[Apollo81]

Um, I have 1 club and 7 diamonds. Obvious pull.

[ArtK78]

As others have said, partner wants to play in 3♣. So I bid 3♦.

I am not going to ignore what is in front of my face. I have a seven-card diamond fit in my own hand.

[ArtK78]

Sorry - double post.

[rbforster]

Thank you all for your replies and thoughts on this sequence. It certainly seems there's no consensus on whether this 3♣ bid did or did not show diamond tolerance, but that you probably wanted a way to show this (either directly or via a delayed 2N). Having thought a lot more about this, it seems reasonable to play something like -

P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)-?

2♥ sound, probably a good 5 card suit
3♦/2♠ fairly sound/sound ♦ raises
2N sound, natural with stoppers
3♣ sound with a good suit 6+

After passing with a weaker hand, over 2♠ it seems reasonable to balance with

P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)
P-(2♠)-P-(P)-?

X weaker, but with good shape, responsive-style (5/5 ♥+♣)
2N weaker with both minors, probably 4 card difference (6-7♣/2-3♦)
3♣ weaker with long clubs 6+, and no diamond tolerance
3♦ competitive with 3+ but a weakish hand

I agree that 3♦ seems like a good bid in any case on this hand, although I did not bid it since we were NV and not doubled yet. This was the full hand:

Scoring: IMP

Result 3♣-4
-200 for -7.7 IMPS

---

My partner thought this 3♣ would imply diamond tolerance, although I am certainly confused as to why a stiff constitutes tolerance opposite a potential 5 card suit and no promise of club support from me. I will also note that the defense here will actually set 2♠-2 for +200 due to the trump uppercuts resulting in South scoring all 3 of his AJ8 together with 3 top minor tricks and a diamond ruff by North. 3♦ should make easily and will often make an overtrick on the normal ♠ lead if West doesn't find the A♥ underlead for a ruff.

[CSGibson]

3♣ in this sequence should be a desire to play 3♣. Luckily for me, since ♦ outranks ♣, my desire to play 3♦ will overrule partner's desire to play 3♣

[the hog]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 13 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

Hi,

3D.

3C implies diamond support, ... at least tolerance.
Partner could have opened 3C, and he could have bid 3C
after 2D direct, he did not.
If he now enters the scene, he has to have diamonds.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump. So he has a fistful of cs and a hand that did not want to pre empt for some reason known only to himself. I pass. my 2 bullets are more likely to be useful to him than his Cs to me.

Just seen the hand - I think 3C sucks!

[P_Marlowe]

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 13 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

Hi,

3D.

3C implies diamond support, ... at least tolerance.
Partner could have opened 3C, and he could have bid 3C
after 2D direct, he did not.
If he now enters the scene, he has to have diamonds.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump. So he has a fistful of cs and a hand that did not want to pre empt for some reason known only to himself. I pass. my 2 bullets are more likely to be useful to him than his Cs to me.

We agree, that the meaning of the 3C bid depends
on the meaning of a 3C bid the round before.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rogerclee]

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump.

lol, how can you play this is a FNJ? Are you serious?

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 15 2008, 04:37 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump.

lol, how can you play this is a FNJ? Are you serious?

This seems to meet the classic definition of a fit non-jump if following Robson-Segal. New suit at the three-level by a passed hand. So, it sounds fairly serious.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jun 15 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 15 2008, 04:37 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump.

lol, how can you play this is a FNJ? Are you serious?

This seems to meet the classic definition of a fit non-jump if following Robson-Segal. New suit at the three-level by a passed hand. So, it sounds fairly serious.

I play quite a lot of fit bids, but not here.
In fact, I even got out my old copy of their book (admittedly unread for a great many years) and couldn't find anything suggesting that 3C in this auction is a FNJ. If RHO bid (or doubled) over 2D then yes, they would suggest playing 3C as fit but not after a pass.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 15 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 15 2008, 04:37 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump.

lol, how can you play this is a FNJ? Are you serious?

