[jillybean]

---

Too aggressive or unlucky?

OT auction 2 nt 3♣ 3♦ 3 nt.

[nige1]

jillybean, on 2016-January-03, 19:34, said:

Too aggressive or unlucky?
OT auction 2 nt 3♣ 3♦ 3 nt.

---

Perhaps, North's 4♣ and 6N were too committal and aggressive. 6N is still a bit unlucky, although it would be better played by North.

[wank]

which part of north's hand did he feel was unshown after 2s? he has an ideal hand for 3nt. 4c shows rather more clubs and rather more playing strength. South could have a 5 or 6 count.

[masse24]

4♣ is strange.

[rmnka447]

I think North's bidding is way too aggressive. North has shown the hand already with the 2 ♠ jump shift. IMO, a simple 3 NT bid over 2 NT ought to show exactly what North has -- longer ♣ than ♠ and a flattish hand that North didn't want to jump to a 2 NT rebid on or possibly open 2 NT instead.

North has a 19 HCP hand with a nice ♣ suit. If slam is to make, it's still a power slam that will require a good 12-13 by South to be a good bet to make. North has no way of knowing exactly what South's hand is, but the hand is still limited by the 2 NT rebid. South didn't jump to 3 NT which ought to show a bigger hand with stoppers.

In any case, North ought to trust that with enough to make slam a possibility, South will make a try over 3 NT.

[mcphee]

North messed up leaping to 4C a very poor bid. What was so horrible about bidding 3N?

[gszes]

n sort of lost control and bid the same values over and over and over paying little/no attention what their poor p was bidding. n was incredibly lucky to catch such a good hand from south. QJx QJx KJxxx Jx is an 11 count where 6n has virtually no chance and can be set from the top. There is no reason from the bidding to assume the s hand is even this good how about xxx QJx Kxxxx Jx or would south need at least the spade Q to bid as they did? N has a nice hand loaded with controls and possibly 1 slam move was warranted but that move was probably 4n over 2n not 4c (unless 4c had a special meaning of which we are unaware.

[neilkaz]

4♣ is a bad bid in an already GF auction with a semi-balanced hand. 3♣ would allow ♣ to be stressed and to stay below 3NT while seeing if PD can cooperate in search of slam.

[jillybean]

I'm surprised there is a unanimos dislike of North's 4♣ bid, perhaps because some are playing the 2 nt as a limited response.

For us, 2 nt is forward going, with a balanced hand and no slam interest partner would bid 3 nt.

Looking at my options here I consdiered 3N as giving up too soon, a bid I might make playing MP
3♣ should be 4xx6 and 3♦ looks like a 4135 hand.

[wank]

jillybean, on 2016-January-06, 20:05, said:

2 nt is forward going, with a balanced hand and no slam interest partner would bid 3 nt.

1) this is a problem (but probably not particularly relevant here. see 2). there is no such thing as fast arrival in no-trumps in any auction. jumps always show extras. it's unplayable to play your way.

tbf this seems to be a common understanding gap. there are 2 reasons. firstly, weak hands can't afford to jump in no trumps because being low on HCP is closely connected with being low in stops. you're pre-empting yourself from potentially finding a safer game. if you play the normal way, whereby a jump shows extras, then even if you miss a good fit in a suit, it's not a crisis, because you have the extra values to compensate. secondly, by jumping to show extras you actually end up with 3 discrete ranges (can jump, can bid 2N and respect partner, can bid 2N and bid on) which is easier to handle than 1 small weak range and 1 wide encouraging to strong range as you have.

2) anyway, north is minimum HCP (ok, nice controls) and with no extra shape. why do you not think 3nt encapsulates that? anyway, ok let's assume that due to the prime honours and 10 of clubs, you think you're too good for 3NT, then bid 4NT, and show your shape, so partner doesn't place you with all these club tricks you don't have. he should still realise something like ax of spades is a golden holding for ruffing purposes.

[kenberg]

I am late to this and I am not sure I really have much new to say. If I held the north hand I would open 1C, rebid 2S, and raise 2NT to 3NT figuring that if partner does not take us to 6 now then we probably do not belong in 6.

One counter note to this however. If you have an agreement that over 2S the response of 2NT is forward going, with 3NT as weaker, then maybe I have to rethink. I have no such agreement with anyone and I would resist such an agreement. But even if I did, I cannot see doing more than raising 2NT to 3NT.

The main reason for 2NT-3NT is that I think I have now described my hand. That reason suffices for me, but I can suggest others. The hands really are fitting a little better than I would expect. After 1C-1D-2S partner has chosen 2NT. I never mentioned hearts, so he has some. He has diamonds. I don't expect many black cards. With slam interest and clubs, I imagine he might have chosen 3C instead of 2NT. So it is not all that surprising to find (at most) two small clubs in his hand. We can pick up the Jack as they break, but no guarantee. If we pick up clubs and still need more help, substantially more, I think driving to slam is overly optimistic.

On the plus side, I do like opening 1C instead of 2NT.

[jillybean]

This is going to be good material to discuss with partner, thank you!

[kenberg]

For many of us, definitely including myself, these strong auctions with no clear fit lead to trouble. Some thoughts:

First, maybe a typo? Was that S call really 4D rather than 4H? I assume that 4C was gerber, a jump to 4C over a natural 2NT usually is, and then 4D shows no aces, 4H shows one. Anyway, the 6NT was no doubt based on partner holding an Ace so this is a quibble.

Could S have four hearts? give him a 3=4=5=1 shape with about the strength he has. he bids 1D or 1H over 1C?

