[smerriman]

---

To settle a disagreement - on what hands would you bid 3♦ as North here?

(Also, what would a double show instead of 3♦?)

[dokoko]

 smerriman, on 2019-January-01, 02:10, said:

---

To settle a disagreement - on what hands would you bid 3♦ as North here?

(Also, what would a double show instead of 3♦?)

Playing 2NT as Good-Bad here helps:

- 2NT shows a competitive hand with: a) both minors, b) long diamonds, c) heart support. About 13-15 with the right distribution.
- 3-level bids show good hands (strongly invitational but nonforcing).
- dbl shows a strong hand unsuitable for other action (semibalanced or too strong for a nonforcing bid).

Not playing 2NT as Good-Bad I would lower the range for direct 3-level action a little bit and force to game with a little less. I still need dbl for a balanced hand not able to bid 2NT (probably lacking a spade stopper).

In any case 3♦ promises extras. With a normal opener you will have to hope partner can reopen.

[Tramticket]

3D does not promise extras as far as I am concerned. It promises a good 6-card suit in a minimum hand. Double shows extras.

[pescetom]

 dokoko, on 2019-January-01, 03:20, said:

Not playing 2NT as Good-Bad I would lower the range for direct 3-level action a little bit and force to game with a little less. I still need dbl for a balanced hand not able to bid 2NT (probably lacking a spade stopper).

In any case 3♦ promises extras. With a normal opener you will have to hope partner can reopen.

For us 2nt is natural with stopper and the rest as described here.

[apollo1201]

 Tramticket, on 2019-January-01, 03:57, said:

3D does not promise extras as far as I am concerned. It promises a good 6-card suit in a minimum hand. Double shows extras.

+1 (if not playing anything fancy)
Partner showed some values so you need to fight for the partscore with adequate distribution (eg a 6-carder) even if minimal, as partner will not necessarily have enough to bid again.
X is probably a flexible bid for otherwise « unbiddable » hands (eg 3-cd H support in an unbalanced hand worth around 15HCPs, 18 w/o stopper...). NT bids strongly suggest H misfit (31xx 15+) or a source of tricks in a long D suit (pragmatic bid).

[ahydra]

I'm with Tramticket: double on most hands with significant extras, so 3D shows a minimum with at least 6 diamonds, but not a complete pile of rubbish - say good 12-bad 16.

2NT is natural, exact range depends on opening 1NT range. 3S would be 18-19 bal without a stop or occasionally some massive hand with heart support.

ahydra

[miamijd]

These sorts of hands are very difficult to bid without some form of good-bad 2NT (my favorite convention). And contrary to what the earlier poster said, in standard good-bad, 2NT does not always show a minimum. It's either a minimum hand that doesn't want to sell to 2S OR a game-force hand (you make a forcing bid after partner's response). That's why it's "good-bad." A bid on the three-level shows the intermediate (16-18 or so) hand (the "invite," neither "good" nor "bad").

If you don't play good-bad 2NT, you are really stuck. The standard way to handle things is to bid on the 3-level with the intermediate hands and pass the minimum hands, hoping partner can reopen (which he will with 10+). But this ends up selling to 2S on a lot of hands that shouldn't do that.

The alternative suggested by some of the posters above to bid on the 3-level with the minimum hands and X with the intermediate or better hands partially solves this problem but creates a slew of others. If you adopt this treatment, then on the auction you gave, if you X, how is partner to know whether you have:

xx
xx
AKQxxx
AKx

or

x
Kxx
AKxxx
AQxx

Doesn't look like a big difference, but it's huge. Suppose partner has 3523 with 6HCP (quite possible). On the first hand, you want to be in 3D. On the second hand, you want to be in 3H. How the devil is partner supposed to know?

There are a lot of other examples like this. The point is that using X to cover all strong hands here overworks the X and leaves partner with way too many guesses. X ought to be a hand like #2 -- 16+ and tolerance for anything partner does. One-suiters like #1 are best handled via good-bad 2NT.

