[Stephen Tu]

Scoring: BAM

---

You hold this hand as dealer, North. Duboin-Bocchi are sitting E-W.

Auction proceeds:

1[he] [space] [space] [space] (p) [space] [space]p [space] [space] 2[di](1)
2[he](2) [space] [space](p) [space] [space]3[cl](3) [space]dbl(4)
p(5) [space] [space] [space]3[di] [space] [space]p [space] [space] p
?(6)

1 - after long hesitation
2 - anything else worth considering?
3 - what sort of hand do you expect partner to show up with? typical shape?
4 - if you ask, described as "just bridge", after more prodding will probably get "good hand"
5 - anything else?
6 - now what?

[whereagles]

1. Given the rest of the auction, RHO's strong and was prolly thinking of doubling instead

2. Yes. 3♥ would probably put LHO out of a possible 3♦ raise. The hand can handle the 3-level. Incidently, I'm not worried of spades because LHO already had a chance to bid them and didn't.

3. Heart singleton/void, 6 or 7 weakish clubs.

4. The bid that explains RHO's hesitation before.

5. I might have tried 3♥ to shut LHO's diamond bid.

6. Taking the last guess here because of earlier failures to bid 3♥. Obviously this player was in awe from having bocchi/duboin as opps.. Now I just pass. I expect pard to have something like

Jxxx
x
xx
QJTxxx

[Halo]

I don't believe partner has void heart and rubbish clubs. He has K10xxxx clubs and a couple of hearts.

I don't feel happy about my bidding so far and I will bid 3H now. If it's doubled for -200 on a part score so be it after my earlier efforts, I'd have got to three hearts sooner.

[hrothgar]

D+B probably have real agreements about the means of the 3♣ bid. There are a number of different reasonable interpretations. I'm sure that they know which one that they are using.
In most of my serious partnerships 3♣ would show doubleton Heart and a Club fragment.

♠ xxx
♥ xx
♦ xxx
♣ KJTxx

would be a reasonable hand. From my perspective, the main issue that needs to be resolved is whether the bid should show length or concentrated values. It might be more useful to show a hand like

♠ xxxx
♥ xx
♦ xxx
♣ KQx

My suspicion is that length with come texture is more common than the honor combination.

[1eyedjack]

I reckon responder has 4 Spades. E-W missing an 8 card Spade fit is credible. Their missing a 9 card Spade fit is not. Reasoning that opener would likely not rebid 2H with a 4 card Spade suit, responder might now conceal the suit in preference to bidding 3C. Indeed the extra shape of having a 4th Spade in reserve may make bidding 3C more attractive.

Anyway I am passing now and leading my Spade. There are too many chances of beating 3D, and not enough for bidding and making 4H

[EDIT]
oops I didn't notice the BAM scoring. Perhaps I double. Partner can still pull, but I hope he would not if 3D is failing.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

2. Holding a higher ranking suit, I do not try to block a world class pair from bidding higher 'if' they had a previous chance to do so and already 'have not bid.'

3. I prefer hrothgars'(and Halos') meaning for 3C rather than whereagles. If partner normally rebids his suit in a live auction 'without' a really good suit, I will be searching for a new partner very soon.

4. A world class pair that bids 2D in 4th seat and has a 'good' hand' that good hand' should be taken in the context that the hand is limited by the original 2D bid.

5. World class pairs 'support with support', I strongly doubt that you will often steal the 'pot' from players at this level by bidding 3Hs.

6. I live in one of the three strongest bridge areas in the USA according to some reports. I respect the level of play of a number of pairs here, however, awe is not really changing my bidding all that much.

If you held a hand worth a 3H bid at an earlier turn to bid, why isn't it worth a 3H bid now? Who is now 'not bidding' 3Hs because they are in awe of the other pair?

If partner holds the clubs plus xx of hearts, I think that 3H will be likely on a hook. Put me in the three heart camp, but only after I took a shot at perhaps playing for 2Hs. I like our sides bidding so far, but only 'if' partner was showing heart tolerance plus a club feature.

p.s. I am not doubling here. I could hold quite a bit more in defensive values and one less heart for my previous bidding.

Regards,
Robert

[inquiry]

There is only two possible hands for partner.

1) long clubs, no hearts, weak.
2) doubleton heart, short !D, something useful in ♣


At board a match, if patner has hand one, double and lead heart ace, if partner has hand 2, you might want to try 4♥ and certainly 3♥. Before i can decide, what would 1♥-pass-3♣ have been? And if parnter had a hand he was raising to 3♥ via 3♣ would pass over 3♦ show a "good raise" (aka club king and one ♦ to go with doubleton ♥.

Anyway at BAM I am not passing. If I have no clue as to what kind of hand partner can hold, i am doubling 3♦ and hope partner does the right thing with

♠xxxxx♥xx ♦x ♣KJxxx

[whereagles]

Robert, on Nov 25 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

If you held a hand worth a 3H bid at an earlier turn to bid, why isn't it worth a 3H bid now? Who is now 'not bidding' 3Hs because they are in awe of the other pair?

By not bidding 3♥ earlier, you have given opps the chance to exchange more information, and that makes bidding 3♥ now riskier. It's not awe, it's a different situation

[Fluffy]

Double and lead a ♠ to score 1♠2♥1♦1♣

[pclayton]

2) I'd consider 3♥. Its a matter of style; what kind of strength do you need to respond. If you would bid 3♥ over 3♦, it may be right to bid it now.