Now about the 2NT versus 3NT over the 2S: We are, I assume, in an absolute game force. I don't see that a weak or modest responder will often be in a position to know if the hand should be played in 5C or 3NT. Possibly even on 4S in a 4-3 fit if his spades are better, say QJx ,and he has a stiff club. I would think of 2NT as "I have to bid something, I cannot directly support either of your suits, I guess i can give NT a try". If partner raises 2NT to 3NT responder can pass with the sort of hand he has. With a stronger hand he can make another move. Give him the red cards that he has, make the clubs Jx and the spades Qxx, and he could move. I still only see 11 sure tricks: five clubs, three diamonds, two hearts, a developable spade. But it definitely has a decent play.
However after 2NT then N, with a different hand, has room to show greater shape with 3C. This shows doubt about 3NT, either because more might be possible or because of opener's more extreme shape, and gves responder a chance to further describe his hand, perhaps with 3S which might well be a good choice with, say QJx of spades, a stiff club, and only modest stops in the reds.

The above is rougly how I see it, I repeat that strong sequences with msfits are tough for me and I think tough for many so I will read what others say as well.I usually do.

Added: Another possibility after 1C-1D-2S-2NT. Opener might well bid 3D next. Presumably this is a 4=1=3=5 shape (not certain but very likely) and whatever responder then does, it will be based on more information. After 1C-1D-2S-3NT I very much doubt opener, with the same shapte, wiill then bid 4D, especially if the 3NT shows weakness. 5D might well be the right spot.

So, briefly: 1C-1D-2S is a strong suggestion to play in clubs or spades, responder should support if he can, so 2NT is constructive only in the sense that maybe NT will work but if opener has more shape to show he would be happy to hear of it.

[mycroft]

Why is 4♣ bad? Because 2♠ showed "even with a minimum response, we have game." If your hand was any stronger you'd open 2♣ (digression in spoiler).

Spoiler

unless you really don't like opening 2♣ with a two-suiter, which I'm leery of myself - in which case, 4♣ says "If my hand wasn't such a nightmare to bid after 2♣, I would have done that. I have *slam interest* opposite a minimum response, not just game."

And that's what you have. A hand strong enough that you don't want partner passing 1♠ with a fitting (or even non-fitting) subminimum because we'll still miss game. So, now, you slow down. If 2NT is lebensohlish "partner, I might just pass 3♣, I have a really bad hand" you bid 3♣ and see - or you bid 3NT because they still pay game bonuses even NV.

But here I see that 2NT shows about what South has in your system. Good. Partner's never passing 3♣, then, if you want to do that, but why? wouldn't that show something like 4=1=2=6? Bid 3NT.

Basically what I think people are saying is "even if 2NT shows slam interest, you have a minimum both in shape and in strength for your 2♠ bid. So bid that way. Partner isn't forced to pass 3NT, after all."

And everything said about 4♣ "bidding your values twice" goes double for 6NT.

Edit: if, as Ken says, 4♣ is Gerber, then yeah. I keep forgetting people play that convention. But still, 19+9 and no fit suit to run does not equal 33 in my book, even with 3 aces.

[kenberg]

Exactly who plays what and when is always a tricky business and the I/A forum is a great place for such a discussion. I was plying the other day with someone who mentioned that he liked to play a jumps shift by opener, 1C-1D-2S, as not completely game forcing and to use Leb to sort it out. i agreed. We were noly playing a few hands. but in a regular partnership I prefer that 1C-1D-2S be gf. partner rarely passes 1C-1D-1S and, if he does, there is a fine chance it is right.

As to gerber, it gets a lot of criticism but if used with restraint it seems to be a fine convention. if 1C-1D-2S creates a gf then it is hard to see a natural use for 1C-1D-2S-2NT-4C, unless 1C-1D-2S-2NT-3C has an artificial meaning. Since 1C-1D-2S-2NT-3C has a fine natural meaning, I would resist giving it an artificial meaning.

Conventions are a big problem in pick-up games, and bbo is often something close to pick-up. Keeping conventional meanings to a minimum seems wise. But still, after 1C-1D-2S-2NT I can imagine wanting to know how many aces partner has, and I don't know what else 4C would be, so it seems like gerber to me.

[jillybean]

kenberg, on 2016-January-07, 08:43, said:

First, maybe a typo? Was that S call really 4D rather than 4H? I assume that 4C was gerber, a jump to 4C over a natural 2NT usually is, and then 4D shows no aces, 4H shows one. Anyway, the 6NT was no doubt based on partner holding an Ace so this is a quibble.

We play 1430 Gerber, so 4♣ is 1 or 4

mycroft, on 2016-January-07, 11:40, said:

But still, 19+9 and no fit suit to run does not equal 33 in my book, even with 3 aces.

I should start keeping track of the number of <30 hands where we have bid and made slam, with well below 33 hcp.
That being said, these slams are with 2 well fitting hands, not a misfit as in the OP.

[wank]

For 6nt you traditionally need 33. For slam in suits and with big fits, yeah, you need far less.

[wank]

Btw it would have been helpful if you'd put in the op that was 4c was gerber.

[mycroft]

True, true on slam <30. But without a runner suit or two, it's not happening in NT. 33 *on power alone* is still the guideline.

But the big thing is realizing that when North bid 2♠, she doesn't have anything more. 5 clubs, 4 spades, good 19-21 - she has that, but she has a minimum. Once someone limits her hand, partner is captain. Any slam moves need to come from South.

[kuhchung]

didn't realize 4C was gerber
say partner answers two aces. you can count 10 tricks if clubs break...