[miamijd]

alphred, on 2019-November-16, 03:41, said:

Hi all
How do you bid these hands?
North: Sp. 4 2, He. K 9 8 4, Di. A Q 9 7, Cl. A K 10
South: Sp. A J 8 7 3, He. 7, Di. K 5 4 3 2, Cl. 9 2
West opens with Pass. Opps don´t intervene.
System: Standard American.
gtg thx all
Alphred

Depends on (i) system and (ii) how aggressive partner is with his 1NT openers.

Some 1NT engines allow you to show a hand like this by bidding 2C and then 2S over 2D or 2H to show an invite-strength hand with 5 spades and 5 of a minor. It's actually not a bad treatment. All you lose is the ability to show the 5S 4H invite hand (you just play it in game). If I have that available, then my auction looks like this:

1NT 2C
2H 2S(1)
3NT(2)

(1) invite strength; 5/5 S/m
(2) 16 decent HCP; fit in minor; stops in the other minor; shown 4H and have K NINE EIGHT x in H. 3NT ought to be halfway decent.

If I don't have that available, then it depends how aggressive my partner is with his 1NT bids. If he's like me (I upgrade good 14s to 15 NV, and always upgrade good 17s to 18), then maybe transfer and bid 2NT. If he's more by the book, then probably:

1NT 2H(t)
2S 3D
3H(1) 4D (2)
5D

(1) 2 spades; 4+ diamonds
(2) Our H and C holdings don't look so good for NT

[mikeh]

miamijd, on 2019-November-18, 13:47, said:

3H is absolutely standard to show a D fit.

Firstly I disagree, if by showing a diamond fit you mean a hand with interest in a high level diamond contract. Yes, it will show diamond length and values, but I would assume that it showed values in hearts, and thus worry about clubs.

I would never bid 3H with xx or xxx in hearts. Give me, say, Qx AKxx AQxx Jxx and I'd bid 3H for sure, expecting partner to offer 3N should he hold, say, 5=1=4=3, since even xxx in clubs probably stops the suit (in terms of losing 5 fast tricks) and makes 3N far better than 5D.

But it seems, to me, very foolish to use 3H to say, in effect, 'I'm wide open in one of the side-suits, do you stop it?'.

There is not enough bidding space, over 3D, to allow opener to show that he stops hearts and not clubs AND also to be able to show he stops clubs and not hearts. Since 3N seems best used to say he stops both, we have to decide which message 3H should show. To me it makes sense, and has always been the way I've played it and seen it played, that 3H shows stuff in hearts, and by inference suggests doubt about clubs.

So, while we agree that one won't bid 3H without a fit for diamonds, maybe you can explain what other information you think it shows.

Btw, if you think that it is silent about the side suits, explain how responder is supposed to decide when, as is often the case, he is interested in, but worried about, 3N?

[akwoo]

Hmm - my preferred agreements are different. This may be because I play a lot more matchpoints than IMPs, and so playing 5♦ is almost always bad. I would rather play 3N with a possibly wide open suit and hope partner has it or opps don't lead it, because 35% of +630, 35% of +600, and 30% of -100 is better than 100% of +600.

I prefer that 1N-2H-2S-3D always show at least mild slam interest - which means that slam makes on something other than the perfect 17 count.

After 1N-2H-2S-3D, 3N and 4S deny slam interest. 3S shows slam interest in spades. 3H shows slam interest in diamonds with a heart control, and 4C shows slam interest in diamonds with a club control. (I don't usually have an agreement for 4D - probably it should show slam interest in diamonds with Hx in spades.)

With the given hand, I probably bid 1N-2H-2S-2N, with the intention of bidding 4S if partner bids 3S, but I would consider 1N-2H-2S-3N (especially at IMPs).

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2019-November-18, 15:20, said:

Hmm - my preferred agreements are different. This may be because I play a lot more matchpoints than IMPs, and so playing 5♦ is almost always bad. I would rather play 3N with a possibly wide open suit and hope partner has it or opps don't lead it, because 35% of +630, 35% of +600, and 30% of -100 is better than 100% of +600.

