Responding in a 3 card major

[jerome keslin]

If partner opens 1 diamond and you hold a hand in the 5-8 point range, say 3334 shape. 

would you ever consider responding in a 3 card major in an attempt to let partner declare 

if he holds a strong nt? 

[flemnevershowered]

I've always wanted 1D-1H and 1C-1D to be possibly 3cds, so that 1m-1NT can be 9-poor12 (1C-1D-1M-1N and 1D-1H-1S-1N= 5-8). Still haven't figured out whether it's allowed on the Charts....

[Christopher Monsour]

That sounds like a poor fit for KS methods.   

If your goal is for the strong NT hand to grab 1N, opening 1C on all balanced 15-19, with transfer responses, will accomplish that.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: 'flemnevershowered' via The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System <kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 7:54:50 AM
To: The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System <kaplan-s...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Responding in a 3 card major

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/033c04ba-b235-4f50-8840-2b6c6d47ce55n%40googlegroups.com.

[jerome keslin]

Hi Flemnevershowered,

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the chart requirements in the USA. But if you were allowed to respond in a 3 card major ( opposite an unbalanced opener ), how do you think this would impact on opener's rebids .
For example: is opener no longer supposed to jump to 4h with 19+ points?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/DM6PR15MB3706B390B94D4F0E50CA1C74D1E62%40DM6PR15MB3706.namprd15.prod.outlook.com.

[Doug Deacon]

We know having responder declare 1NT when opener has 15-17 balanced is anti-field, but on many hands it makes no difference.  Meanwhile, what is the cost to solve this occasional problem?

The risk, obviously, is that opener raises responder's "M", which I assume they must  do when holding 4. When responder has only 3, the odds of opener having 4 increase, so landing in a 4-3 is a non-trivial risk.

Moyseian fits are fine, but to play well they require:

a)  a ruffing value in the 3-trump hand, and

b) a long suit to establish. 

In your example, (a) never exists (worse, the opposite is possible). (b) is possible but not likely. Conclusion: nothing about 3-3-3-4 suggests playing in my 3cM unless opener has 5, which they never will. We're likely to score badly whenever opener raises.

Intentionally choosing inferior contracts to reduce a notional risk would be a poor bargain, IMO of course.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CAOz7kNpbCUipsDLLBVcwmjMUsU2_yRPdciqeMWGSZrzMi8xz-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[jerome keslin]

Thanks Doug.
You made some excellent points and  I will relegate the 3 card major response to the trash can.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/CA%2BQeTQjyDOoXzxBxYQWUWnyUaFteYQawKBG4HRFKiYyF05HnUw%40mail.gmail.com.