[pclayton]

♠Kx ♥AQ9xx ♦Jxx ♣AJx. No opposing bidding, standard agreements.

1N by you - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3♠...

?

[cherdano]

3N.

[awm]

It seems clear to me not to bid 3NT, since partner would've bid 3NT over 3♥ with diamonds securely stopped.

Seems like 4♠ would show this hand (can't be a real spade fit and not bid 3♠ over 3♣).

[han]

Agree with not bidding 3NT. 4S is probably best, but if you clearly agreed that 3H showed hearts (and not a cue for clubs) then you could bid 4D to let partner choose the best contract.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Oct 7 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

Agree with not bidding 3NT. 4S is probably best, but if you clearly agreed that 3H showed hearts (and not a cue for clubs) then you could bid 4D to let partner choose the best contract.

Why wouldn't that be a cue for spades? Maybe choice of games is good but it would require an agreement, and anyway given that I have already denied spade support I have no qualms about raising at this point. Anyway partner has either 6 spades or no diamond stopper, so 3NT is no option.

[han]

Agree with all that Josh. I raised 4D as an alternative in situations where this is clearly discussed (I like to think it would be for Arend and me).

[Fluffy]

maybe biased, but I suspect I would had bid ♠ before (maybe 4)

Now looks obvious to raise spades at last.

[pclayton]

Pard held: ♠AQxxx ♥J ♦T9x ♣KQxx. I bid 4♣ and we ended up in a silly 5♣. Both black suits were foul, but the ♥K was on and diamonds were 4-3 (I think).

[han]

Partner knows you have 3 diamonds most likely, he should consider bidding 3NT.

[hatchett]

not very keen on partner's 3♠ call, I think you have to bid 3NT with a tripleton diamond.

On the given auction over 3♠ I would bid 4♠.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Oct 8 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Pard held: ♠AQxxx ♥J ♦T9x ♣KQxx. I bid 4♣ and we ended up in a silly 5♣. Both black suits were foul, but the ♥K was on and diamonds were 4-3 (I think).

I also would have tried 4♣ over 3♠; the problem being that responder is unlimited and may have slam ambitions. You have wonderful cards opposite something as little as AJxxxx x x KQ10xx.

The fault, I think, lies in 3♠. He has a blah 5134, with limited values: certainly, if you pass 3N, it rates to be the right spot the vast majority of the time. And it is critical that he limit his hand.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 8 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Why doesn't 4C show clubs? 3H is often just cooperating in clubs, and 4C seems to now confirm clubs.

Agree that opener is supposed to bid 3N though.

Justin, did you mean that 'opener' is supposed to bid 3N or was it responder? (I suspect your answer may be 'both')

4♣ does show clubs, but I am happy to do so with Kx AJx in the blacks and a partner who, over my 3♥ call, didn't bid 3N. While I am minimum, it's become a pretty good minimum with little wasted.

If he has 5 clubs, I'm happy to play 5♣. If he has 6=4 in the blacks, we can still get back to 4♠ when 6♣ is not good. He knows we have a 6-2 major suit fit so he ain't going to 5♣ when game is the limit.

The one hand he can't have is 5=1=3=4 with no slam interest.

I suspect that, for most, 3♥ was ambiguous: either coming in clubs or worried about diamonds for 3N. Responder's obligation is to clarify his overall direction, having made a gf showing 5=4 or better in the blacks. To bid anything other than 3N on his hand is an egregious error.

[Gerben42]

3♥ does not really show ♥ for me but more like values and a problem in ♦. Partner with ♦xxx will bid 3NT because I have 2♠ so 3/4♦.

I bid 4♥ now, asking partner to pick a major suit game. ♥ will be better than ♠ as the shortness in our weak suit ♦ is the also the short trump side.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Oct 8 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

Why doesn't 4C show clubs? 3H is often just cooperating in clubs, and 4C seems to now confirm clubs.

