[ggwhiz]

 Trinidad, on 2017-January-16, 11:18, said:

Just my $0.02. To me 3NT means: "I don't want your input, unless you have a special type of hand (usually slemmish)."

After a weak 2 by them, double by us we play 2nt as lebensohl and if you follow that up with 3nt you show some doubt, ie. game values but a single or tenuous stopper in their suit (QTx type or Ax/Kx with softish cards). The slower route to 3nt via a 3♣ cue shows the same doubt for us here and the leap to 3nt most definitely does not.

[rmnka447]

No, I wouldn't open this hand.

I wouldn't bid over 3 NT, either. 3 NT isn't seeking more information it's a signoff. Partner knows you have a an unbalanced hand with ♦. You don't have a clue what partner's hand is. Partner might be a little miffed if 3 NT doesn't work out because of feeling you opened a bit light, but that's another discussion. Better that discussion than trying to explain why you took a bid over 3 NT which makes and got some place that goes down.

It should be a part of partnership confidence that if partner makes an unusual bid or play, you trust your partner. In short, don't "save" partner.

[MrAce]

Deleted

[cherdano]

In my view the best description of 3NT here is "I have 13-15 hcp, and I believe 3NT is the right contract if you are minimum, even if you have shortness somewhere".
I find this quite a useful guide for many premature jumps to 3NT, even when opener is not known to be unbalanced.

[MrAce]

 Trinidad, on 2017-January-16, 11:18, said:

Just my $0.02. To me 3NT means: "I don't want your input, unless you have a special type of hand (usually slemmish)."
Rik

 rmnka447, on 2017-January-16, 17:03, said:

No, I wouldn't open this hand.

I wouldn't bid over 3 NT, either. 3 NT isn't seeking more information it's a signoff. Partner knows you have a an unbalanced hand with ♦. You don't have a clue what partner's hand is. Partner might be a little miffed if 3 NT doesn't work out because of feeling you opened a bit light, but that's another discussion. Better that discussion than trying to explain why you took a bid over 3 NT which makes and got some place that goes down.

It should be a part of partnership confidence that if partner makes an unusual bid or play, you trust your partner. In short, don't "save" partner.

Sign off?

Let me comment about the difference between sign off bids and descriptive bids (limited responses)


1 NT--3 NT = Sign off. 3 NT does not describe anything to opener, It decides where to play. This is the bid where 3 NT bidder does not need ANY input. There is no such a back pedalling like Rik did by following his sentence with "unless bla bla bla" here. 1 NT opener will pass, end of story. This is where one can use terms like "I do not want your input" or "sign off"

1♦---3 NT is a descriptive bid, a limit bid and regardless of your own chosen limit range for that 3 NT, It can not possibly decide to play 3 NT vs a very wide range 1 ♦ opener. Opener decides where to play the game or whether they play slam or grand slam.

In our example, 2♣ overcall makes this 3 NT to be more specific than just a balanced hand and a range. It also requires stopper in the opponent suit. As some people said here, which I agree, a stopper like Axxx is not what I expect from pd, But even if pd bids 3 NT with KQT9 stopper, he is not telling us "I do not want your input" or " I have all the info I need and I decided to play 3 NT" That is what opener will decide by looking at his own hand. The reason why me, wank and most of you want this 3 NT to require more about the enemy suit is to help opener decide more accurately when he knows that.

[MrAce]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-16, 10:35, said:

If a pair opens 10 point hands and bids 3N in this auction with 13 and Kxx or Axx of clubs, they will get poor results over time. With bidding room, a double jump should mean something more specific than a random NT hand. Personally, I think 3nt in the auction should show strong control of the over-called suit, double stop, and the NT hand because there are other ways to bid the other type hand. In my estimation, it is a mistake to ignore opponents over-calls in our subsequent bidding, especially NT as the opening lead is so critical to success or failure of NT contracts.

If you simply bid 3NT with Axx or Kxx of clubs in this hand you create an impossible problem for opener, which was the OP question.

Winstonm, we agreed from the beginning that 3 NT should have much better stopper than Axxx. But you consistently backpedaling from what I disagreed and bringing the debate back to what 3 NT should have. But we do not have a disagreement on that. I can not possibly disagree with your choice of range for the 3 NT bid, it is your systematic choice.

I am repeating one more and last time, 3 NT regardless of your own chosen range and quality of stoppers is still a limit response and can not possibly give any message such as "I do not want your input". Because this pretty much sounds like a sign off and 3 NT is not a sign off. How can it be vs a 11-21 unbalanced ♦? If you end up playing 3 NT, it will not be because of your hand only. It will be due to decision given by opener, by looking at his hand and guessing your strength, shape and stoppers in their suit much more accurately than you can possibly guess which hand he opened 1 ♦ with.

[helene_t]

 ggwhiz, on 2017-January-16, 16:21, said:

After a weak 2 by them, double by us we play 2nt as lebensohl and if you follow that up with 3nt you show some doubt, ie. game values but a single or tenuous stopper in their suit (QTx type or Ax/Kx with softish cards). The slower route to 3nt via a 3♣ cue shows the same doubt for us here and the leap to 3nt most definitely does not.

I am sure Rik was refering to this specific 3NT bid. I don't think his agreement is that any 3NT bid is strictly to play. Of course there are plenty of auctions in which 3NT is likely to lead to further bidding by partner.

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2017-January-17, 05:34, said:

I am sure Rik was refering to this specific 3NT bid. I don't think his agreement is that any 3NT bid is strictly to play. Of course there are plenty of auctions in which 3NT is likely to lead to further bidding by partner.

