BBO Discussion Forums: MENTOR vs MENTEES #3 - BBO Discussion Forums

MP all vulnerable 5th hand reasonable start to session

KJx KQx AKx xxxx
AQxx Axxx xxxxx void

15-17 NT no interference bidding N opens 1NT take it from there. Easily adopted special gadgets always welcome.

If you play 1N-2♣-2♦-3♦ as forcing, this is not too bad, we don't, it's inv for us so this auction is ugly.

I can see 3N being the right thing to do over 2♦ if partner has KJx, KQx, xxx, AKxx but it obviously spectacularly backfires here with his actual hand.

Cyberyeti, on 2017-November-23, 12:46, said:

That auction for some of us old folk would be the Weissberger convention showing 5-5 majors and asking for 3 card major suit support. Times change.

As for avoiding 3NT, it's just one of those hands where finding the right contract is just as difficult for the opponents as yourselves and sometimes you just have to accept that,

Cyberyeti, on 2017-November-23, 12:46, said:

if you play 3d as forcing -- how would your partnership continue?

We play a weak NT and our auction would be 1♣, 1♦; 1NT, 3NT

After this start, opps probably aren't leading a club!

Given a strong 1NT start, I am sure most will play in 3NT (e.g: 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 3♦; 3NT)

Many play some form of splinter response at the 3 level, for example: 1NT - 3M = 0-1M; 1NT - 3♦ = 0-1m (3♥ asks then 3♠ = 0-1♣, 3NT = 0-1♦). Some use additional sequences, such as a 2NT or 3♣ response) to differentiate between splinters with and without 4 card majors. In my preferred structure you can respond 3♠ to show 4441/4450. In any of these methods, it is going to be possible to avoid 3NT although whether you end up in 4M or 5♦ (or perhaps even slam) instead might vary depending on the specific definitions being used.

gszes, on 2017-November-23, 10:48, said:

1NT-2 ♣
2♦--3♦
3♥--3♠
4♦ (Denying ♣ control) I dunno where we end up from here but knowing pd can't bid 3 NT over 3♠ will encourage the responder imo.

To me bidding 3 NT over 3♦ is a lousy bid when pd showed 9+ cards in a major + diamonds and you are holding 4 small clubs. Worst part is, club lead is announced to defenders.

MrAce, on 2017-November-27, 07:54, said:

What did the 3h and 3s bids mean? From the commentary i am assuming they are showing controls with dia support but I've been wrong (oh so many times) before. Are we certain the 3d bid promises 5+ or could the 3d bidder hold 4441?

gszes, on 2017-November-23, 10:48, said:

Without special agreement, 3N is your likely resting place.
Some partnerships agree that a jump to the 3 level shows the shortage in a 3-suiter.
On a good day, with that agreement, you might rejoice in the auction on the left.

---

gszes, on 2017-November-28, 04:50, said:

3♦ shows 5+ the way I play it. I do not bid it with 4441 because this brings too much weight on this bid and reduces the effectiveness of it.

3♥ and ♠ bids are controls. They might be due to fear of bidding 3 NT but they become clear when we bid 4♦. If opener bids 4♥ instead of 4♦, the way I play it shows willing to play a 4-3 M fit on whichever responder has 4 cards and denies a genuine ♦ support.

I think 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ would be automatic for most people.

The question then is whether to rebid 3 ♦ or 3 NT. At IMPs, I think 3 ♦ stands out as either the minor game or NT are OK if they make. If you happen to find opener with a ♦ suit even 6 ♦ might be a possibility as responder holds all the out side controls. At MPs, 3 ♦ forcing is probably still preferable, but may drew a ♣ lead from the opponents. So if you wished to make a tactical 3 NT rebid, I don't have a problem with that.

After a 3 ♦ rebid by responder, I think opener just rebids 3 NT and the auction ends there.

Not having an auto-splinter available, it might go
1NT-2♣
2♦-3♦
3♥-4♥

With Agusaris I also have the option to show diamonds with club shortage:
1NT-2♣
2♦(forced)-3♣
and opener would show a 4-card major now. So this would lead to a 5♦ contract.

However, out nt range is 13-15 so this hand would open 1♣ and then a relay sequence should show responder's exact shape, unless I mess up the relays which I usually do.

Is it only me not standing for 3NT with void as responder ? On the bid 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦-3NT I would bid 4♦ passing any 4M response or 5♦.
In worst case if 4♦ would be passable (which it should not) I would bid directly 5♦. Having said this a 3NT bid from opener is bad in my eyes due to missing stop.

Bidding is partly what you agree to, partly how you judge a hand..I'll say what agreements I like to have. They are simple but usually adequate

1NT-2C-2D-3D is natural, forcing, and often but not always slam oriented. Over 3D, a call of 3NT announces a lack of enthusiasm for a diamond contract, any call other than 3NT shows diamond support and interest in a slam if that's what pard has in mind. So 1NT-2C-2D-3D-3H is not an attempt to find 4H in a 4-3 fit, it is a heart control, A or K, and diamonds. These would be my methods if I were playing with my clone or with someone I have discussed such things with, assuming he agrees. I don't doubt that some partnerships have more sophisticated methods but I don't.

