[CSGibson]

Scoring: IMP

Uncontested auction
1♣-1♦;
?

---

Sorry if this is a WTP, but I'd like to hear thoughts on this.

[JLOL]

3C not close.

[jonottawa]

I like to bid games at IMPs so I would like bid 3NT or something. Pard usually has a doubleton ♠ on this auction. Maybe that's a stopper.

[rogerclee]

3♣ seems right on values, it's possible to miss game this way but unlikely. People should start thinking of 3N as a slam try, then maybe they wouldn't make so many bad 3N bids.

[cloa513]

2♥ is an option as showing ♥ strength 1-4 length inviting partner to choose no trumps with spades and diamonds cover - the 1 ♦ could quite fake with 3 ♦

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I have a single suiter, I show it.

#1 That rules out 1S, 1NT, 2NT.
#2 For 3NT I am missing stoppers in spades, i.e. this is also not anoption.

What is left: 2C or 3C.

And the playing power of the hand is clearly to strong for a
mere 2C, hence 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I define

1♣ 1♦
3NT

as showing just about this hand. Without such definition, 3♣ seems pretty much normal.

[mich-b]

whereagles, on May 18 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

I define

1♣ 1♦
3NT

as showing just about this hand. Without such definition, 3♣ seems pretty much normal.

I define

1♣ 1♦
3NT

as showing about a King stronger than this hand.
For me this hand is a 3♣ bid, with the 7th ♣ compensating for being somewhat light in high cards.
I think that reserving 3NT for hands stronger than this , not only avoids going down when partner is weak, but also makes it easier for responder to investigate slam when he has a good hand.

[whereagles]

mich-b, on May 18 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

I define

1♣ 1♦
3NT

as showing about a King stronger than this hand. (...)
I think that reserving 3NT for hands stronger than this , not only avoids going down when partner is weak, but also makes it easier for responder to investigate slam when he has a good hand.

With a king more, the hand has so much playing strength that I usually open either 2♣ (or the equivalent opening if using another system).

[helene_t]

3♣. Won't make it particularly easy for p to know whether 3NT makes or not, but that's often the case with this rebid.

Everything else would be a misbid, IMHO. I am kind of a bean counter in this auction (a shapely hand with few HCPs can sometimes better preserve bidding space since 2♣ rarely will be passed out), but not with a solid suit.

[barryallen]

whereagles, on May 18 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

I define

1♣ 1♦
3NT

as showing just about this hand. Without such definition, 3♣ seems pretty much normal.

I would prefer partner to be declaring in 3NT to give possible protection from the opening lead? As an aside, partner has that tad more space for investigating a possible slam?

The 3♣ bid describes your hand fully and allows partner to go on from there with confidence?

[whereagles]

Excuse me, but I didn't quite follow your questions. Do you mind rephrasing them?

[barryallen]

whereagles, on May 18 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

Excuse me, but I didn't quite follow your questions. Do you mind rephrasing them?

Sorry, was not trying to be obtuse.

What I was trying to say, that to use 3♣ to describe this type of hands looks to have some benefits over 3NT. The reasons being

- You have no bare K or combination that requires protection from the lead. Partner may require such protection and would receive it if they were declarer in 3NT?

- The other point being that this type of hand can easily become a slam possibility. The 3♣ bid gives that extra space to investigate in limited comfort. Maybe all would not be clear until you get to, or bypass 3NT.

[whereagles]

Ok, now I see what you mean.


- You have no bare K or combination that requires protection from the lead. Partner may require such protection and would receive it if they were declarer in 3NT?

I don't give right-siding a contract too much importance because I found it to be relatively rare that that detail matters. As such, I prefer giving an accurate description of the hand.


- The other point being that this type of hand can easily become a slam possibility. The 3♣ bid gives that extra space to investigate in limited comfort. Maybe all would not be clear until you get to, or bypass 3NT.

But 3♣ isn't that well defined a bid either. Certainly it will get muddier if you dump hands such as the original one into it. Also, the 3NT rebid may be high, but at least it's VERY descriptive.


Still, all these are personal preferences. People here tend to use 1m-1x-3NT to show something that looks like a strong 2 in the minor, with other suits well stopped. This is why few forum regular would rebid 3NT with the given hand.

[helene_t]

If you rebid 3NT with this hand, a subsequent 4♣ from responder would be to play, right?

[CSGibson]

OK, even though I'm OP, I'm adding my thoughts: Partner almost always has a game force on this auction (lots of major suit cards out there, but silent opponents), so I'm closer to a 2 club bid than a 3N bid. I think 3 clubs is a good description. What happened at the table, a 2N rebid, was an abomination to my mind, just begging to hear 6N off the whole spade suit.

[mtvesuvius]

3♣ for me. I think that this is around a Queen off from a 3NT rebid, although with an 8th ♣ I would try 3NT.

[bill1157]

I would go for 3NT as long as pd understands that this is not 19 pts balanced...

Bill

[hanp]

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

If you rebid 3NT with this hand, a subsequent 4♣ from responder would be to play, right?

Not for me.

[skjaeran]

Firmly in the 3♣ camp.