[yin970902]

play 2/1.
♠AK
♥6
♦AKJ9862
♣Q97

1♦--Pass--1♠--Pass
3♦--Pass--3NT--Pass
?

Do you bid pass or 5♦,any others?

[MrAce]

Pass

[the hog]

I pass. Partner has heard the bidding, hasn't she?

[han]

I object to 3D.

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2012-August-16, 04:26, said:

I object to 3D.

Playing standard methods, what else ?

I'm glad I have 1♦-1♠-2N (GF unbalanced)-3♣-3♦ to show this hand.

Partner can have holdings where you're making a diamond slam or not making 3N, but I think you have to pass 3N playing standard.

[dake50]

Nothing wrong with 3NT as the general rebid.
But is 6D worth exploring?
I have self-splinter 4H.
At worst directing opponents defense to 4NT.

[han]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-16, 04:36, said:

Playing standard methods, what else ?

I guess you could bid 3D. Then, when you have to place the dummy you hide the king of diamonds behind the rest, only discovering it when partner notes that you have 12 cards. Standard methods.

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2012-August-16, 06:43, said:

I guess you could bid 3D. Then, when you have to place the dummy you hide the king of diamonds behind the rest, only discovering it when partner notes that you have 12 cards. Standard methods.

You didn't answer the question, what do you bid if you don't bid 3♦ ?

[Phil]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-16, 07:45, said:

You didn't answer the question, what do you bid if you don't bid 3♦ ?

I think he bids 3♣. I can't imagine anything else.

Good hand for an artificial 2N.

[CSGibson]

4♦ now. 3♦ on about 8 1/2 tricks in hand does seem like an underbid, I'll try and convey my extra trick of strength here & allow for cue-bidding. If partner signs off in 4N, I'll let it go. 2nd choice would be 4N, 3rd pass. Way, way down on the list is 5♦ - that is a truly horrible bid in my opinion, one extra diamond does not mean you force that strain.

[han]

Phil, on 2012-August-16, 08:50, said:

I think he bids 3♣. I can't imagine anything else.

Good hand for an artificial 2N.

I actually bid an artificial 2H with my regular partner, after which my partner will likely bid 2S to ask what kind of hand I have. I realize that GF single minor suiters are a hassle in standard bidding. Still, it seems to me that the hand is too strong for 3D, and that is part of the issue here.

Now that I've already hijacked the thread, let me continue. After 1D - 1S - 3S we play that 3H is either a heart stopper or spades (3S then asks), and 3S shows a club stopper. Given those methods at least we could be certain that partner has stoppers in both unbid suits for his 3NT bid. Maybe I have posted about this on the forums before, if so I may have called it Smit Extensions (or: Smit over 3 diamonds), after a Dutch bridge player whose last name is Smit. Unfortunately he claims he has nothing to do with this convention.

[han]

CSGibson, on 2012-August-16, 08:55, said:

3♦ on about 8 1/2 tricks in hand does seem like an underbid

Woohoo, I'm not alone anymore!

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2012-August-16, 09:07, said:

Woohoo, I'm not alone anymore!

You weren't alone from the start, as I said I have a gadget for this too, but playing absolute vanilla methods, it's awkward (unless your vanilla includes an Acol 2♦ which also works).

My objection to 3♣ is that I barely have a stop let alone a suit, so partner will bid 3N on a singleton/xx when we should be elsewhere.

[lalldonn]

3♦ is an underbid but only a small one (I wouldn't object at all if the jack of diamonds was a small one, or if one of the diamonds was a heart) and the shape is off for anything else. Obviously there are artificial methods that would help, but without them I think it's ok.

[Phil]

han, on 2012-August-16, 09:07, said:

Woohoo, I'm not alone anymore!

Guys, get a room.

(A partnership bidding room if that suits you)

[MrAce]

This is becoming fashion lately, to object someone else's reply and not answering the question that was asked by OP, or to object a previous bid and not answering the OP question

3♦ is not my cup of tea either, but i hate to see a thread turning into "my methods vs your methods" followed by some artificial suggestions to a simple question and not even bothering to reply " having bid 3♦ previously, i would bid this or that now.

OP did not ask if we agree or like the bidding so far, it is of course ok to write your opinions anyway as long as you guys answer the freaking simple question. This would prevent the hijack. It is a simple question because since OP bid 3♦ without any further explenation we have to assume that 3♦ in their style includes hands like this.

I agree with Han that he hijacked the thread and turned it to a different discussion.

@OP : You are asking a question in expert forum, as much as i disagree the way Han, Josh and some others replied w/o an answer, the more i think the more i understand why they did this in this particular thread. Again, you are asking a question where pd was allowed to pass 3♦, now that he didnt let us in the middle of the road (i think we should be happy since we have slightly better hand than most 3♦ bids) are we supposed to drag him to slam or to some 4-5 level contracts which we have no idea how safe it is ?

[gnasher]

Having bid like this, I'd pass. Slam needs quite a lot. Even Qxxx Kxx Qx Axxx may not be enough, and he's much more likely to have some grot like Qxxxx KJx x Kxxx.

Phil, on 2012-August-16, 08:50, said:

Good hand for an artificial 2N.

Not especially, Which side do you want declaring 3NT, if that's where we end up? I agree it's a good hand for some other artificial method.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-August-16, 14:52, said:

Not especially, Which side do you want declaring 3NT, if that's where we end up? I agree it's a good hand for some other artificial method.

I don't know, our bad suit could be clubs as easily as hearts.

[lalldonn]

MrAce, on 2012-August-16, 13:37, said:

This is becoming fashion lately, to object someone else's reply and not answering the question that was asked by OP, or to object a previous bid and not answering the OP question

3♦ is not my cup of tea either, but i hate to see a thread turning into "my methods vs your methods" followed by some artificial suggestions to a simple question and not even bothering to reply " having bid 3♦ previously, i would bid this or that now.

OP did not ask if we agree or like the bidding so far, it is of course ok to write your opinions anyway as long as you guys answer the freaking simple question. This would prevent the hijack. It is a simple question because since OP bid 3♦ without any further explenation we have to assume that 3♦ in their style includes hands like this.

I agree with Han that he hijacked the thread and turned it to a different discussion.

@OP : You are asking a question in expert forum, as much as i disagree the way Han, Josh and some others replied w/o an answer, the more i think the more i understand why they did this in this particular thread. Again, you are asking a question where pd was allowed to pass 3♦, now that he didnt let us in the middle of the road (i think we should be happy since we have slightly better hand than most 3♦ bids) are we supposed to drag him to slam or to some 4-5 level contracts which we have no idea how safe it is ?

It's perfectly valid to question the earlier bidding when given a bidding problem, especially if it means you wouldn't be in the problem position because of it. Are you just having a bad day?

[yin970902]

Thank you!
actually,
♠J9763
♥KQ10
♦7
♣A863
in the partner's hands.
I agree with 3♦ is an underbid but only a small one,so bid 4♦ is good idea.

Quote

4♦ now. 3♦ on about 8 1/2 tricks in hand does seem like an underbid, I'll try and convey my extra trick of strength here & allow for cue-bidding. If partner signs off in 4N, I'll let it go. 2nd choice would be 4N, 3rd pass. Way, way down on the list is 5♦ - that is a truly horrible bid in my opinion, one extra diamond does not mean you force that strain.


Chris Gibson