I prefer that 1N-2H-2S-3D always show at least mild slam interest - which means that slam makes on something other than the perfect 17 count.

After 1N-2H-2S-3D, 3N and 4S deny slam interest. 3S shows slam interest in spades. 3H shows slam interest in diamonds with a heart control, and 4C shows slam interest in diamonds with a club control. (I don't usually have an agreement for 4D - probably it should show slam interest in diamonds with Hx in spades.)

With the given hand, I probably bid 1N-2H-2S-2N, with the intention of bidding 4S if partner bids 3S, but I would consider 1N-2H-2S-3N (especially at IMPs).

MPs is still a form of bridge, but I empathize, especially since so much matchpoint bridge is played in weak fields. If you give up on 5m, and blast 3N and they run a suit on you, the odds are that you are scoring average minus. However, the better the field, the more one should play 'good bridge', at least on hands where you have game values. I would always rebid 3N with some 5422 hand with solid game and no slam interest, at mps, even with xx xx in the side suits, but I draw the line at 5-5 hands: here I think it always important to show shape.

Try 3N on such a hand in the Blue Ribbon, and you'll rate to be a lot worse than average minus when they run responder's stiff suit in 3N.

Note that an extra factor, for responder, is that for most good pairs, the auction 1N 2H 2S 3N permits opener to pass even with 3S...while the auction 2N 3H 3S 3N, most good pairs play that opener should rarely pass. The reason is that over 1N, opener is to assume that responder will show his side suit with game values and shape, allowing the partnership to avoid some doomed 3N games, but there is no room below 3N after a 2N start.

The fact that this is common expert practice, even at mps, should be a clue that it is still best, even at mps, to show real shape when one has real shape.

[bluenikki]

miamijd, on 2019-November-18, 13:47, said:

3H is absolutely standard to show a D fit.

If so, then there must be many publications that say so.

Can you cite 3?

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2019-November-18, 16:22, said:

Try 3N on such a hand in the Blue Ribbon, and you'll rate to be a lot worse than average minus when they run responder's stiff suit in 3N.

Well, in the BRP, I'd be happy to take 45% of a near top and 55% of a zero. If a couple of these work out, then I can go back to playing with the field and still make day 2. If it doesn't work out, well I was never making day 2 trying to play with the field anyway.

[KingCovert]

As an interesting possibilty, In the sequence 1NT-2H-2S-3D:

3H - Which side-suit are you worried about?
3S - Clubs
3N - Hearts
4D - Both

Of course, this falls apart in the sequence 1NT-2D-2H-3D. Since, 3S is the cheapest sidesuit, and well, we don't have 2 bids after it to define the suit.

You could do something like 3H is artificial asking for the clarification above, and 3S agrees the major suit. That would be interesting, not sure that it would be any good though. I'm just spit-balling without consideration. I'd probably prefer the idea of re-transfer and other agreements on top of it.

[nudnikbp]

1NT, 2H

2S, 3NT

The hand is good enough for that.

[apollo1201]

KingCovert, on 2019-November-18, 18:32, said:

As an interesting possibilty, In the sequence 1NT-2H-2S-3D:

3H - Which side-suit are you worried about?
3S - Clubs
3N - Hearts
4D - Both

Of course, this falls apart in the sequence 1NT-2D-2H-3D. Since, 3S is the cheapest sidesuit, and well, we don't have 2 bids after it to define the suit.

You could do something like 3H is artificial asking for the clarification above, and 3S agrees the major suit. That would be interesting, not sure that it would be any good though. I'm just spit-balling without consideration. I'd probably prefer the idea of re-transfer and other agreements on top of it.

AKA known as the Diamonds issue. Cramped bidding space at the 3-level vs Clubs. Like in 1D-1M-3D or 1M-2D-3D sequences.

Some use 3M as a 2-way bid. Either the fit for M, or no fit but C stopped and OM unstopped (*). Then you can bid the OM with stuff there and C unstopped.

A bit tricky to handle I confess. And the sequence can become slippery if one forgets the ambiguity. But I like the

(*) unstopped can also be understood as an unsuitable holding for NT contracts. Axx for instance is bad at NT facing a singleton but terrific when there is a trump.