- 3NT. Some case for 3but if I do that would not
partner raise hearts with six bad hearts not look for spades
with Qx Kxxxxx AKx Kx? I'd like to have a different sort of
club stop to bypass it. But if 3NT were right you would not
set the problem. [No fair trying out outguess the problem
setter! --Jeff] The real advantage of 3 is it lets partner
bid 3. Then... 3NT by me anyway?
- 3. Where do we want to play opposite
x KQxxxx AKxx xx?
Qx AKxxx KJxx xx?
x KQxxx AJxxx Kx?
x AQxxx AKxxx xx?
That's right: 4, 4, 3NT, and 5 respectively. 3
should get us to the right contract on each of these
hands (partner bids 4, 3, 3NT, and 4 respectively).
I don't expect much (any?) panel support, but I much
prefer 3 to the unilateral 3NT or 4. When in doubt,
make the cheapest bid.
- 3NT. I take the low road. It just looks too soft to go high.
- Again there are two choices, one of which is 3NT.
Although I hate to suppress 4-card support for partner,
I have only a queen and a probably irrelevant
jack in his suits. So Hamman and I are in 3NT again.
- 3NT. This is a toss-up. 3NT has a slight advantage over 4
in that we can still get to a diamond game or slam if partner
is quite distributional or very strong whereas 4 would keep
us from reaching the most reasonable game opposite something
along the lines of x AKxxx AJxx xxx.
- 4partner wants me to raise with diamonds; well, I have diamonds.
Could easily be the only way to get to slam when partner has something
like x KQxxxx AKJx Ax. If he has x AQxxxx AKxx xx, I think 3 is a
better bid. And if he has x AQxxx AKxxx xx, maybe we'll make 5, also.
But if he has x AKQxx Axxxx xx, better luck next time.
- 4. I was going to write about a clever 3 bid
revealing club duplication if partner rebids 3NT over it,
and me bidding in diamonds otherwise, but the direct bid
appeals to me. And 4 is the best way to reach 6. It would
be nice to be able to play 4NT after my raise, but I don't
know how to accomplish that without one of us wondering if
we just passed an ace-asking bid.
- 3NT. Almost all my strength is in the black suits.
If partner moves over this I'll cooperate.
- 4. What's the problem?
- 3NT. I am not giving up on slam, but I have just enough misgivings not
to raise to the four-level. The diamonds aren't very good and the hands
don't seem to fit well. If partner bids again, I am very well placed.
- 3NT seems like a reasonable game. It's also
a minimal and uncooperative bid. That's what
I want to be on this hand. 4 seems too much
of an overbid.
- 3NT...You should have stated the system being used because 3NT is more
attractive when playing Standard American. 2/1 GF practically guarantees 4+
diamonds while SA doesn't. [Not true. See the examples above. --Jeff]
I would probably still bid 3NT playing 2/1 because of the slowness
of the club stoppers and the quick tricks in spades. Admittedly a 4
raise could be right playing 2/1 GF (perhaps even a 3 preference).
[For what it's worth, the standard here is to assume playing
any reasonably common modern system of your preference. Old
Standard American where 2 isn't forcing, however, isn't one
of those options. Panelists should feel free to comment on
system issues which apply, but simple plumping for, say, a
big club system, is generally not particularly interesting,
so please don't. Comments like, "I play 3 here as a relay
so my 3 bid guarantees four. The consequences of that are..."
are quite welcome. Often, I'll ask for more details, though,
so be ready to supply them! --Jeff]
- 3NT. Too weak and junky for 4. Partner has some clubs; if not he has spades and would have bid them, or is mostly red and will bid out.
- I don't have any opinion as to whether
3NT or 4 is right (theoretically). Your 4 bid
certainly worked out well. Maybe if you bid 3NT, I would bid
4NT, and if so, you would jump to 6.
- JEFF AT THE TABLE
- WINNING ACTION
- 4. Partner is about to drive to slam
with an 18-count: 10x A10xxx AK10x AK. Diamonds makes,
but notrump doesn't, a trifle unluckily.
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- Raising what could be a stopper
is a very risky choice, of course, but partner is either
worried about clubs for 3NT, in which case I am too
and want to play a major-suit game, or he has real
diamonds, in which case, I am willing to play diamonds,
particularly if he is short in clubs. 4 is a little
more constructive than 3NT, which isn't good on my
misfitting dogmeat. On the other hand, I'm really
not all that excited about 3NT. I have one club
stopper and no source of tricks. But bidding 4
now buries NT below the slam level and I do have
a crappy hand. I think it's a toss-up. Still.
What's worse, two of my favorite rules conflict:
Too bad partner didn't bid notrump.
- when in doubt, raise partner.
- when in doubt, bid 3NT.
3 is interesting, but knowing
that I'd bid 4 over 3 a lot and be totally shocked
by dummy, I can't accept it as right. I'm just not
into 5-1 fits. Yeah, this one might even be right.
Over 4, 4 and 4 are offers to play, and 5 is an
artificial slam try, being that it is the only cooperative
slam try we have available. That means we can play game in
either major. I'd really like to play this in 4 vs. a
doubleton, so I can live with this choice.