[CSGibson]

---

3N, 4♦, ambiguous cue-bid, or something else?

[Siegmund]

MP or wIMP?

Ugly either way, knowing all my values are in the wrong places except that DK. I am fine with 3NT to hope for a plus and to cool down partner.(But at imps on this forum, I expect to be in a minority, somehow.)

[CSGibson]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-27, 03:18, said:

MP or wIMP?

Ugly either way, knowing all my values are in the wrong places except that DK. I am fine with 3NT to hope for a plus and to cool down partner.(But at imps on this forum, I expect to be in a minority, somehow.)

X-Imps

[rhm]

I think slam prospects are excellent. Partner is showing at least 5-5 in the suits bid by him. The fact that ♥s have not been raised makes it unlikely that partner is short in ♥. Accordingly he is short in ♣, quite possibly void.
If partner has no ace, 3NT is as dead as 5♦ (unless partner is void in ♣, where 5♦ makes), but 3NT goes down more. If partner has one ace, 5♦ will often make when 3NT will not, while the opposite is extremely remote. If partner has 2 aces, 6♦ looks reasonable.

Accordingly bid 3♥ followed by 4♦, if possible and forcing or if that is doubtful, continue with 4♥. If partner jumps to 5♦ raise to 6♦. If 4♦ is minorwood, a direct 4♦ would also be reasonable.

3NT is a poor bid, especially when playing IMPs. Hamman would not bid 3NT here. A possible hand for partner:

♠ AKxxx, ♥xx, ♦Axxxxx, ♣--

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

3D strongly suggests playing in diamonds. With just some gameforcing 5-2-4-2 shape partner should double.

We don't have a great hand for partner, but we do have the best possible diamond support. I would not bid 3NT.

Usually I do not like bidding an ambiguous 3H and prefer 4D instead. However, if we bid 4D will bypass hearts to deny a control there, and we will be badly placed. I'll bid 3H for that reason.

[gnasher]

Everyone seems very sure that 3♦ shows a good hand. What would responder do with a competitive 5-5?

[JLOGIC]

With 5251 partner would double or pass. With 5152 partner would bid 3C.

[pooltuna]

IMPS - 4♦
MP - ...eggs in one basket

I have to abstain from voting because you didn't think method of scoring was relevant.

[MrAce]

I am not bidding 3 nt. We didnt show out ♦ suit due to reverse requirements, now pd bids it at 3 level, are we going to pretend like we didn't hear him ?

And of course 3♦ is good hand. I am bidding 3♥ now.

[nige1]

CSGibson, on 2010-December-27, 02:11, said:

3N, 4♦, ambiguous cue-bid, or something else?

---

IMO 3N = 10, 3♥ = 7, 4♦ = 5. Partnership agreements vary. For us: partner's 3♦ is GF but doesn't promise a five-card suit. 2♠, 2N and 3♣ by partner would have been non-forcing. And if he had doubled 2♥ that would have been a penalty suggestion.

Even without such an understanding, IMO, it seems more sensible for partner

• to double 2♥ with a ♣ shortage rather than a ♥ shortage.
• to bid 3♦ with ♣ tolerance rather than ♥ values.

[AlexJonson]

Siegmund certainly had it right.

I uneasily voted 3NT, but I've just remembered an argument - 3NT is two tricks less than 5D, though it does score less than 6D.

[Siegmund]

I should add that I was not expecting extras nor 5-5 from partner (in fact if pressed I would name 5242 and 5341 as the most likely distributions.) I am still too old-fashioned for it to cross my mind that partner would double 2H without a trick in hearts that he'll probably never have.

Perhaps the fact that partner failed to bid a westerncueish 3H should convince me he is strongly enough suit-oriented that we always belong in diamonds. I was thinking more of the fact some of partner's slamgoing monsters might cuebid, and that I had two heart stoppers so hands where partner passed up a chance to find 3NT if I had one stopper might still belong in notrump (mostly hands where partner turns up with Kx in clubs or something, for 3N to beat 5m.) Wish I knew just how partner decided between 3D and 3H!

[gnasher]

Gnasher said:

Everyone seems very sure that 3♦ shows a good hand. What would responder do with a competitive 5-5?

JLOGIC said:

With 5251 partner would double or pass. With 5152 partner would bid 3C.

In the sequence:

1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♥

you would play 3♣ as just competitive, and double followed by 3♣ as stronger, wouldn't you?

But in the sequence:

1♣ 1♥ 1♠ pass
2♣ 2♥

you play 3♦ as forcing, and double followed by 3♦ as competitive.

What is it that causes the meanings to switch?

[JLOGIC]

I would never want to bid 3D just competitive I guess. Partner might have 7 clubs or 2-2 in the pointed suits (2326) or whatever, in all cases bidding 3D competitive will go past my ideal spot (3C or 2S). Even if I was 6-5 I would just bid 2S probably. I guess I could be 5-6 in spades and diamonds with a weak hand, but that seems like an unlikely case. I would rather bid 3D on hands where I don't want partner to pass, like a strong 6-5 or 5152 or something, and X and bid 3D with a more flexible strong hand, possibly even with 5-4 (like 5341 no heart stopper).

In the first auction I don't have a takeout double available the way I play but I understand your point. I think it is different because 3D is a reverse (or a high reverse or whatever it's called), and reverses in general are always strong. I don't know if this is technically a reverse but it takes us past 2S and 3C so it seems like logically it should be strong. Also we could always be raising clubs here with 2 since partner is a known 6 card suit, so I just think cases where 3D NF is needed are pretty unusual. I think in almost all auctions a new suit at the 3 level by responder is strong also, so it doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2010-December-27, 05:21, said:

We don't have a great hand for partner, but we do have the best possible diamond support. I would not bid 3NT.

??? I thought our hand was orgasmic

[gszeszycki]

3N Very important bid at this point for the following reasons

1. we limit our hand. The upper limit for 2c is a lot higher than for 3n

2. It might be our last playable spot.

3. there is no strong reason to assume p isnt just making a forcing bid with 5 spades
raising dia here might lead to disaster.

4. we might avoid disaster and p can still bid 4d 4s etc with a really distributional hand

[the hog]

We have an excellent hand in support of Ds. This is a clear 3H bid followed by D support. 3NT is very poor indeed.

[dake50]

My partner means S+D upwards (not competing) on this auction.
I like 6D unless missing 2xA.

[mike777]

the hog, on 2010-December-27, 18:59, said:

We have an excellent hand in support of Ds. This is a clear 3H bid followed by D support. 3NT is very poor indeed.

ditto

[Ant590]

I quite like a KISS 4♦