Agree that responder is supposed to bid 3N though.

edited

I actually got a rule about this: "when responder to 1NT showed 2 suits and opener can support both below game, then 3 of unbid suit shows a stop". In this case 3♥ shows stop and doubt about diams. Resp should bid 3NT now due to misfit.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Oct 9 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 8 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

Why doesn't 4C show clubs? 3H is often just cooperating in clubs, and 4C seems to now confirm clubs.

Agree that responder is supposed to bid 3N though.

edited

I actually got a rule about this: "when responder to 1NT showed 2 suits and opener can support both below game, then 3 of unbid suit shows a stop". In this case 3♥ shows stop and doubt about diams. Resp should bid 3NT now due to misfit.

That's a bad rule, imo. I prefer (and use) Justin's ambiguous meaning: it either shows heart values and a club fit, intending to move over 3N but without first round diamond control, or heart values and concern about diamonds, intending to pass 3N. This leads to more efficient auctions, since, when we move over 3N, responder knows more about our hand than if we bid 4♣ over 3♣ to set trump. Thus, 3♥ followed by 4♦ would be agreeing clubs and showing the ♥A and the ♦K... two cues while over an immediate 4♣, we can't show the ♦ control below 5♣, even if partner cooperates by cuing 4♦...and he might not be able to do so: AQxxx x QJx KQxx opposite Kx AJxx Kxx AJxx as an example (yes, we probably still get there with this very quickly chosen example, but see how easy the auction is if we can bid 3♥ over 3♣).

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Oct 9 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

That's a bad rule, imo. I prefer (and use) Justin's ambiguous meaning: it either shows heart values and a club fit, intending to move over 3N but without first round diamond control, or heart values and concern about diamonds, intending to pass 3N. This leads to more efficient auctions, since, when we move over 3N, responder knows more about our hand than if we bid 4♣ over 3♣ to set trump. Thus, 3♥ followed by 4♦ would be agreeing clubs and showing the ♥A and the ♦K... two cues while over an immediate 4♣, we can't show the ♦ control below 5♣, even if partner cooperates by cuing 4♦...and he might not be able to do so: AQxxx x QJx KQxx opposite Kx AJxx Kxx AJxx as an example (yes, we probably still get there with this very quickly chosen example, but see how easy the auction is if we can bid 3♥ over 3♣).

I agree with you, but all this is a very good advertisement for another Justin method, the transfer advances where after a transfer responder's next bid is also a transfer. This lets opener definitively agree the second suit at the 3 level (1NT 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♣), lets responder describe his hand with a third bid below 3NT (toss in the Kokish shortness rule? 3♥ over 3♣), and means if opener does bid 3♥ over the club showing bid it is definitely a heart suit / worry about diamonds in some combination, never coming in clubs.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 9 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

That's a bad rule, imo. I prefer (and use) Justin's ambiguous meaning: it either shows heart values and a club fit, intending to move over 3N but without first round diamond control, or heart values and concern about diamonds, intending to pass 3N. This leads to more efficient auctions, since, when we move over 3N, responder knows more about our hand than if we bid 4♣ over 3♣ to set trump. Thus, 3♥ followed by 4♦ would be agreeing clubs and showing the ♥A and the ♦K... two cues while over an immediate 4♣, we can't show the ♦ control below 5♣, even if partner cooperates by cuing 4♦...and he might not be able to do so: AQxxx x QJx KQxx opposite Kx AJxx Kxx AJxx as an example (yes, we probably still get there with this very quickly chosen example, but see how easy the auction is if we can bid 3♥ over 3♣).

I agree with you, but all this is a very good advertisement for another Justin method, the transfer advances where after a transfer responder's next bid is also a transfer. This lets opener definitively agree the second suit at the 3 level (1NT 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♣), lets responder describe his hand with a third bid below 3NT (toss in the Kokish shortness rule? 3♥ over 3♣), and means if opener does bid 3♥ over the club showing bid it is definitely a heart suit / worry about diamonds in some combination, never coming in clubs.

I have used this second bid-transfer over 2N but not over 1N: it seemed to work ok, altho I don't play it in any current partnership