[aguahombre]

come on, Gnasher. "15+" is right there when we click the yellow of the diagram....aside from the obvious fact that 14 is not extras.

[lmilne]

Just to check I'm on the same page as everyone else, when partner bid 3♣ he could've been 4522, right? Something like AKxx AJxxx xx Ax - no other 3-level bid fits and 3NT seems too committal.

My impression of the auction up to 3♥ was that 3♣ didn't necessarily show 4513 (although that was the most likely shape), and that 3♥ showed a doubleton and was a descriptive bid to try to find the right strain. I would never have thought that 3♥ was a cue-bid, although I agree it shows an honor, as it is bringing 4♥ in a 5-2 fit into the picture.

[PhilKing]

lmilne, on 2013-February-07, 19:46, said:

Just to check I'm on the same page as everyone else, when partner bid 3♣ he could've been 4522, right? Something like AKxx AJxxx xx Ax - no other 3-level bid fits and 3NT seems too committal.

My impression of the auction up to 3♥ was that 3♣ didn't necessarily show 4513 (although that was the most likely shape), and that 3♥ showed a doubleton and was a descriptive bid to try to find the right strain. I would never have thought that 3♥ was a cue-bid, although I agree it shows an honor, as it is bringing 4♥ in a 5-2 fit into the picture.

Yes, yes and yes. 3♠ promised shape though.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, Imiline if I used the word "cue" instead of control bid. Old habits die hard. You are absolutely correct that cuebids are bids of the opponents' suit. Some of us wrongly use the term differently and have been doing so since Christ was a corporal.

[lmilne]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 19:53, said:

Sorry, Imiline if I used the word "cue" instead of control bid. Old habits die hard. You are absolutely correct that cuebids are bids of the opponents' suit. Some of us wrongly use the term differently and have been doing so since Christ was a corporal.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fair bit of ambiguity in the terminology. The way I've always used "control bid" is in the context of an agreed fit, usually with the goal simply being game vs. slam: something like 1♥-3♥ (limit raise)-4♣.

I wouldn't think the 3♥ bid fits those requirements because neither player knows we have a club fit yet, and 3♥ as natural (Qx is certainly possible, despite not having 1st/2nd round control) makes a lot of sense. Perhaps 3♠ fits though? What do people think 3♠ shows?

One further question: does 4♣ by us now, if we were to bid that, definitely set that suit as trumps? Can partner bid 4♥ to suggest a contract now, with say AQJTx, or can he freely bid 4♥ as a forward-going move for clubs without worrying about being left there?

[aguahombre]

Regardless of how nebulous the 2C response was originally, by the time 3H is bid, opener knows responder has five of them, and responder knows opener has 3.

[lmilne]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 21:00, said:

Regardless of how nebulous the 2C response was originally, by the time 3H is bid, opener knows responder has five of them, and responder knows opener has 3.

So you think 3♣ can never be 4522 and 3♥ can never be 2344? How would AKxx AJxxx xx Ax opposite Qxx KQ Jxxx KQxx bid?

[aguahombre]

lmilne, on 2013-February-07, 21:05, said:

So you think 3♣ can never be 4522 and 3♥ can never be 2344? How would AKxx AJxxx xx Ax opposite Qxx KQ Jxxx KQxx bid?

opener would bid 3nt/2nt...content in the fact that he had shown extra strength with 2s, as op states

[lmilne]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 21:09, said:

opener would bid 3nt/2nt...content in the fact that he had shown extra strength with 2s, as op states

And you're not concerned that you're playing the wrong contract? Two low diamonds isn't exactly the best holding you can have for 3NT

edit: I've said my piece now, I created this thread to get other people's take on the situation rather than win over everyone

[aguahombre]

lmilne, on 2013-February-07, 21:14, said:

And you're not concerned that you're playing the wrong contract? Two low diamonds isn't exactly the best holding you can have for 3NT

edit: I've said my piece now, I created this thread to get other people's take on the situation rather than win over everyone

good idea. But, there is still a concept to consider. Partner has made calls also, and is smart enough to know whether her bids are reasonable. xx opposite JXXX is not a killer if we think we have the strength for 3nt.

[MrAce]

I agree with Phil that we can't possibly have any worse hand than this, having started with gf.

I also think 3♠ is not a slam going bid (at least not yet). I am also not sure that our 3♥ really promissed the 5th ♣. What were we supposed to bid with Qxx KJ J9xx AJTx ? I mean peple are free to bid whatever they wanna bid but i ain't bidding 3 NT over 3♣ with this.

I think Han has a good point that we should not bail out on 3NT really quick, 5♣ is a fine bid too.

