[Fluffy]

I am testing lately the merits of bidding 1m-p-1NT with 4333 containing 4 card major, so far it is working better than I expected, but this might be due to hand-hogging the client rather than real merits.

I wonder what you guys think about this tactic, assuming a serious partnership were both players are expert.

I play on a strong NT context with best minor, and we never ever raise 1M to 2M with 3 cards.

[PhantomSac]

I would do this about 0 % of the time given your specifications (both expert partners, never raise on 3). That is coming from someone who has done it a lot for the other reason you mentioned and also just cuz I used to do it a lot.

[Phil]

Seems to work better to bid 1N on the 4333 at MPs and the hand has to be pretty quacky + a horrible four card major.

i've had mixed success with the 11's - you can always get back to NT, and bidding the crappy suit inhibits the lead a lot.

[Fluffy]

My biggest success comes when opponents switch to my suit actually

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on 2015-August-03, 00:32, said:

My biggest success comes when opponents switch to my suit actually

That wouldn't work so well for Phil who only does it with horrible suits

But as Justin says, if you never raise on 3 then it is probably not such a great idea. Can also cause partne to overcompete if he takes your 1nt bid seriously and thinks you have 7+ minor suit cards.

Btw, what's the point of hogging the contract with a client? Is he playing all that money for being dummy all the time?

[WesleyC]

Playing transfers over 1C (where 1C - 1NT shows (11)12 HCP, INV) it's common to bid 1NT on some hands with a 4cM, including most 4333s. In this context, you've obviously got different objectives though.

[gszes]

There is an oddity in the logic of those proposing a 4 card major be bypassed. The oddity is that those same players will never intentionally bypass a known 44 major suit fit to play 1 or 2 nt they will always raise the major. If it seems reasonable to take a chance on missing a major suit fit why not be just as willing to intentionally bypass a known major suit fit to play 1n?? Is the slam/competitive bidding so much more useful when one takes the risk of bypassing a 44 major suit fit? Is it really reasonable to have the "weaker" hand suddenly become a huge favorite to become declarer (client dummy privileges aside)?

[jallerton]

PhantomSac, on 2015-August-02, 18:23, said:

I would do this about 0 % of the time given your specifications (both expert partners, never raise on 3). That is coming from someone who has done it a lot for the other reason you mentioned and also just cuz I used to do it a lot.

Yes, it's a more interesting question if partner is allowed to raise with 3-card support.

Here's a hand I got wrong recently. ♠10xxx ♥Kxx ♦QJ10 ♣Qxx. Partner opened 1♦(5+ OR 4441). I responded 1♠, partner raised to 2♠ which could not be made when trumps were 5-1, whilst both 1NT and 2♦ were far better contracts and making overtricks on the layout. On reflection, I thought I should have responded 1NT, but one of my teammates (who normally finds a reason for the winning action) insisted that 1♠ was right.

[jogs]

I had always bid 1♠. But the more I think about it the more I like 1NT.

On the second question bid 1♠ and plan to pass 1NT. Sometimes opponents reopen against our 23-25 HCP.

[steve2005]

I ve come across opponents who have done. without a suit of my own I have led small from Axx♠ only to fund dummy with 4♠, annoying.

[ggwhiz]

My partner is an absolute master at when to raise with 3.... provided I bid 1nt with this shape

[jogs]

I love this idea and would carry it further. Pd opens 1♦. With 4=3=2=4 AND most of the points in the rounded suits, bid 1NT.