[Fluffy]

All the guys who reopen 3NT, why don't you just bid 4♦ over 2♥?. If there is a hand for it, it must be this one.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Mar 2 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

All the guys who reopen 3NT, why don't you just bid 4♦ over 2♥?. If there is a hand for it, it must be this one.

Sounds like longer diamonds and less suited for notrump. In fact it might even be agreed as keycard for diamonds.

But anything is better than passing 3NT, including that.

[skjaeran]

Agree with souths bidding.
Blame north 100%.
Passing 3NT with this hand just isn't possible. Even a quantitative raise to 4NT is too feeble IMO. 5NT - pick a slam might be the best proposition, planning to bid 6♦ over 6♣.

[jmcw]

Here's my 2cents worth. South has heard nothing from North to get exited about. On the other hand North's hand is rich in controls, that precious ♥K, and great ♦suit would sure get me exited to the point of almost insisting on slam. So after 3NT North must make a strong move.
Some possible actions. 4SP,4NT or possibly 5NT (pick a slam?)

As for BLAME looks like 99% NORTH

[mike777]

flytoox, on Mar 2 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A32 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AQJT98 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> A32 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AQ432 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KT954 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

Pd and I missed the cold slam on this deal.  We play 2/1 95% FG, i.e., forcing to game except suit rebid by responder. 

Here is what happened at our table.

N   S
--  1H
2D 2H?
2N  3C
3D 3N
AP

Who should be blamed for the bad result? Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

Plenty of blame...at the very least North bids 4nt over "your auction" to 3nt.

Given that north is forbidden from rebidding 3d or south cannot rebid 3c over 2d....I got a headache.

btw bridge is so hard...why make it tougher?

[the hog]

Agree totally with South's bidding. I would not bid 3C with this hand. North should not pass 3NT. I like Harald's 5NT suggestion.

[hanp]

Of course it is north's fault but I don't agree with 2H, it is carrying a good idea too far. This hand has extras and two 5-card suits. I would definitely bid 3C.

[the hog]

KQ
AQ432
2
KT954

Just curious as to what the 3C bidders love about this hand with these flaws:
KQ tight, therefore not pulling full weight.
S/t in partner's suit
Ordinary H and C suits.

Why are you enamoured by this ordinary hand?

[rogerclee]

The_Hog, on Mar 2 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

KQ
AQ432
2
KT954

Just curious as to what the 3C bidders love about this hand with these flaws:
KQ tight, therefore not pulling full weight.
S/t in partner's suit
Ordinary H and C suits.

Why are you enamoured by this ordinary hand?

Because 3♣ is somewhat more descriptive. If partner bids 3♥ over this you can show your shape, which is impossible if you bid 2♥. If partner bids 3♦, he also knows much more about your hand than if you had bid 2♥. Thus you are making overall a more descriptive bid which can get you to a good heart slam while accepting the risk that partner will occasionally overbid by playing you for a little more.

I still haven't made up my mind about 2♥ vs 3♣, but I am not dense and recognize that there are a lot of benefits to bidding 3♣.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Mar 3 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 2 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

KQ
AQ432
2
KT954

Just curious as to what the 3C bidders love about this hand with these flaws:
KQ tight, therefore not pulling full weight.
S/t in partner's suit
Ordinary H and C suits.

Why are you enamoured by this ordinary hand?

Because 3♣ is somewhat more descriptive. If partner bids 3♥ over this you can show your shape, which is impossible if you bid 2♥. If partner bids 3♦, he also knows much more about your hand than if you had bid 1♥. Thus you are making overall a more descriptive bid which can get you to a good heart slam while accepting the risk that partner will occasionally overbid by playing you for a little more.

I still haven't made up my mind about 2♥ vs 3♣, but I am not dense and recognize that there are a lot of benefits to bidding 3♣.

I am well aware of your logic, but for me showing a minimum hand with a 2H bid is more important. If you bid 3C on this and a stronger hand you will have problems sorting out the differeing hand strengths later.

[hanp]

The_Hog, on Mar 2 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

KQ
AQ432
2
KT954

Just curious as to what the 3C bidders love about this hand with these flaws:
KQ tight, therefore not pulling full weight.
S/t in partner's suit
Ordinary H and C suits.

Why are you enamoured by this ordinary hand?

It has two 5-card suits and about a king more than a minimum opening bid (if you wouldn't open Qx AQxxx x K109xx then obviously that doesn't apply to you.) If I bid 3C now then I show my clubs and my extra values. If I don't then I may not be able to do so later.

For example, if I bid 2H and partner bids 3D then I cannot show my clubs. Parntner may have had a "misfitting" 2164 11-count that could not bid 3C since that would have gameforcing and we never find out 9-card club fit.

Or maybe partner has slam interest in hearts and bids 3H next. We'll never be able to show our shape.

Or maybe partner has a strong hand with diamonds and will have to make up a fake bid after 2H, making the auction murky. After 1H-2D-3C partner can just bid 3D and we'll have a simple 3NT bid to give a perfect description of our hand.

I don't "love" this 14-count, but it has two 5-card suits and is significantly better than many of my 1H openings. And what is there to love about the non-descript 2H bid? It is a necessary evil that we should have avoid when we are good enough to make a descriptive bid.

[underruff]

If Opener bids a new suit at the three-level over Responder's two-over-one, it shows extra values.

1)1S-2H;3m
2)1S-2D;3C

With a four-card suit, Opener needs at least 15 HCPs. To bid a new suit at the three-level, Opener doesn't need as much extra strength with a five-card or longer second suit.

South lack for controls and have only 9HCP(H:AQ C:K) in his main suit.
North have semi-solid D suit and 6controls, rebid 4D after 3N is my choice.
Pass 3NT was passive.

[mike777]

endless but worthwhile debate...

can we bid 3c on minimum or minimax....if so...easy 3c.

I only repeat bbf says 3c =clear max.