[MrAce]

---

1 NT = 12-14

We play capp vs this in both seats. 3♣ is natural, the difference between 2♣ first (capp) followed by 3 ♣ is, this one shows stronger. What do u bid now ?

[Phil]

3N looks sort of obvious to me.

[Free]

3NT wtp. I would've doubled 1NT btw...

[gnasher]

There are two problems with 3NT: it may well be cold from partner's side but cold off from our side, eg Kx xx KQx KQ10xxx; or it may be going down from either side with 5♣ making, eg AKx xx x KQxxxxx.

I'd bid 3♥. Partner knows that can't be a six-card suit - I'd have bid directly over 1NT - so he'll need at least three-card support to raise it. If he does raise, there's a good chance that 5♣ is the right contract anyway.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 05:14, said:

There are two problems with 3NT: it may well be cold from partner's side but cold off from our side, eg Kx xx KQx KQ10xxx; or it may be going down from either side with 5♣ making, eg AKx xx x KQxxxxx.

I'd bid 3♥. Partner knows that can't be a six-card suit - I'd have bid directly over 1NT - so he'll need at least three-card support to raise it. If he does raise, there's a good chance that 5♣ is the right contract anyway.

Indeed that was the case, and i bid 3♥, assuming that it was crystal clear that i cant possibly have a ♥ suit that passed over weak NT white vs red and decided to introduce it later at 3 level overriding my pd's 6-7 card ♣.

It wasn't clear for pd unfortunately, i ended up playing my usual 4-2 fit

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2011-November-02, 16:26, said:

Indeed that was the case, and i bid 3♥, assuming that it was crystal clear that i cant possibly have a ♥ suit that passed over weak NT white vs red and decided to introduce it later at 3 level overriding my pd's 6-7 card ♣.
It wasn't clear for pd unfortunately, i ended up playing my usual 4-2 fit

If partner raises to 4♥, I think you should convert to 5♣. Partner is unlikely to have as many as four hearts, and from his point of view you might have five.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 18:11, said:

If partner raises to 4♥, I think you should convert to 5♣. Partner is unlikely to have as many as four hearts, and from his point of view you might have five.

3♥ ended the auction.

[neilkaz]

MrAce, on 2011-November-02, 20:04, said:

3♥ ended the auction.

I would suggest a long talk with partner in that case.

[Free]

MrAce, on 2011-November-02, 20:04, said:

3♥ ended the auction.

It's been a long time, but LOL @ partner!

[han]

This is not as clear to me. Is it so silly to assume that you have hearts when you bid them? And that you didn't introduce them before because your hand and hearts were not good enough? If you make those assumptions, a pass of 3H with 2 hearts is often normal.

Perhaps in retrospect 3H is better played as a semi-natural probe towards 3NT, but I don't see any reason to go lolling at this partner who interpreted 3H differently. If this is your regular partner, a good discussion is indeed in order. Not in order to assertain that partner was stupid, but to make sure that you are on the same wavelength next time.

[mycroft]

I don't think the "doesn't realize it's natural" is a LOL@partner, but can I really have a hand that is so scared of 3♣ that I want to play 3♥, given that partner has shown strong, single-suited clubs?

Okay, I guess I could be ♥KQJxxxx and out with a club void. But I can't see where being able to bail has anywhere near the utility of "find the best game" opposite a constructive overcaller.

On the other hand, I am not a doubler with this hand because when third hand has the rest of the stuff, they're getting a better score than game; if third hand has almost the rest of the stuff, they're getting a better score than the +120/+150 they were going to get. Sure, *most of the time* the points are split... Yes, that means that I have to protect a bit more in balance; but that doesn't matter on this hand, where partner has guaranteed constructive values.

So I can't imagine anybody, knowing that partner could pass some good flat hands, thinking that this bid could possibly be less than 100% forcing. But, you know...

[MrAce]

han, on 2011-November-03, 04:14, said:

This is not as clear to me. Is it so silly to assume that you have hearts when you bid them? And that you didn't introduce them before because your hand and hearts were not good enough? If you make those assumptions, a pass of 3H with 2 hearts is often normal.

Even if it is not silly, it makes very little sense to me though for various reasons. But mainly, if we do not have a good enough hand and good enough hearts to act at 2 level as you said, what did change in our hand that made us think we can override pd's good 6-7 card suit at 3 level ? I mean someone who wants to debate that this 3♥ can be natural without a ♣ fit and bad ♥ and bad hand, he can probably construct a hand or two to prove his point but overall it doesnt sound like a good logic to me.

