[MrAce]

Phil, on 2011-February-25, 19:04, said:

Now, since 3♣ is NF 4♣ shows a pretty good hand. Certainly that's a choice. Or 3♥.

If showing your hand was the GOAL at bridge, instead of being a tool to determine where we can play, i could agree with you.

Your alternatives to 3♣ bid, such as 4♣, 3♥ has much more flaws and incorrect msgs to pd. I wont even mention 6♣ bid. You can not construct enough number of hands, where pd can pass 3♣ and we miss a game compared to the hands where u already missed 3 NT with your 4♣ or 3♥ and 6♣ bids. ( I explained in previous post the hand types that he can pass 3♣, feel free to add if you will, i can be easily convinced if i am missing something)

Among those who believed 3♣ was NF, Drew Casen , John Stewart chosed to bid 3♣ with this. I already mentioned those who believes with std agreements it is forcing, whether u agree or disagree with them.

Basically, if your alternative is NOT 3 NT, the flaws of bids u come up with is way more than a NF 3♣ bid (which seems forcing to some)

All of them agree on 1 thing though, even when 3♣ is agreed to be NF, that doesnt mean opener is saying " I wanna play either !D or !C and i wanna play only at 3 level" They agree that responder's action will be stretched.

[the hog]

I would bid 3NT. 3C would not be forcing for me. I think the 6C bid was made as a joke. I can't really believe someone would seriously bid that.

[Phil]

MrAce, on 2011-February-25, 20:33, said:

If showing your hand was the GOAL at bridge, instead of being a tool to determine where we can play, i could agree with you.

Your alternatives to 3♣ bid, such as 4♣, 3♥ has much more flaws and incorrect msgs to pd. I wont even mention 6♣ bid. You can not construct enough number of hands, where pd can pass 3♣ and we miss a game compared to the hands where u already missed 3 NT with your 4♣ or 3♥ and 6♣ bids. ( I explained in previous post the hand types that he can pass 3♣, feel free to add if you will, i can be easily convinced if i am missing something)

Among those who believed 3♣ was NF, Drew Casen , John Stewart chosed to bid 3♣ with this. I already mentioned those who believes with std agreements it is forcing, whether u agree or disagree with them.

Basically, if your alternative is NOT 3 NT, the flaws of bids u come up with is way more than a NF 3♣ bid (which seems forcing to some)

All of them agree on 1 thing though, even when 3♣ is agreed to be NF, that doesnt mean opener is saying " I wanna play either !D or !C and i wanna play only at 3 level" They agree that responder's action will be stretched.

Wow John Stewart? Rolled out the "A" team didn't you PS finding a group of good players (ok Drew counts) that agree with you isn't really a good way to influence people around here and is simply an appeal to authority without basis.

I don't quite understand your arguments Timo. You say 3♥ and 4♣ are flawed but give zero reasons supporting this. 3♥ can be many strong types of hands. It includes hands with no clear direction, hands with spade support, hands with diamonds short of a 2♣ opener (there are many) and monsters with ♦/♣ (guess what we have). So I am at a loss how 3♥ is misdescriptive since it includes this hand type. And if you want some more descriptive call choose 4♣.
And what does it mean that 3♣ is NF but it doesn't mean that "I want to play 3♣". We hold a 21 count! Do you really think pard is moving with xxxxx xx Kx Qxxx? 190 is such a lousy number on your card.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2011-February-25, 23:33, said:

Wow John Stewart? Rolled out the "A" team didn't you PS finding a group of good players (ok Drew counts) that agree with you isn't really a good way to influence people around here and is simply an appeal to authority without basis.

I don't quite understand your arguments Timo. You say 3♥ and 4♣ are flawed but give zero reasons supporting this. 3♥ can be many strong types of hands. It includes hands with no clear direction, hands with spade support, hands with diamonds short of a 2♣ opener (there are many) and monsters with ♦/♣ (guess what we have). So I am at a loss how 3♣ is misdescriptive since it includes this hand type. And if you want some more descriptive call choose 4♣.
And what does it mean that 3♣ is NF but it doesn't mean that "I want to play 3♣". We hold a 21 count! Do you really think pard is moving with xxxxx xx Kx Qxxx? 190 is such a lousy number on your card.

Among those names, i have given N.Bocchi which supports your view, and if my goal was to influence people here i would not do that now, wld i ?