This seems to meet the classic definition of a fit non-jump if following Robson-Segal. New suit at the three-level by a passed hand. So, it sounds fairly serious.

I play quite a lot of fit bids, but not here.
In fact, I even got out my old copy of their book (admittedly unread for a great many years) and couldn't find anything suggesting that 3C in this auction is a FNJ. If RHO bid (or doubled) over 2D then yes, they would suggest playing 3C as fit but not after a pass.

On the bottom of Page 128 of my version:

Sometimes, as with auction (1)

p-1♦-2♥-pass-3♣

it is clear that your new suit bid must be based on a fit - especially when (as here) you are a passed hand.

Now, this is an unusual sequence, because the 2♥ call was preemptive. However, there are other examples of FNJ's after passes by RHO as well.

I have to admit that the concept is somewhat ambiguous in this precise sequence, but, at least as I read Robson-Segal, it seems that either I must have passed already or RHO must not pass for a FNJ to apply.

[Free]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 13 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 13 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

(btw nobody mentioned the possibility that p didn't preempt because he has long ♣ and a 4 card M)

Frances did, doesn't she count?

I did too. That makes a substantial minority.

Woops sry I read too fast over the responses

Seeing the complete hand, 3♣ sucks!

[han]

kenrexford, on Jun 15 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Sometimes, as with auction (1)

p-1♦-2♥-pass-3♣

it is clear that your new suit bid must be based on a fit - especially when (as here) you are a passed hand.

This is entirely entirely different, how could a passed hand without a fit bid on this auction?

[nige1]

Rob F, on Jun 13 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

Team match, favorable, 3rd to bid I overcall 2♦ when RHO opens 1♠.  The auction continues...
P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)
P-(2♠)-P-(P)
3♣-(P)-??
What do you make of partner passing your 2♦ overcall and then later balancing with 3♣ as a PH?  Would you pull to 3♦?

---

IMO

• Partner didn't reply 3♣ to 2♦ fearing that you might treat it as a fit non jump -- wash my mouth out with carbolic
  
• Partner denies 4 ♥ because, holding long ♣ and 4+♥, he would reopen with 2N.
  
• Partner has ♣, doesn't like ♦, and doesn't want to see a ♦ rebid from you.
  
• IMO you should PASS. 3♣ even has the merit of not being doubled yet
  
• (Second thoughts) Except that if _X here is not penalty then your partnership agreement might be that it shows a misfit with a long suit. In that case, I suppose that 3♣ could show ♦ tolerance.

[dake50]

Wow! 3C on that?!
Even X =they've stepped into a misfit (maybe) makes massive more sense than 'let's suggest 3C'.
I think 3C bidder is one 'cowboy' "only I can bid anything I want". My partner is totally unreliable. This ain't partnership bridge.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Jun 15 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 15 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Disagree. Partner does NOT have Ds which is why he passed the first time around after my 2D bid. A 3C bid then would hve been a fit non jump.

lol, how can you play this is a FNJ? Are you serious?

Absolutely 100% serious. Partner passed first - no 3C pre empt? Why? An off shape hand with Cs and maybe a 4 card M most likely (1) . Pd passed again after my D overcall - why? No D fit. Partner comes in now. Why? She holds hand (1).

[benlessard]

Quote

X weaker, but with good shape, responsive-style (5/5 ♥+♣)
2N weaker with both minors, probably 4 card difference (6-7♣/2-3♦)
3♣ weaker with long clubs 6+, and no diamond tolerance
3♦ competitive with 3+ but a weakish hand

Im not sure why the X show good shapes and is weaker. There is plenty of hands with values where you have no bid over 2D but can X over 2S. Also I dont see why 2Nt cannot show 5H/5C surely these weak shapely 2 suiter are more frequent the the long clubs unsuitable for a WvsR preempt.

IMO
X =values with 4H or with 5H not suitable for a 2H over 2D. 3415,2425,2416 etc.
2Nt takeout C+H at least 5/5
3C C+ D tol

or if you are willing to put some C+D tol in 2nt
2Nt = C+H or C+D tolerance
3C clubs only