Having said that, perhaps i shd have mentioned this happened with my reg pd, not a pick up pd. I did not LOL at him of course but i mentioned my dissapointment. He thought i was right and i think it would be an insult to him to think he cant figure this and bid as if he is a pick up pd. Because this style of introducing a new suit at higher levels when we failed to do so earlier is something he and i use a lot.

[gnasher]

We're already at the three level, and we're already in what will usually be a playable spot. In such circumstances, it's normal for game-investigations to take priority over finding the right partscore. This is comparable with sequences like

1♣ pass 1♥ pass
3♣ pass 3♥

1♣ pass 1♥ pass
3♣ pass 3♦

1♥ pass pass 2♠
pass 3♣

2♠ pass pass 3♣
pass 3♥

I wouldn't laugh at a partner who passed 3♥, but I'd be very surprised.

[han]

gnasher, on 2011-November-03, 16:14, said:

2♠ pass pass 3♣
pass 3♥

I wouldn't laugh at a partner who passed 3♥, but I'd be very surprised.

Sorry but I think this is obviously a NF 3H bid. To me this auction shows hearts and a hand not good enough to bid 3H directly. Partner's 3C is fairly wide ranging and he can certainly pass. 3H is not just an attempt to improve the partscore, the main goal is to get to a good game, but that does not mean it has to be forcing.

[JLOGIC]

Agree, 3H in that auction is NF

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2011-November-03, 13:33, said:

Even if it is not silly, it makes very little sense to me though for various reasons. But mainly, if we do not have a good enough hand and good enough hearts to act at 2 level as you said, what did change in our hand that made us think we can override pd's good 6-7 card suit at 3 level ? I mean someone who wants to debate that this 3♥ can be natural without a ♣ fit and bad ♥ and bad hand, he can probably construct a hand or two to prove his point but overall it doesnt sound like a good logic to me.

Having said that, perhaps i shd have mentioned this happened with my reg pd, not a pick up pd. I did not LOL at him of course but i mentioned my dissapointment. He thought i was right and i think it would be an insult to him to think he cant figure this and bid as if he is a pick up pd. Because this style of introducing a new suit at higher levels when we failed to do so earlier is something he and i use a lot.

Quote

3♣ is natural, the difference between 2♣ first (capp) followed by 3 ♣ is, this one shows stronger

It is well known that it is usually much better to play in the long suit of the weaker hand for very obvious reasons.
If that is the situation there are many hands for partner, which will be worthless in anything but ♥. The hand will be bad, but not the ♥ suit.
And there is this little principle that majors count for more in this game than minors.
If we start constructing hands there are tons of them where partner could not act over 1NT, not least because any action over a weak notrump in 2nd position should be considered mildly constructive, yet 4♥ will be the only game in town, while 3♣ will be down.

To me playing 3♥ here as anything but hearts without prior agreement is silly and reminds me of the unlucky expert.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

MrAce, on 2011-November-02, 16:26, said:

It wasn't clear for pd unfortunately, i ended up playing my usual 4-2 fit

May be clear to you, but not to pard. Why can't you have a broken 7-card heart suit?

Just keep it simple and stay away from bids like this. Thus 3NT. You have 9 top tricks and opps are left with having to find the lead (if there is one).

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2011-November-04, 05:13, said:

To me playing 3♥ here as anything but hearts without prior agreement is silly and reminds me of the unlucky expert.

I think everyone is playing it as "hearts". The question (apparently) is how many it shows and how forcing it is.

[cherdano]

han, on 2011-November-03, 04:14, said:

This is not as clear to me. Is it so silly to assume that you have hearts when you bid them? And that you didn't introduce them before because your hand and hearts were not good enough? If you make those assumptions, a pass of 3H with 2 hearts is often normal.

But 3♣ showed a good hand (better than 2C-3C). There are many hands where we want to force to game where we couldn't bid directly over a weak 1N, I think any new suit bid here should be forcing.

[han]

Maybe forcing is better, I was not making a case for NF.

I have only disagreed with posts of Free (who thinks that partner should be laughed at for interpreting the undiscussed 3H differently) and gnasher (who thinks that game investigation contradicts NF, and whose thoughts on some 3H bids vary greatly from mine).