3) Definitely short hearts; probably a stiff. As the auction progresses, I'd expect 1 or 2 diamonds too. So I'm inclined to place him on 4=1=2=6, 4=1=1=7 or 3=1=2=7. I think he'd take the push to 4♣ on 3=1=1=8. I think the club suit has to be at least fair, else I'd be left in 2♥.

5) Yes, I'd redouble. My hand is limited with the 2♥ call, so why not tell pard I have extras.

6) Tough. Was the hitch before 2♦ because RHO has hearts? Or was it because RHO is strong (and thats confirmed by the dbl) If so, our prospects against 3♦ are reduced. This is perhaps the best reason to try 3♥ instead of 2♥. What can we make and what are we beating? xxxx, x, xx, QJxxxxx seems about right. Its hard to tell what we can make and what we can get on defense.

I'd double, but I think the problem is flawed, since there are two calls that you ade that I think are questionable.

[Rebound]

I'm certainly not in this league, but I would expect that to bid 3♣ would imply tolerance for a 3♥ bid wouldn't it?

[arrows]

bid 4♥, redouble if it gets doubled.

I cannot imagine that partner bid 3♣ to just "improve" the contract when he couldn't
even response in the 1st round. he must have ♥ tolerance. his shape is likely
something 4-2-1-6, one ruff and one useful card bring you to game.

[Stephen Tu]

For those who think that 3♣ shows heart tolerance, why exactly should it? No weak jump shift available like many pairs. Why can't it be a weak 4-0-2-7 or similar with QJT9 clubs & out?

Isn't it more logical to pass 2♥ with tolerance than to introduce a new suit to play?

Also, how much extras does (should) 2♥ show? Pavlicek suggests 16+, possibly shaded, with 3♥ showing more shape & power. But I find coverage of opener's actions opposite a passing responder mostly ignored in most of my books.

[arrows]

Quote

For those who think that 3♣ shows heart tolerance, why exactly should it? No weak jump shift available like many pairs. Why can't it be a weak 4-0-2-7 or similar with QJT9 clubs & out?

MHO:
Because it makes more sense to leave these bids (new suit one level higher)
for constructive purposes.

Just like people would rather play 2C over 1H as GF, than just saying "I have a crapy hand with bunch of clubs."

generally it's not profitable to switch suit after partner showing a one suited hand, not
to mention it's a level higher. Even if you can justify your bid, why partner cannot
use the same reasoning to switch it back?

Also, you alway have a chance to run if someone doubles.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Even if you can justify your bid, why partner cannot
use the same reasoning to switch it back?

Because of the general principle of trying to play in the weak hand's long suit. The strong hand 1 suiter has high cards that might provide quick side tricks along with the weak hand's trump tricks. Doesn't work the other way; weak hand probably doesn't have any fast side tricks. Stronger hand should give way. Granted you are a level higher so need a 2 trick swing, but that certainly is possible in many constructions. Besides if you have a reasonable hand for hearts why push the level & offer a lower scoring minor contract if you don't have to yet?

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on Nov 30 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

For those who think that 3♣ shows heart tolerance, why exactly should it?  No weak jump shift available like many pairs.  Why can't it be a weak 4-0-2-7 or similar with QJT9 clubs & out?

Isn't it more logical to pass 2♥ with tolerance than to introduce a new suit to play?

The scoring is BAM. It is difficult to construct a hand on which responder can be reasonably confident that 3♣ will score better than 2♥: after all, 2♥ hardly promises ♣ tolerance.

BTW, it is quite possible that RHO has a good 4=6 in the pointed suits and was hoping/expecting to get to bid ♠s next, and did not want to bring ♣s into the picture (nor pass or notrump) by doubling initially.

A great deal depends on partner's responding style, but, to me, 3♣ suggests that the auction has made his weak hand far stronger, and it would not in the least surprise me to find him with xxxx Jxx x QJTxx: he can picture game opposite a good 2♥ rebid of, say, xx AKQxxx Axx Kx or xx AKQxxx xx AKx and he wants you to appreciate where his meagre assets lie.

Consider that he cannot merely raise ♥s in any meaningful way. He wants you to know that ♠ shortness is important for you, asa much as he wants you to know that ♣ length/strength is useful.

So which do you think is more useful? To be able to run from a voluntarily bid 2♥ to a lower-scoring, higher-level minor suit partial with no assurance of any fit or to be able to show a now-working maximum pass?

Note that I am not agreeing with either of the previously offered theories: I do not see 3♣ as mere tolerance for ♥s... I see it as real, albeit weak, support.

[whereagles]

Stephen Tu, on Nov 30 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

Also, how much extras does (should) 2♥ show? Pavlicek suggests 16+, possibly shaded, with 3♥ showing more shape & power. But I find coverage of opener's actions opposite a passing responder mostly ignored in most of my books.

In my book, this 2♥ bid doesn't show ANY extras, even if pard had not passed 1♥.

Not all play my book, though

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Dec 1 2006, 12:16 AM, said:

I do not see 3♣ as mere tolerance for ♥s... I see it as real, albeit weak, support.

isn't this an example taking a good idea (fit-bids) too far?

[goodwintr]

Yes, it is an example of taking the fit-bid principle too far.

The hands offered for the "fit-bid" treatment (after an initial pass over the 1H opening bid) are all 1NT responses to 1H, aren't they? Doesn't 1NT, then 2H, show a hand that was too weak (or with hearts too short) for an original raise to 2H? If this isn't "standard" forcing-NT practice, when did it stop being so?

Of course, the hands offered for the "long clubs, heart misfit" treatment in the given auction are also 1NT responses, aren't they? If it isn't "standard" forcing-NT practice that 1NT, then 3C, shows a weak hand with a mess of clubs, when did it stop being so?