[mikeh]

smerriman, on 2021-May-16, 15:15, said:

I'm confused. The standard definition of 3NT is a hand with a long running minor - it certainly can't be showing a balanced hand, since you would use a normal 1NT/2NT bid/rebid sequence. If you and "most others" don't play it as this, what do you play it as?

An offer to play in 3N, after 1m 1M, doesn’t show a balanced hand, and I don’t think JB was suggesting it does.

[smerriman]

mikeh, on 2021-May-16, 15:30, said:

An offer to play in 3N, after 1m 1M, doesn’t show a balanced hand, and I don’t think JB was suggesting it does.

Exactly; but she was implying she played it as something other than a long running minor, having contrasted her approach with that in the next sentence. So having ruled out balanced hands and a long minor, I was wondering what she did play it as..

[he->she, sorry!]

[jillybean]

Ok, one more try at describing what I mean.

---

This is a hand where those playing a gambling 3nt would open 3nt.

---

With this hand, after opening 1♣ and hearing 1♥, you will likely bid 3nt

---

This hand is difficult to bid after opening 1♣, one suggestion was to use 3nt to show this type of gambling+ hand, another was to make a false reverse into hearts. 1C 1S 2H

I like the concept of rebidding 3nt here to show this gambling+ hand, and having a hand2 type make a reverse.


(Smerriman - I'm a she not a he.)

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2021-May-16, 16:17, said:

---

With this hand, after opening 1♣ and hearing 1♥, you will likely bid 3nt

Would strongly disagree with this

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2021-May-16, 16:22, said:

Would strongly disagree with this

OK, this could be a reverse or 2nt I'm terrible at constructing hands but do you understand what I'm trying to convey here?

[smerriman]

Yes and no - my point was that you *always* have better alternatives when holding a (semi)balanced hand, which why the only thing left for 3NT is a long running minor.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-May-16, 16:17, said:

Ok, one more try at describing what I mean.

---

This is a hand where those playing a gambling 3nt would open 3nt.

---

With this hand, after opening 1♣ and hearing 1♥, you will likely bid 3nt

---

This hand is difficult to bid after opening 1♣, one suggestion was to use 3nt to show this type of gambling+ hand, another was to make a false reverse into hearts. 1C 1S 2H

I like the concept of rebidding 3nt here to show this gambling+ hand, and having a hand2 type make a reverse.


(Smerriman - I'm a she not a he.)

Bob and I had an agreement that major-suit 2C openings showed 9 or more tricks or compensating high card strength. He liked minor 1 suiters to have 10 tricks. Personally, I like the 9-trick idea for either majors or minors, as 3NT is a 9-trick contract often bid with a running minor.
Due to the nature of this hand, I have decided that this hand justifies a 2C opening - it simply is too difficult to show any other way and it fits the criteria of being a 9-trick hand.

So, you have successfully helped me consolidate my thinking (thank you). That said, I agree with your first hand, the gambling 3NT, but I strongly disagree with the last two.

2C looks now to me to be the best start.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-May-16, 16:17, said:

Ok, one more try at describing what I mean.

---

This hand is difficult to bid after opening 1♣, one suggestion was to use 3nt to show this type of gambling+ hand, another was to make a false reverse into hearts. 1C 1S 2H

I like the concept of rebidding 3nt here to show this gambling+ hand, and having a hand2 type make a reverse.


(Smerriman - I'm a she not a he.)

This is, tbh, nuts.

If you were foolish enough to want to jump to 3N with a stiff x in an unbid suit, you had better alert the bid. Good luck now, since the opps won’t often err on defence, beating you in 3N while probably cold for at least one game elsewhere, and maybe some slams

Plus, if you do this, then wtf do you rebid on x Axx Kx AKQJxxx?

That’s what a 3N rebid looks like.

And if you say...why don’t we include both hand types?

Give your partner say KQxxxx Axx Qxx and opposite your 3217 hand you’re cold for two slams and down in 3N. Nice bidding.

But opposite my 3N rebid, we’re cold for 3N on any lead and make no slams.

How on earth do you expect partner to know when to bid and when to pass?

Look, I’m not at all sure that David, whose post got you on this track, really meant rebidding 3N on the original hand. If he did, then I respectfully suggest that he has no clue of how to bid😀

[nullve]

jillybean, are you still interested in T-Walsh?

T-Walsh doesn't solve Opener's rebid problem over 1♣-1♥ all by itself, but almost every T-Walsh pair has a way to bid these hands that doesn't require faking a reverse over 1♣-1♥(= 4+ S).

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2021-May-16, 19:51, said:

Look, I’m not at all sure that David, whose post got you on this track, really meant rebidding 3N on the original hand. If he did, then I respectfully suggest that he has no clue of how to bid��

Going for the jugular?

This hand hits a seam in my methods, because we have never discussed reverses on shorter suits. So 1♣-1♠; 2♥(*)-3♥; 3♠ would, without any discussion, unfortunately be a spade control for a heart slam (by meta-agreements). I agree that this is a poor treatment and reversing on this hand is a lot better if you can show delayed spade preference. Unfortunately I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I wanted to add 3NT to the list of awkward options.