You may not like some of the names who bid 3♣, u may not agree with their view, but it was not me who made a comment taller than myself by saying things like " No one would play 3♣ forcing" And when u make comments taller than yourself, of course u shd not be so sensitive when someone shows u that what u said is not true. I just can not prove u by saying "I asked John Doe, and he thinks forcing" I just can not prove u that what u find so funny is actually an option for some people who actually has world champ title, if i told u "John Doe" bids 3♣, you would not give enuf credit.

And please dont manuplate pd's hand with giving me examples like xxxxx vs your void, xx and fill all your holes in ur 5-5 suits but make it look like a bad hand. Since when u started to be a bean counter ?

If u are passing 3♣ with xxxxx xx Kx Qxxx then u wld probably be proud of ur scoresheet too when pd has x x Axxxxx AKxxx If u wanna manuplate hands for your argument, trust me i can do it much better than you. I would never pass with the hand u posted, knowing we have 9 card fit and i have 2 working cards for pd, opponents not competing tells my pd's short is ♠. And eventhough 3♣ can be made on as low as 11-12 hcp, doesnt mean u have to bid it at 3 level with suits like x Ax Qxxxx AJxxx.

Back to 3♥ and 4♣ bids; i can actually be convinced that 3♥ is not as bad as i thought it was, since partner rates to bid 3♠ which allows me to bid 3 NT, and if he bids 4 minor, i will be happy. You have a good point on that.

4♣ however, is a plain bad bid. Since u decided not to open this hand 2♣, your hand did not improve at all by pd's 1♠ bid, and i think it actually lost some value when righty bid 2♥. I just cant believe u are actually leaving 3 NT heaven behind, when most likely game seems to be it. And why ? Ohhhh i forgot, your pd bid 1♠, which was the sign u were waiting for to pull the trigga !

[MrAce]

Lemme influence some more, since u take it this way.

Ira Chorush : 4♣

Dano De Falco : 3♣

M. Seamon :3♣

S. Weinstein : 3♥

[Phil]

I appreciate the polling Timo. Try to get their reasons though.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2011-February-26, 20:27, said:

I appreciate the polling Timo. Try to get their reasons though.

They are not my beer buddies Phil, i asked they answered. You can reach them too just like i do, a privilidge that BBO gives to all of us. And as u can notice i never posted only the names who are famous and think alike me, but also those who agreed with you. But for some reason you only wanted to see the ones who disapointed you with their replies and thought i was doing it to influence people.

My intention was not to prove u that my bid was correct, but to show that it is not as odd as some of you u react to it. I kinde loved the TITLE of this topic, to me this hand is a BIG MONSTER, but also very UGLY and a BAD hand especially after 1♠ bid and 2♥ overcall.

[gnasher]

In the circles I play in, it's fairly normal to play that 3♥ promises support, so that we can bid 3♠ semi-preemptively. I expect that's why Wank also chose 3NT.

A cost of that agreement is that this hand becomes rather hard to bid, but I think it's worthwhile. I have unbalanced raises rather more often than I have 21-counts.

[dboxley]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-24, 23:27, said:

---

2/1, 14-16 NT, what now?

Interesting, 3♣ is both an underbid and misdescription of shape. 4♣should be a big 2 suiter, 3♥ is right on values but I'm afraid it implies some ♠ support (maybe it shouldn't but my partners always keep bidding spades thinking all of my subsequent bids are cue bids). That only leaves 3NT.

[han]

I'd also bid 3NT.

3H followed by 3NT (if partner bids 3S) doesn't seem unreasonable. If partner doesn't bid 3S, you probably have a good fit. 3H certainly doesn't show spade support to me.

3C is NF to me as well, I wouldn't consider it.

I think that 4C is very bad. If you want to show a GF hand with diamonds and clubs, bid 3H followed by 4C. A jump to 4C is a very different hand to me.

Pass seems terrible at these colors. At white against red it seems good though, even if partner passes it might be a winner.

[han]

dboxley, on 2011-March-01, 07:52, said:

3♥ is right on values but I'm afraid it implies some ♠ support (maybe it shouldn't but my partners always keep bidding spades thinking all of my subsequent bids are cue bids).

I play support doubles. So 3H either shows 4-card support, or it denies support.

If I bid 3H followed by 4H over 3S or 3NT, I have a very strong hand for spades. If I bid 3H followed by 4S, I have a good hand with 4 spades.

[dake50]

Tough one.
With D:J9x support, looks to need 5xH and C:Q.,Qx,Qxx,Qxxx with 2H bidder.
HAK, H-ruff; to CA, H-ruff; to CJ.
DK if West can score pre-ruff or now the last loser.