Rik was referring to this 3NT bid in combination with this opening hand.

Minimum hands usually don't bid over this kind of 3NT. I fully agree with MrAce that this is not a sign-off, but I tend to get a lot of minimum hands (certainly when partner has about 12-14 balanced), and, hence, will usually pass. Should I be so lucky to have a nice hand (in HCP or distribution), I will certainly make a descriptive move, but then I am also telling partner that I have a nice hand (plus whatever I am telling him with my descriptive bid).

Rik

[cherdano]

Timo, of course in theory you are absolutely right. But in practice, this 3NT bid is a sign-off. When I have 13-15 balanced and RHO has overcalled at the two-level, then partner doesn't usually have enormous extras. (Especially if he discounts shortness in their suit, where I am supposed to have wasted values.) I'd guess opener will remove this less than 2% of the time.

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2017-January-17, 07:31, said:

Timo, of course in theory you are absolutely right. But in practice, this 3NT bid is a sign-off. When I have 13-15 balanced and RHO has overcalled at the two-level, then partner doesn't usually have enormous extras. (Especially if he discounts shortness in their suit, where I am supposed to have wasted values.) I'd guess opener will remove this less than 2% of the time.

Right, we cannot be bidding partner's hand for him, but we should factor the unbalanced nature into our decision and A-empty-4th is a lousy stopper here. If partner has a 7 bagger or extras where we do not expect to take exactly 9 tricks, I would expect a pull of course.

[Winstonm]

 MrAce, on 2017-January-16, 20:33, said:

Winstonm, we agreed from the beginning that 3 NT should have much better stopper than Axxx. But you consistently backpedaling from what I disagreed and bringing the debate back to what 3 NT should have. But we do not have a disagreement on that. I can not possibly disagree with your choice of range for the 3 NT bid, it is your systematic choice.

I am repeating one more and last time, 3 NT regardless of your own chosen range and quality of stoppers is still a limit response and can not possibly give any message such as "I do not want your input". Because this pretty much sounds like a sign off and 3 NT is not a sign off. How can it be vs a 11-21 unbalanced ♦? If you end up playing 3 NT, it will not be because of your hand only. It will be due to decision given by opener, by looking at his hand and guessing your strength, shape and stoppers in their suit much more accurately than you can possibly guess which hand he opened 1 ♦ with.

I don't think we have a disagreement as much as a misunderstanding or my failure to be specific enough. I simply mean that when there is an overcall and a jump to 3NT, this is a strong indication that the 3NT bidder holds not only whatever NT range the partnership has agreed on for these circumstances, but that his holding in the overcalled suit is almost always going to be fairly strong,as well, a high likelihood of a double stop if not better.

This does not mean the auction ends - the point I was trying to make about the OP is that there should be no great concern about the club void, that the weak hand is not good enough to move over the 3NT bid, that partner did not need more input from that particular crappy hand. That's all I meant.

It was obvious to me that the OP concern was the club void - my short answer maybe should have been, the club void is not an issue instead of trying to explain why the club void was not an issue.

Btw, I am not backtracking at all. I am simply trying to help clarify any misunderstanding you may have had because I was not specific enough.

[MrAce]

Ok I think I take the terms like 'sign-off' more seriously than others.

[rmnka447]

 MrAce, on 2017-January-16, 20:08, said:

Sign off?

Let me comment about the difference between sign off bids and descriptive bids (limited responses)


1 NT--3 NT = Sign off. 3 NT does not describe anything to opener, It decides where to play. This is the bid where 3 NT bidder does not need ANY input. There is no such a back pedalling like Rik did by following his sentence with "unless bla bla bla" here. 1 NT opener will pass, end of story. This is where one can use terms like "I do not want your input" or "sign off"

1♦---3 NT is a descriptive bid, a limit bid and regardless of your own chosen limit range for that 3 NT, It can not possibly decide to play 3 NT vs a very wide range 1 ♦ opener. Opener decides where to play the game or whether they play slam or grand slam.

In our example, 2♣ overcall makes this 3 NT to be more specific than just a balanced hand and a range. It also requires stopper in the opponent suit. As some people said here, which I agree, a stopper like Axxx is not what I expect from pd, But even if pd bids 3 NT with KQT9 stopper, he is not telling us "I do not want your input" or " I have all the info I need and I decided to play 3 NT" That is what opener will decide by looking at his own hand. The reason why me, wank and most of you want this 3 NT to require more about the enemy suit is to help opener decide more accurately when he knows that.

Responder has said a lot about their holding by bidding 3 NT. It's not only what is bid, but also what is not bid that should be considered. If responder had a 4 card major it would be normal to make a negative double instead of bidding 3 NT to try to find a major fit if one exists. If responder had a 5 card major and opening count, it could be bid at the 2 level and be forcing. So likely partner has some kind of ♦ fit and definitely some ♣ stoppers, along with stoppers or probable stoppers in the remaining suits.

I'll stand corrected that opener should never bid, but in IMO, it'll take something extraordinary to pull 3 NT. Either you've got a moose of hand and want to explore for slam, or, something really freakish. With a run of the mill opener, I'm sitting, even with the void.

Wouldn't be surprised to see partner with ♠ Kx ♥ Q9x ♦ KQxxx ♣ AJ10, ♠ Kx ♥ Kx ♦ Kxxxxxx ♣ KJx, or even ♠ QJx ♥ Kx ♦ Kxx ♣ AJ109x.