At the table I have no idea what I'd bid. I open 1♣, and might try either 3NT, 3♦ (splinter) or 4♣ (strong 6+ suit with 4-card spade support) over 1♠. Or maybe smile and rebid 1♣, hoping the director will save me.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2021-May-17, 02:55, said:

Going for the jugular?

This hand hits a seam in my methods, because we have never discussed reverses on shorter suits. So 1♣-1♠; 2♥(*)-3♥; 3♠ would, without any discussion, unfortunately be a spade control for a heart slam (by meta-agreements). I agree that this is a poor treatment and reversing on this hand is a lot better if you can show delayed spade preference. Unfortunately I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I wanted to add 3NT to the list of awkward options.

At the table I have no idea what I'd bid. I open 1♣, and might try either 3NT, 3♦ (splinter) or 4♣ (strong 6+ suit with 4-card spade support) over 1♠. Or maybe smile and rebid 1♣, hoping the director will save me.

If all you meant was that you’d consider bidding 3N while knowing that this was a serious distortion and that partner would expect stoppers in the reds as well as running clubs, then I understand, but don’t agree with, the idea. If, however, you meant to say that 3N was a good way to show this hand, with A109 in spades and an x in diamonds, then I think you’re the only one likely to be hearing the beating of that drum. I think JB (mistakenly) thought that you were suggesting 3N as a conventional way of showing a ‘forcing’ club rebid, without even suggesting side stoppers. I read your current post as suggesting the intentional distortion idea which, as I say, I understand without remotely liking it😝

I suggest that you adopt fake reverses as part of your style. They are very rare. I can’t remember the last time I reversed into short hearts, although I’ve reversed into shortish diamonds more frequently. After all, 1336 or 2236 (with xx in a red suit, hence no 2N, and too strong for 3C) isn’t so rare that it ‘never’ comes up.

Meanwhile, if you play up the line responses to 1C, then the odds strongly favour partner having 5 spades, especially since he’d need to be 4333 or some 44 in the blacks otherwise, and our extreme club length makes those shapes relatively unlikely. In that case, faking a strong spade raise, as you set out, must be far less risky than faking a diamond stopper. However, I still want clubs as trump ( or play notrump from partner’s side) unless partner can actually show a rebiddable spade suit.

[DavidKok]

I'm afraid I play the 'Full Dutch Doubleton' responses to 1♣, which couldn't be further from up the line. To the best of my knowledge has become almost standard at the national expert level to adopt a 2♦ conventional 'reverse', not promising diamonds, over 1♣-1M in this system. This would sort out this hand and more (the most common hand type is any 17-19 balanced). Unfortunately, my partner and I don't play this (yet). I think it is similar to reversing on shortness, except it deprives opener of the freedom of choosing where to reverse.

I do agree 3NT would be a serious distortion (although in my system it also does not promise stoppers in all unbid suits, but this hand does not qualify). Your treatment is superior, but I do not have it in my arsenal. The result: I'm left to improvise.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2021-May-17, 14:03, said:

To the best of my knowledge has become almost standard at the national expert level to adopt a 2♦ conventional 'reverse', not promising diamonds, over 1♣-1M in this system. This would sort out this hand and more (the most common hand type is any 17-19 balanced).

Top Italians (Lauria et al., Bocchi et al.) have been playing multireverses in their 2/1-like systems for ages. They are also part of Garozzo's Ambra system.

A description can be found in this old thread, especially post #13.

[jillybean]

Ok, after my flight of fancy into Gambling+ 3nt let's take another look at this hand.
(I have to admit, I still think it would be great to have a method to show North's hand without a false reverse)

If we agree to open hands like this 2♣, how do you proceed?

---

My tendency is to avoid making a positive bid over partner's 2♣ opening and let them describe their hand but this may be taking it to the extreme. (2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 4♣)
So a 2nt response would force 3♠ Minor Suit Stayman or 3♠ transfer (I have to check my agreements) and we are already at 5♣ before identifying our fit.

[mikeh]

If one opened 2C, responder has, imo, an automatic 2D, even if playing that 2D could be a bust.

Responder is certain of at least a small slam and has hopes for a grand, but needs to preserve as much space as possible. For example, opener’s most likely hand is a balanced 22-23, so allow 2N, over which we stayman. How matters go from there depends on what opener does

As it is, opener bids 3C over 2D. I don’t see any way for responder to ever find out whether grand is cold. I see little point bidding 4C, hoping to initiate control bidding. We can be virtually certain we have all the keycards but the problem is shape.make opener 2317, for example, and 7C is trivial. As it is, 7C has little chance. But, for me,opener has a minimum 2C opening bid, and it takes very little extra to make grand anywhere from cold to being on a squeeze or finesse. So I’d drive to the grand most times.

I’d expect company in 7C, however. Make opener AQx Kx x AKQJxxx, arguably a better hand than his actual hand, and grand is once more cold, this time in notrump as well as clubs.

Btw, I suggest you do NOT play transfers or minor suit stayman by opener over a 2N response. Of course, I also strongly suggest that responder never bid a natural 2N anyway.

Opener will have far more to show than responder, and you need to let him show it naturally.

[Winstonm]

If you play 2h as absolute negative then there is no reason to not bid 2d to save room. This is where agreements help - when partner bids a suit and you can place that hand as at least 9 winners. This is when responder can take the captaincy and bid whatever ace-ask you are using.