[Mbodell]

I'm in the camp here that just bids 3nt at the table. Game before slam + Hamman's rule. I agree it is possible that 5♦ is better than 3nt, but I'm not so sure that I want to explore that and take me above 3nt with 4♣ or 4♦ and I'm also not liking 3♥ or 3♠. I'm not sure that I'm right to do so, but that's what I'd do.

[OleBerg]

For me 3♥ is last-trainish, expressing doubt about 3NT.

I will bid it, with great anxiety though.

It might easily be right, but partner might easily bid 3NT where we belong in 5/6 diamonds.

(And by the way, what does partner bid on 2♥, if he is 6-x-4-x?)

And 3♥ isn't free if we are going to go forward, as our club-cue is now gone if partner bids 3♠. (4♣ will now be agreeing spades).

[gnasher]

Partner can have a 5242 shape and still just be exploring alternative games. What else is he supposed to do with KQJxx xx AKxx xx?

I'd like to bid 3♠, but presumably that shows 3-card support in the given methods. That leaves me with 4♣. If partner has a hand like the one above he should try 4♠.

[the hog]

Jlall, on Nov 6 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 6 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

I don't really understand this. Why can't responder have a minimum GF
6142 or perhaps a 5413 and be looking for the best contract? Why is 3D slammish? I would just bid 3NT on the opening hand.

Partner can definitely have a 5143 or 5341 type hand just looking for the best game. I guess I don't understand why you'd think 3N is the best game with this hand?

Maybe its not. Its the slammish comment I really object to.

Andy's 5242 is another possibility.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Nov 6 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 6 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 6 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

I don't really understand this. Why can't responder have a minimum GF
6142 or perhaps a 5413 and be looking for the best contract? Why is 3D slammish? I would just bid 3NT on the opening hand.

Partner can definitely have a 5143 or 5341 type hand just looking for the best game. I guess I don't understand why you'd think 3N is the best game with this hand?

Maybe its not. Its the slammish comment I really object to.

Andy's 5242 is another possibility.

I'd say if he is 5242 he has to be slammish, if you don't have a spade fit you are going to play 3NT on balanced hands. But yes I agree he can be unbalanced and just a game force, and agree with Justin that even then 3NT is not the right contract.

[Phil]

3♥ would definitely show better hearts and invite partner to raise with 3 if 3N isn't an option. So that's out.

3N is just wrong with Axx and a pard who probably has 5-4 in the pointeds. He might be 4-4, with a lot of extras btw.

4♣ is clear. If you didn't want to accurately bid your hand later, I don't think you should have opened this in the 1st place.

[mikeh]

I've been convinced by some of the arguments for 4♣.

Not all of them

If partner were to bid 3N over 3♥, I'd have an easy 4♣ cue, since I like my hand for diamonds and I'd assume he was showing a slam try by his delayed sequence to 3N.

But, if he were to bid 3♠, I'd have a problem. I agree with those who suggest that he would/should bid 3♠ with a chunky 5=2=4=2 or such, looking for the best game, and now raising spades is mandatory. So my choice of 3♥, to keep the bidding low, doesn't actually work on most slam hands...I'm better off with 4♣ then 4♥.

Of course, recognizing this problem with my 3♥ call doesn't mean that all is smooth sailing after the 4♣ cue, either!

What would/should he bid over 4♣ with KQJxx xx AKxx xx? I'd say that 4♠ would be a choice of games, while all slamming hands unable to keycard (assuming keycard were available) must stall via 4♦.

I don't, however, buy that 3♥ invites partner to put us in a 4=3 heart fit.

[gnasher]

I don't agree that 3♥-3NT shows slam interest. Why shouldn't he have a 5143 "best game" hand that now thinks the best game is 3NT, having heard me show concentration in hearts?

[WesleyC]

3H. Partner might still be looking for strain at this point. My hand is good, but still minimum so I'll tread water with the cheapest available bid.