An unusual response What's your reaction?
#1
Posted 2010-December-05, 21:24
♠KQxx
♥xxxx
♦xxxx
♣Q
And it goes:
1♣-1♥
2NT-3♣*
4♣!-???
3♣ is checkback, asking about Majors. 4♣ does not exist in your system. What do you bid?
I will later ask what you bid on another sequence.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#2
Posted 2010-December-05, 22:00
Hanoi5, on 2010-December-05, 21:24, said:
And it goes:
1♣ - 1♥
2NT - 3♣*
4♣!- ???
3♣ is checkback, asking about Majors. 4♣ does no exist in your system. What do you bid?
I will later ask what you bid on another sequence.
It would help to know what the other 3-level replies would have meant but It seems that partner has good ♣s. Presumably, had he 4♠ as well, then he might have already bid them. Hence, he probably has a good three-card ♥-holding. I guess something like
♠ xx ♥ AKJ ♦ Kx ♣ AKJxxx
♠ xx ♥ AQJ ♦ AK ♣ KJTxxx
#3
Posted 2010-December-05, 23:40
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#5
Posted 2010-December-06, 01:41
Anyway, I have no slam interest, so I bid 4♠.
#6
Posted 2010-December-06, 02:16
gnasher, on 2010-December-06, 01:41, said:
Let's assume that partner has lost neither his mind nor his memory. For it to be safe for him to go past 3NT, he must have four spades and three hearts. For him to make a non-systemic bid, he must have an exceptional hand. The only thing that can be exceptional about it is that he's very slam-suitable, maybe something like AJ10x AQJ xx AKxx.
Anyway, I have no slam interest, so I bid 4♠.
#7
Posted 2010-December-06, 02:18
gnasher, on 2010-December-06, 01:41, said:
Anyway, I have no slam interest, so I bid 4♠.
Yes, it's all quite straightforward really.
London UK
#8
Posted 2010-December-06, 03:08
straube, on 2010-December-06, 02:16, said:
Perhaps partner thinks that the benfits of making such a descriptive bid outweigh the disadvantages. Or maybe he just didn't think of this disadvantage. His action might be ill-considered, but I'm not going to assume he's stopped playing bridge.
#9
Posted 2010-December-06, 03:21
Asking about stepping out of an agreed checkback sequence.
What netherworld is this?
The essence of expert is the discipline of agreements.
Advanced means those agreements are well-thought out.
Neither apply.
#10
Posted 2010-December-06, 03:44
George Carlin
#11
Posted 2010-December-06, 04:29
Let's suppose the bidding had been:
2♣-2♦
3♣-3♦*
4♣-???
3♦ asks about Majors and 4♣ denies any 4-card Major (and the desire to play 3NT), what would you bid then with the hand in question?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#12
Posted 2010-December-06, 04:43
but in the first sequence he bid 2N, showing at least some willingness to play 3N!! I'm not arguing that partner must be 3244 or 3235 for 2N, far from it, I can tolerate 2N even on 3136 or thereabouts, but if partner thinks 2N was the correct rebid, he should make the correct re-rebid, not some undiscussed nonsense. sorry
George Carlin
#13
Posted 2010-December-06, 05:06
gwnn, on 2010-December-06, 04:43, said:
'Should', excellent word. But the thing is s/he didn't. I really wonder if A&E don't get themselves into trouble sometimes...
So you bid 5♣ on the FG 2♣ opening. And 7♣ on the natural 1♣ opening. Interesting.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#14
Posted 2010-December-06, 05:09
If I am 100% sure partner doesn't rebid 2NT with 4 card support, it will depend what is 3♦ over 3♣, if it shows 4♠& 3♥ then I rule that out and bid 4NT, if it doesn't I just bid 4♦ planning to apss whatever is next
#15
Posted 2010-December-06, 05:18
Hanoi5, on 2010-December-06, 05:06, said:
So you bid 5♣ on the FG 2♣ opening. And 7♣ on the natural 1♣ opening. Interesting.
I would not bid 7♣ in real life, but on the forums I am allowed, and reserve my right, to use rhetorical bids.
George Carlin
#16
Posted 2010-December-06, 05:20
Hanoi5, on 2010-December-05, 21:24, said:
♠KQxx
♥xxxx
♦xxxx
♣Q
And it goes:
1♣-1♥
2NT-3♣*
4♣!-???
3♣ is checkback, asking about Majors. 4♣ does no exist in your system. What do you bid?
I will later ask what you bid on another sequence.
I also, would like to know what the other 3-level bids mean in your system?
Normally, when Responder has a 4-4 in the majors it would be shown by a 3S rebid instead of 3C! checkback:
1m - 1H
2NT - 3S = 4/4
whereas the checkback is commonly used here to show a 4s/5h or just 5h, both GF.
Anyway, 4C! here does not exist in my system either for Opener .
But, gnasher's explanation makes the only sense -- a strong 4s/3h holding -- especially if Opener thought partner had 4s/5h .
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#17
Posted 2010-December-06, 06:38
gnasher, on 2010-December-06, 01:41, said:
♠ AJ10x ♥ AQJ ♦ xx ♣ AKxx.
Fluffy, on 2010-December-06, 05:09, said:
♠ AJx ♥ Axxx ♦ AQx ♣ KJx
I still think partner is likely to have good ♣ to bid this way. Hands like the following seem more plausible ...
♠ AJ ♥ KQJ ♦ xx ♣ AKJxxx
♠ xx ♥ AKQ ♦ Qx ♣ AKJxxx
♠ AJ ♥ AKQ ♦ xx ♣ KJTxxx
Now he may be worried that if the bidding goes say 1♣ - 1♥-; 2N - 3♣ -; 3♥ - 3♠; ??? then (assuming straight-forward methods),
If he bids 3N then ♦ may be wide open.
If he bids 4♣ then you will take it as a cue-bid for ♠.
#18
Posted 2010-December-06, 08:32
#19
Posted 2010-December-06, 08:40
#20
Posted 2010-December-06, 09:32
nige1, on 2010-December-06, 06:38, said:
Because that's what he'd do with an ordinary hand and this shape. He thinks he has a special hand, and that this merits bidding his hand in a special way. That doesn't mean that I agree with his action - it's possible to understand his reasoning without agreeing with it.