BBO Discussion Forums: Stopper or no stopper, that is the question - BBO Discussion Forums

Red vs red at IMPs, partner deals and passes, a pass follow, and you open a strong (15-17) NT with

Qxx
AQ
AJxx
Kxxx

Partner transfers to H, you duly bid 2H, and she bids 3D, nat GF, 4+ cards and probably a side singleton (given the 1st pass, she can’t have a slammish hand, and with a 5422 average hand she just bids 3NT).

The stoppers are a bit weak, aren’t they? Just want to check if what I did was fine!

Partner's 3♦ is a suggestion to play in diamonds (else why bid it?) and you have four-card support. We play Lucas Twos and partner won't be 5-5 for this sequence and I would likely risk 3NT (it requires two tricks fewer). But if you don't play our system, partner will often be 5-5 for this action and I think that you should raise at IMPs (less clear at MPs).

I would just bid 3NT. 5-4 is more likely than 5-5, which must be pretty poor anyway if she wasn't able to open.

 apollo1201, on 2019-March-04, 00:55, said:

You can't see a slam?

x Kxxxx Kxxxx Ax

 HardVector, on 2019-March-04, 12:42, said:

Ha ha true, but she would not get too excited usually if she xould’not open a 55 hand.

Feeling my stoppers we’re not enough facing a low singleton and having an almost fit with AQ, I jumped to 4H, showing 3-cd support. Anyway after 3H, partner would raise to 4 most of the times, so...

Making 10 tricks (DQ finesse) gained us 10 IMPs while 3NT goes down 2 with 5 spades + an A to cash, and the other table stopped at 2H.

Partner actually gameforced with a very marginal hand x KJxxx Kxxx JTx. I think she could have used Stayman jumping to 4 if I have 4, and correcting 2D to 2H and crossing fingers with 2NT if I bid 2S. Yes, this trick works better when you have 5 spades😅

What would you have bid with her hand?

 nige1, on 2019-March-04, 06:45, said:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 HardVector, on 2019-March-04, 12:42, said:

I see an opening bid.

 nige1, on 2019-March-04, 06:45, said:

This feels the wrong way around: if you are going to by-pass 3NT, you might at least give honest information about the relative lengths of your suits.

One agreement I've had for these situations is to play that rebidding the major artificially shows four-card support for the minor (and says nothing about the major). Then you can find out how serious partner is about the minor.

Difficult problem. Looking at my cards it seems we are heading towards some unmakeble game. Therefore I could pass, but this will undermine our partnership, especially if wrong. 3 NT is a bid that does not take partner serious. I will bid 4 ♦and pass 4 ♥if partner might bid that. Maybe I should even bid 3 or 4 ♥directly, as this could very well be the last making spot.

Maarten Baltussen

My 'system' for this kind of auction after
1N 2D
2H 3D
??

is:
3H: Agrees hearts as trump, allows responder to bid game or cue or use serious 3NT
3N: No good support for either suit, or support for one but a hand suited for NT
3S: Agrees diamonds, allows for 3NT to play, or cue or 4D minorwood, or cuebids.

Sir,if 3D is a GAME-FORCE,I shall bid just 3H.Opposite a passed hand which shows two suits I shall never think of bidding 3NT.My SQ may be useless.and so can be the CK. Her hand may be xxx-KJ109x-KQ109-x and one loses 4 tricks straight away in 4H.Much more worse in 3NT if the club Ace is with LHO.

One can plausibly play that 3D call in two ways.

The normal way is that it is an offer to play in 5D or higher, should partner fit diamonds and have only a doubleton heart. 3N is still on the table, but opener is not supposed to bid 3N with a hand containing either 3+ hearts or 4+ diamonds (one can make exceptions, for example with AQx Qx Jxxx AKxx, 3N is obvious)

The other way to play it, probably more attractive by a passed hand, which is unlikely to have aspirations for even an 11 trick contract let alone a slam, is to use it to avoid a bad 3N, as would have been the case here.

As it happens, South's action here seems pretty clear regardless of how North intended the bid. 4D allows North to offer 4H as a contract, which she ought to do here, while preserving 5D or even slam should north had a pronounced 2-suiter.

FWIW, the normal way makes far more sense to me than the 'other way'.

For one thing, it isn't always possible to land on one's feet: so North says 'I'm worried about 3N' and South now has to guess the nature of the worry. Opposite North's hand, what South needs was good spades and a little something in clubs, but what if he had good clubs and a little something in spades? He's guessing where North's problem is.

For a second thing, the defenders don't always make the winning lead, and the less we tell them about our hands, the more likely it is that they will fail to find that winning lead.

Finally, if one uses 3D as primarily an attempt to avoid a bad 3N, one loses much of the benefit of establishing a force while exploring strain. One can quite often make 5 or 6 of the minor, but opener is going to have trouble showing enthusiasm for the minor if responder isn't necessarily aiming for the minor contract.

On the hand itself, North made a serious overbid with 3D. She ought to have bid 2N over 2H, and South would probably play 3N, failing.

3D here ought to promise more by way of strength. Stretching is ok if one has compensating strength: which means 5-5 or better, and responder has a sub-minimum 5-4 with a weak second suit.

It is a terrible mistake to design bidding methods or style merely because the method or style being considered will sometimes lead to the wrong contract. No bidding method is perfect, and allowing hands, that are bad for the system, to cause us to change leads to madness, because one is shortly going to encounter a hand where the 'new' or modified method leads to a bad outcome, and now one has to change that....ad infinitum.

Yes, consistently poor results should make one reconsider, but one doesn't do so based on single hands. What one should do is to take advantage of the experience of very skilled pairs who play the same basic method. So look at 2/1 pairs if that's your method, or meckwell lite pairs if you prefer big club. See how they deal with these situations.

4D looks obvious - I don't get people bidding 3N. Keep 4H and 5D in the picture. We are loaded in partner's suits.

 gordontd, on 2019-March-05, 02:27, said:

I like a rebid scheme similar to GordonTD's. e.g. after 1N -2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ - ?

• 3♥ = S/T, 3 ♥s. (Slam interest).
• 3♠ = ART. 2 ♥s, 4+ ♦s .
• 3N = NAT.
• 4♣ = S/T 3 ♥s. 4+ ♦s. (Slam interest)
• 4♦ = NAT. 3 ♥s 4 ♦s. (No slam interest).
• 4♥ = NAT. 3 ♥s. (No slam interest).

But, with the OP hand, opposite a passed partner, 4♥ might have better chances than 5♦ e.g if partner holds say x x ♥ K J x x x ♦ K Q x x x ♣ x

w/o special agreements the best course seems to be

4c

Diamond support and at best iffy 3n cards. The club bid acts as a cue in case responder is near max for a passed hand and still allows for 4h to be the final contract. The heart AQ almost convinces me to try 3/4h but if partner is x Kxxxx Kxxxxx x I see no good reason to risk a 42 or 51 heart split especially if this was IMPS where 5d is still quite a good contract. Change partners hand to x Jxxxx KQxxxx x and would much rather be in 5d. The nice part about the 4c bid is that it still allows for slam bidding if partner is short in spades void Kxxxx Kxxxxx Qx.