So here, after 1NT-2C-2D, responder has to make his best bet. At mps I can imagine him figuring that since pard does not have the majors then he probably can stop clubs. Or he might trot out his xxxxx with 3D. Easy to say, but I think I would bid 3D. NT with a void is not usually going to go well.

It will play well in diamonds. No doubt you want to be in a matchpoint 6D, a 3-2 split is enough.

It can begin 1NT-2C-2D-3D-3H. Now responder is glad to hear of opener's enthusiasm for diamonds but with xxxxx I can imagine him being a little shy. If he bids 3S this could work out.

1NT - 2C
2D - 3D
3H - 3S
4D - 5C
6D.


In this the 3D was game forcing, the 3H accepted diamonds, the 3S was a cue the 4D was lack of a club stop (but not passable we have been in a gf since the 3D) , the 5C was a cue and the 6D was "If pard is inviting, I am accepting".

Playing with my clone, that's what the bids would have meant if we did it. Would we? On a good day we might.

It seems like there is too much emphasis on showing a minor suit fit and not enough concentrating on NT. Responder bid 3d for some reason. It may be for slam or maybe an alternative to 3N and we have to assume it is the latter until otherwise advised.
Responder is almost always holding a short suit for this type of bidding and that fact alone opposite a balanced hand means there is at least one "worry suit" defined as one or more suit(s) where BOTH partners are not aware of a stopper for nt (this concept also applies to controls for slam bidding). IMHO rather than showing a minor suit fit the partnership should concentrate on finding 3n when it is best and falling back on the minor when NT seems like a poor idea. When there is ONE worry suit a player asks for a stop (or control) with MORE than ONE worry suit a player shows their stops up the line IF they cannot bid 3n on their own. This does not mean one suddenly stops playing bridge since there are some hands where bypassing 3N is totally obvious and the only question is how high. Axx Ax Axxxx Axx bidding goes 1n 2c 2d 3d well I for one will waste zero time worrying about 3N and launch a 4h bid showing 4 aces or 3 outside aces and the trump K and (a or K) x in hearts in case that helps p determine level. Now back to earth and the vastly more likely normal 1N opening bids. After 1n 2c 2d 3d there are THREE worry suits (only diamonds are known for sure). Rather than showing controls and a dia fit I feel it is better to show stops for NT purposes and if 3N seems wrong then worry about showing minor suit support. The key is to realize that when responder is minimum for their 3m bid they will always have a short suit. How does this apply to the problem presented?
1n 15-17
2c stayman
2d no 4 card major
3d game forcing hand and 5+ diamonds (the search for a major suit fit is OVER and now we start to see if NT is right)
3h have hearts stopped for NT but have a problem with spades or clubs or both (because the opening bidder does NOT know if responder has 4 spades or not)
3s have spades stopped (even if 3/4 small) but have a problem with clubs. This bid makes it possible for opener to bid 3n with sufficient stuff in clubs. No guesswork and proceeding with knowledge as to best probable place to play.
4d 3+ dia support and not enough in clubs to bid 3n since the bidding has made it clear clubs is responders short suit.
**** If we have no more discussion (all that remains is slam bidding) and responder now always bids 5d we will have avoided what could have been a terrible 3n (opps have 9 clubs and can take at least 5 off the top almost always). 5d will not often **** fail and even then most likely by only 1 trick. This will work well in MP and IMPS.

If you are interested in slam bidding using this system or just want more examples of how it works (up to 4m) message me on bbo.

gszes, on 2017-December-06, 17:57, said:

I am interested in what you suggest Responder bids over 3♥ with clubs stopped and a problem in spades.

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-07, 00:26, said:

The short answer is there is NO perfect bid for responder (with a minimum of around 10 hcp) under these circumstances. Having said that odds are strongly in favor of us avoiding 3n due the fact the opps own 10 or 11 spades. Once in a while opener will have something irritating like AK AQT KQJ or some such but the overwhelming amount of the time 3n will not be a good place to play. I would pattern out with a NF 4c and hope opener can navigate us to the best spot (even if that spot is 4N ouch). This might allow us to score well at 4m 5m or 6m or 7m when 3n is going down the tubes. Getting to 4N ouch is not necessarily a disaster and can keep us in the ball game along with the rest of the 3n guessers much of the time. With extra values (around 14) and responder can bid 4s and we might still be able to back in to 4n (but not so ouch this time).

gszes, on 2017-December-15, 12:27, said:

They do? Does "a problem in spades" mean a void? I realise your "problem with clubs" in the original was a void but I did not think this was a requirement!

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-15, 13:04, said:

I assumed u meant the original problem with the black suits changed. It is probably a POOR idea for responder with say 2452 distribution and around 10/11 HCP to introduce the diamonds since chances of 5m are slim. 1N 2c 2d 3n would probably be best under those conditions. With 1453 the chances of 5m increase dramatically (while 6m decrease dramatically compared to when a void is held) and now it becomes worthwhile to show the diamonds in the hopes that opener can solve our "spade" problem. Once again after 1n 2c 2d (opener has a max of 3 spades) the opps own 9/10 spades and 3n is still quite a hazardous proposition with 5m (including clubs) being a very plausible target. I was stating that when opener cannot solve our short suit problem for sure
we are probably best off keeping 5m in the picture especially if opener is limited to 2/3 in the majors and our short suit is a major.