a bit of a seat of the pants operation.

I posted this hand feeling that the proper route is unclear. I still feel that way. In fact, I believe that the whole business of minor suit auctions could use a lot of work. At least mine could. What I would like is a reasonably effective, reasonably natural approach, one that doesn't involve bidding suits that I don't actually have (eg 1D with the current hand). It's true that 1m-3NT on 13-15 is something of that sort since it usually then goes all pass, usually it's correct, usually I don't get dealt 16-17 balanced and hear partner open, and even then 3NT is usually the right place. I am still hoping to do better than this without entering the land of exotica. Perhaps that is asking for the impossible. I don't actually abhor gadgets, but I have developed a skepticism except for pairs that spend a great deal of effort controlling the unwanted side effects.

Ken