I personally don't like 4♣

What would be 4♦ here ? Choice of games ? (although it looks like passing the responsibility back to pd if it means that, and i don't see how it can help us, except than putting pd into new puzzles) After all of this 3NT or 5♣ seems to be the simplest and most effective bids to me.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-07, 19:16, said:

We can't have less that a game force. How bad can our hand be? We effectively have an aceless ten count. Name a hand where partner passes 5♣ yet slam is good.

And OP never said partner showed 15+ - just some extras. But it's a red herring since we have nothing.

Oh, lol just clicked the mouse on the diagram - rookie error. 15+ FTW. I still think a competent parter is capable of noticing that AAAK should bid a slam.

What's your recommended auction with AKxx Axxxx x Axx opposite Qxx Qx K10x KQ10xx ?

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2013-February-08, 02:13, said:

What's your recommended auction with AKxx Axxxx x Axx opposite Qxx Qx K10x KQ10xx ?

I dunno his recommended auction, but imo the hand you constructed makes Han's point (bidding 3 NT on our turn as it is given to us in OP) even stronger.

I would personally end up in 6♣ with this hand if my pd skipped 3 NT and bid clubs regardless at 4 or 5 level.

[Fluffy]

'We can't have less that this', I think those who think along these lines don't see the big difference between ♥K and ♥Q, it won't matter if partner has ♥Q himself, but when he doesn't....

[han]

Andy I think that that hand should bid 3NT over 3C.

Obviously I also missed that 2S showed 15+. To my mind that doesn't rhyme with the description "some extras". I think that a nice looking 13-count is already some extras when you have this shape.

I don't think that a 4522 should ever bid 3C on this auction.

[han]

Thinking about this hand some more I think it might have been a mistake to bid 3H. Even though aquaman has repeatedly claimed that 3H showed 5 clubs, clearly it does not. We would all bid 3H on AQx Kx Jxxx Kxxx, where 4H is the most likely strain for both game and slam.

In order to show doubt about 3NT and offer clubs as an alternative I think we should bid 3D, the fourth suit. Partner can now bid 3NT with a diamond honor, 3S with "nothing special to say" and 3H with either 5 strong hearts or a 4603. A 4504 bids 4C. Over 3H we can temporize with 3S, over which partner can bid 3NT with most hands, 4C with slam interest in clubs and 4D or 4H with a 4-6-0-3.

I hope I'm not going over the Rexford deep end when I say that all of this is "natural" and does not require special agreements.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-February-08, 02:13, said:

What's your recommended auction with AKxx Axxxx x Axx opposite Qxx Qx K10x KQ10xx ?

I would bid 3NT over 3♣.

[PhilKing]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-08, 03:05, said:

'We can't have less that this', I think those who think along these lines don't see the big difference between ♥K and ♥Q, it won't matter if partner has ♥Q himself, but when he doesn't....

Yes, of course. Because you know what we see and probably what we think.

[rhm]

han, on 2013-February-08, 04:15, said:

Thinking about this hand some more I think it might have been a mistake to bid 3H. Even though aquaman has repeatedly claimed that 3H showed 5 clubs, clearly it does not. We would all bid 3H on AQx Kx Jxxx Kxxx, where 4H is the most likely strain for both game and slam.

In order to show doubt about 3NT and offer clubs as an alternative I think we should bid 3D, the fourth suit. Partner can now bid 3NT with a diamond honor, 3S with "nothing special to say" and 3H with either 5 strong hearts or a 4603. A 4504 bids 4C. Over 3H we can temporize with 3S, over which partner can bid 3NT with most hands, 4C with slam interest in clubs and 4D or 4H with a 4-6-0-3.

I hope I'm not going over the Rexford deep end when I say that all of this is "natural" and does not require special agreements.

I think any bid below 3NT should show doubt about 3NT.
Having shown doubt allows us to bid 3NT next time over 3♠.
3♥ simply shows a doubleton honor, while any other bid below 3NT including 3♦ would deny that much in hearts.
This is very important for partner to judge not only strain but also level.
Reserving 3♥ for hands cancelling interest in playing clubs is for me neither intuitive nor natural.
You are going over the Rexford deep end.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I never said that 3H cancels interest in clubs. I said 3H does not promise 5 clubs, which is quite different from 3H denying 5 clubs.

I agree with you that any bid under 3NT shows doubt about 3NT. If we had no doubt, we would bid 3NT.

I wrote that "in order to show doubt about 3NT AND offer clubs as an alternative we should bid 3D". This is the distinction, 3D has to show interest in playing clubs while 3H shows interest in playing hearts and does not promise interest in playing clubs.

It seems like the only thing that you and I disagree about is whether we are forced to bid 3H with honor doubleton. You say that 3D denies honor doubleton, I say we should look at our whole hand. While it is not impossible that we belong in hearts, it is quite unlikely. We can still get to hearts after 3D, but I think that 3D makes the strains that we are considering more clear to partner.