[GrahamJson]

I must admit that I would assume that partner had just found a heart amongst his diamonds.

[miamijd]

There are two logical treatments for 3h in your sample auction.

The first is a hand with (i) enough stuff to accept the game invite; (ii) a decent three-card fragment; (iii) a source of tricks in a minor suit; and (iv) a hole (xx) somewhere, either in spades or the other minor. Without (ii) - (iv), it makes more sense to bid 3nt and cross your fingers.

The second logical treatment is a hand with a problem in the bid suit (i.e., asking partner to go ahead to 3nt if his 4-card suit was the bid major, but warning about the bid major otherwise).

For a number of reasons, I think the first treatment is better, but it's a matter of partnership agreement. I'd never trot this out in a pickup even with a world-class partner. That's just silly.

1N-3N-anything but pass is an auction that doesn't exist.

Cheers,
Mike

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2016-March-27, 18:01, said:

You mean something like xx KQx AKxx AJxx? Maybe that's what it shows, but I just can't imagine anyone actually bidding it

Why not?
Seems to me intelligent bidding and contrary to some I find it hard to misinterpret.
If a partnership has no agreement it should assume natural within context.
Since opener has denied 4 cards in hearts and did not pass 2NT he must have a reason to suggest hearts. It should show such a hand.
Nothing else makes much sense without agreement.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2016-March-30, 02:18, said:

Why not?

Because most of the time partner will sign off in 3NT, so we'll have gained nothing but leaked some information.

Also, 3♥ may not even help partner much. How does he know that with xxx AJxx Qxx Kxx we belong in 4♥, but with KQx AJxx xxx xxx we belong in 3NT?

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2016-April-02, 08:30, said:

How does he know that with xxx AJxx Qxx Kxx we belong in 4♥, but with KQx AJxx xxx xxx we belong in 3NT?

I agree with the sentiment but wonder if we would really have used Stayman with these 3433 hands (assuming no SID).

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2016-April-02, 08:30, said:

Because most of the time partner will sign off in 3NT, so we'll have gained nothing but leaked some information.

Also, 3♥ may not even help partner much. How does he know that with xxx AJxx Qxx Kxx we belong in 4♥, but with KQx AJxx xxx xxx we belong in 3NT?

This is why, while my first thought was that opener was weak in some suit, when people suggested that opener was weak in spades it seemed like a good idea. At least then responder has a clue how to proceed.

But Andy, do you have a better use for this bid?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-03, 20:13, said:

But Andy, do you have a better use for this bid?

One obvious way of proceeding over over 2NT would be for Opener's 3♣ to show weakness somewhere but not specify where. Responder could then use 3♦♥♠ to check that the weaknesses do not coincide (eg 3♦ is it a minor?; 3M is it this suit?). 3♥ might then show concentrated values in the rounded suits perhaps. I doubt such efforts are worth it for normal players though.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-03, 20:13, said:

But Andy, do you have a better use for this bid?

No, I just said that I couldn't imagine anyone bidding it. I don't have a use for the sequence 1NT-3NT;5♥ either.

If you want me to think of a meaning, I quite like GrahamJson's suggestion . If you really want to hunt for 4-3 fits, I suggest using the three-level bids to show specific weak doubletons. They you will at least know whether the 4-3 fit is a good idea.

[Zelandakh]

The problem with having Opener show their weakness is that it is extremely helpful for the defence even if Responder can cover te suit. That is the point of using 3♣ to show some weakness somewhere and having Responder do the asking as required - the defence get less of a roadmap. Of course it would also be psosible for Opener to bid 3♣ with any acceptance and subsequently unravel as required, although the stronger the NT the less effective such an approach becomes as the likelihood of Responder having multiple weaknesses increases. And the biggest disadantage lies in offering the defence additional opportunities to make lead-directing doubles. All-in-all, one wonders if any of the theoertical advantages would be enough to offset the disadvantages.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2016-April-05, 16:15, said:

No, I just said that I couldn't imagine anyone bidding it. I don't have a use for the sequence 1NT-3NT;5♥ either.

If you want me to think of a meaning, I quite like GrahamJson's suggestion . If you really want to hunt for 4-3 fits, I suggest using the three-level bids to show specific weak doubletons. They you will at least know whether the 4-3 fit is a good idea.

But will you find it?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-06, 11:11, said:

But will you find it?

Well I won't, because I bid 3NT ages ago, scored nine tricks on a friendly lead, and am now bidding the next board.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2016-March-27, 18:01, said:

You mean something like xx KQx AKxx AJxx? Maybe that's what it shows, but I just can't imagine anyone actually bidding it

gnasher, on 2016-April-02, 08:30, said:

Because most of the time partner will sign off in 3NT, so we'll have gained nothing but leaked some information.

Also, 3♥ may not even help partner much. How does he know that with xxx AJxx Qxx Kxx we belong in 4♥, but with KQx AJxx xxx xxx we belong in 3NT?

Because 3♥ should show worry about spades. I see no other reason to introduce a good three card heart suit.
I assumed from your example for openers hand that you did as well.
On frequency grounds alone when opener denies a four card major, opener weakness will be in the other major more often than in either minor.
I would certainly bid 4♥ with your first responder example and 3NT with your second.
That is the whole point about the 3♥ bid.

While I agree that information leakage is an issue, which often does not get enough attention, the information leakage starts with Stayman.
I would not do it with 4333.
But once you go down this path of exchanging information it is usually better to take full advantage of it than worry about it too late.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

Agree with the concensus that 3♥ shows 3 hearts and a hand suitable for a Moysian, but I wonder if it is a good idea to use that bid even if you have the perfect hand for it. Maybe it won't find a good 4M contract very often, and on all the other hands it makes the defence easier. We are already in a tight game so even at IMPs it is not like we are likely to have overtricks which we can afford to give away.

[rhm]

helene_t, on 2016-April-12, 07:47, said:

Agree with the concensus that 3♥ shows 3 hearts and a hand suitable for a Moysian, but I wonder if it is a good idea to use that bid even if you have the perfect hand for it. Maybe it won't find a good 4M contract very often, and on all the other hands it makes the defence easier. We are already in a tight game so even at IMPs it is not like we are likely to have overtricks which we can afford to give away.

I think the premise is wrong.

We should not confuse two issues:

1) Opener having denied a 4 card major, holding the right hand to bid 3M will be infrequent. He will need a non minimum hand with a strong 3 card major and a small doubleton in the other major. But as long as nobody comes up with a better usage for this bid who cares?
2) Given the conditions above how often will we find a good 4M contract? This chance (a conditional probability) is anything but small.

After all responder has shown interest in 4M and should hold at least one 4 card major. Chances that he will hold the bid major must be close to or above 50%.
Of these roughly 50% he will reject the Moysian fit some of the time but often he will accept and sometimes he will be delighted.
For example once responder has four cards in the bid major, there is no particular reason why he could not be himself short in the other major. It does happen
Given the conditions, chances that 4M will be a preferable contract is not small and some of the time responder can also pass, particularly at matchpoints, since opener is limited.

If I have time I will run some simulations.

Rainer Herrmann