[CSGibson]

---

A partner and I had a strong difference of opinion about the proper action on this hand. What would you do?

[broze]

Hate dbl with no defence in 2Sx, even though p might be able to beat it in his own hand - and anyway we could still have game. I bid 3D and keep pulling p's bids until we get to 5D. EDIT: And unless you have a different agreement, 4D surely shows a better hand and 5 is much too much when RHO could still be quite good.

[billw55]

I assume 2♠ is weak, and my hand is light on high cards also. So north and east are sharing perhaps 25 points, but neither made a call. Why not? Probably because those values are more or less split between them. So partner is marked with at least something worthwhile, and 3♦ should be reasonable.

What to do after two more passes and 3♠ by east, is another question.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2012-December-26, 11:20, said:

I assume 2♠ is weak, and my hand is light on high cards also. So north and east are sharing perhaps 25 points, but neither made a call. Why not? Probably because those values are more or less split between them. So partner is marked with at least something worthwhile, and 3♦ should be reasonable.

What to do after two more passes and 3♠ by east, is another question.

It's also quite likely that if it's your style to do so, partner has a massive hand with a spade stack. We pretty much auto reopen with a stiff spade here, I would bid 3♦, 4♦ would be 5-5 reds and big for us.

[Phil]

I can't imagine doing anything but 3♦ here.

I do expect some problems to come later, depending on what partner does.

[CSGibson]

If you bid 3♦, partner bids 3N. Sit, or remove?

[rhm]

CSGibson, on 2012-December-26, 13:00, said:

If you bid 3♦, partner bids 3N. Sit, or remove?

Remove of course. On balance 5♦ is more likely to make than 3NT.
This does not mean you should bid 5♦ over 3NT.
4♦ is just fine

Rainer Herrmann

[Free]

3♦ and keep rebidding ♦

[mr1303]

If I bid 3D and partner bids 3NT, surely 4D is slammish now?

[rhm]

mr1303, on 2012-December-26, 16:25, said:

If I bid 3D and partner bids 3NT, surely 4D is slammish now?

Why?
Partner could not find a bid over 2♠, you balanced with 3♦, certainly not forcing. Partner suggested 3NT.
How can you now have enough to suggest slam in this sequence and leave 3NT behind?
If you think you can, could you not bid 4♠ or 4NT to make your intentions clear?
Why do you need a third bid to suggest slam in diamonds?

Rainer Herrmann

[CSGibson]

ok, I was on the side of passing 2♠, so I see I was and am in a large enough minority that I'm probably wrong. I mean, its probably 90% that partner bids 3N next, so I'm committing to 4 or 5 diamonds if I bid at all - combined with the possibility that they can back into hearts, it just seemed wrong to risk 3♦ - partner isn't in on the joke, after all. Dammit, I'm still half-convinced that bidding is more likely to give a minus score than passing.

[gordontd]

There's a problem in the setup, in that it won't let you vote No without also voting for a bid or double.

[Fluffy]

mr1303, on 2012-December-26, 16:25, said:

If I bid 3D and partner bids 3NT, surely 4D is slammish now?

rhm, on 2012-December-27, 03:11, said:

Why?

Because that is the standard meaning of 4m over a natural 3NT, other meanings might be logic but are prone to missunderstandings.

[PhilKing]

Fluffy, on 2012-December-27, 06:12, said:

Because that is the standard meaning of 4m over a natural 3NT, other meanings might be logic but are prone to missunderstandings.

That's the standard meaning when an unlimited hand bids 4♦ over 3NT, so in that sense you are correct.

And yes, it is prone to misunderstanding if one does not recognise the distinction.

[Phil]

rhm, on 2012-December-27, 03:11, said:

Why?
Partner could not find a bid over 2♠, you balanced with 3♦, certainly not forcing. Partner suggested 3NT.
How can you now have enough to suggest slam in this sequence and leave 3NT behind?
If you think you can, could you not bid 4♠ or 4NT to make your intentions clear?
Why do you need a third bid to suggest slam in diamonds?

Rainer Herrmann

Interpreted: 4♦ isn't forcing.

[lalldonn]

CSGibson, on 2012-December-27, 04:19, said:

ok, I was on the side of passing 2♠, so I see I was and am in a large enough minority that I'm probably wrong. I mean, its probably 90% that partner bids 3N next, so I'm committing to 4 or 5 diamonds if I bid at all - combined with the possibility that they can back into hearts, it just seemed wrong to risk 3♦ - partner isn't in on the joke, after all. Dammit, I'm still half-convinced that bidding is more likely to give a minus score than passing.

If I had to guess the final contract now it would be 5♦ anyway. You know partner has strength.

[mikeh]

I am with the 3♦ bidders and we obviously can't (shouldn't) pass 3N. The question is 4 or 5 diamonds and I think it close to a toss-up.

What persuades me to 4 rather than 5 is that partner will usually evaluate correctly over 4, and we could clearly be too high in game. We need controls from him rather than soft general strength, and this sequence, which shows a bit of a freak without great strength (tho he won't and shouldn't play me to be this freakish or weakish), will convey that message.

And I agree (obviously) with those who state that this is NOT forcing, let alone slammish. Those who think it is slammish are guilty of taking meanings from one auction and applying them to another without thinking about context. Context always governs meaning.

[Trinidad]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-27, 06:35, said:

That's the standard meaning when an unlimited hand bids 4♦ over 3NT, so in that sense you are correct.

And yes, it is prone to misunderstanding if one does not recognise the distinction.

Which leads to the question: How limited would 3♦ be?

Would you bid 3♦ with:

A
♠8
♥2
♦KJT87642
♣984

or

B
♠K
♥AJ
♦KQJT76
♣Q984

If you answer yes to both, it means that 3♦ is less limited than a standard 1♦ opening. If you answer no to one or both, adjust the strength until you have reached a 3♦ bid. My guess would be that the range is not going to be a lot smaller than that of an opening bid.

Rik

[JLOGIC]

CSGibson, on 2012-December-27, 04:19, said:

ok, I was on the side of passing 2♠, so I see I was and am in a large enough minority that I'm probably wrong. I mean, its probably 90% that partner bids 3N next, so I'm committing to 4 or 5 diamonds if I bid at all - combined with the possibility that they can back into hearts, it just seemed wrong to risk 3♦ - partner isn't in on the joke, after all. Dammit, I'm still half-convinced that bidding is more likely to give a minus score than passing.

I know what you're saying, partner is probably always bidding 3n but I think that is fine, we may have 8 tricks. Even if we don't and go down several, 2s is likely to make anyways, it's not like we have much defense.

I would never consider pulling 3n though. We might even have an entry on the somewhat likely spade lead.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2012-December-27, 13:46, said:

I know what you're saying, partner is probably always bidding 3n but I think that is fine, we may have 8 tricks. Even if we don't and go down several, 2s is likely to make anyways, it's not like we have much defense.

I would never consider pulling 3n though. We might even have an entry on the somewhat likely spade lead.

Aren't there hands where 5♦ must have better chances than 3NT?
I am not 100% certain whether this hand qualifies.
My guess though is, it does.
However, our entry situation is precarious and partner does not know this. If diamonds do not establish we are probably down a lot in 3NT.
Even without a DBL this could be quite expensive.
Diamond contracts are unlikely to be expensive, even if they go down.

Rainer Herrmann