Cheers,
mike

[smerriman]

Thanks, that's really useful. Of the two approaches (bidding 3d with a minimum, and needing extras), both my partner and I could see major downsides in the other's approach - but it seems good/bad 2nt allows you to have the best of both worlds.

[rmnka447]

With a good hand, opener can double and rebid ♦ later, so 3 ♦ here shows length but not much extra strength.

[miamijd]

 rmnka447, on 2019-January-02, 15:50, said:

With a good hand, opener can double and rebid ♦ later, so 3 ♦ here shows length but not much extra strength.

Well, you can't bid diamonds later on an economical level if partner has something like 3523 and bids 3H (which he should, over X). Now you are kinda stuck.

[GrahamJson]

I think that the range of the 3D bid depends on the range of your opening 1NT. Playing a weak NT you can pass with a modest hand and diamond length as you have already denied a minimum balanced hand. Playing 15-17 I guess a pass would tend to indicate a 12-14 balanced hand so you need to rebid a decent diamond suit even if fairly minimum. One up for the weak NT.

[Tramticket]

 miamijd, on 2019-January-02, 13:04, said:

These sorts of hands are very difficult to bid without some form of good-bad 2NT.

System is important of course. I play a weak no trump and a minimum no trump bid shows the 15-17 no trump range - with a stop. Double will often be a strong no trump (or stronger) hand with no stop. Bidding 2NT as natural, with a strong NT, is not compatible with the Good-Bad 2NT.

 GrahamJson, on 2019-January-03, 01:19, said:

I think that the range of the 3D bid depends on the range of your opening 1NT. Playing a weak NT you can pass with a modest hand and diamond length as you have already denied a minimum balanced hand. Playing 15-17 I guess a pass would tend to indicate a 12-14 balanced hand so you need to rebid a decent diamond suit even if fairly minimum. One up for the weak NT.

"One up for the weak NT." - well maybe, but we can't use artificial 2NT bids.

Looking at Miamjid's two examples, I would double with his second hand and bid 3♠ (asking for 3NT with a spade stop), with the first hand. If the diamond suit in the first hand was less solid I would just bid 3♦, since game 5♦ is still a long way off unless parter holds extras.

[billyjef]

 miamijd, on 2019-January-02, 13:04, said:

The alternative suggested by some of the posters above to bid on the 3-level with the minimum hands and X with the intermediate or better hands partially solves this problem but creates a slew of others. If you adopt this treatment, then on the auction you gave, if you X, how is partner to know whether you have:

xx
xx
AKQxxx
AKx

or

x
Kxx
AKxxx
AQxx

Doesn't look like a big difference, but it's huge. Suppose partner has 3523 with 6HCP (quite possible). On the first hand, you want to be in 3D. On the second hand, you want to be in 3H. How the devil is partner supposed to know?

There are a lot of other examples like this. The point is that using X to cover all strong hands here overworks the X and leaves partner with way too many guesses. X ought to be a hand like #2 -- 16+ and tolerance for anything partner does. One-suiters like #1 are best handled via good-bad 2NT.

Cheers,
mike

Agree to the advantages of gb2nt, not playing it, I think the second hand could be eliminated from the X as well and hands similar to it, i.e. hands with 4+!c, as 3!c bid is reasonable.
2NT would show stopper, denying biddable round suits and long diamonds, 12-16 points. Partner could expect at least 2!h.
Suit bids would be shape showing, 12-16 pts.
Cue = 17+ asking for stopper.
Double = 17+ without stopper.
Armed with the above, I think responder has enough information to make decent choice, without better agreements. All assuming 15-17 nt and expectation of the NegX showing 8+ pts. Not perfect, but reasonable.
Another assumption about the above hands, having the value of 17+, 1st stronger than the 2nd, but still the 2nd can reasonably evaluated as 17+, I don't think responder's should fear much about what shape opener has if the partnership feels safe to the 4-level.
Jef