[Echognome]

Scoring: XIMP

1♣ - 1♠
2NT - ?

---

2NT shows 18-19 balanced. 1♣ was 4+ as playing 4 card majors. 3♣ would be checkback. That is all you have agreed.

What is your bidding plan?

[Gerben42]

I want to try for 6♣. I bid 4♣.

[kenrexford]

Unfortunately, all you have agreed leaves out one nice tool. If 3C is checkback, I personally like to use 3D as a slam try for Opener's minor. This would have been nice for this hand.

Barring this, 3H. Without the agreement, 3H "should" be a cuebid in support of clubs, implicitly denying a diamond control. 3H as natural lacks utility when 3C is checkback.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Jan 27 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately, all you have agreed leaves out one nice tool. If 3C is checkback, I personally like to use 3D as a slam try for Opener's minor. This would have been nice for this hand.

Barring this, 3H. Without the agreement, 3H "should" be a cuebid in support of clubs, implicitly denying a diamond control. 3H as natural lacks utility when 3C is checkback.

I agree it would be nice to have agreements, but this is a partnership which plays together once a month.

I'm not sure why using checkback and bidding a natural 3♥ should be incompatible. What should responder do with 5-5 in the majors?

[Al_U_Card]

Echognome, on Jan 27 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

I'm not sure why using checkback and bidding a natural 3♥ should be incompatible. What should responder do with 5-5 in the majors?

Over a 1NT rebid I like the Bergen approach where 2H shows a 7-9 hcp 5-5 in the majors. After a 2NT rebid, I'm not sure what the hcp range for the 5-5 should be but if it is still 7-9 then it allows opener to find the right game (3NT or 4 of the 8 card fit major).

[luis]

3♣ checkback then.

[cherdano]

luis, on Jan 27 2006, 05:40 PM, said:

3♣ checkback then.

What else? Trying for a clubs slam makes sense, but it can't hurt to know whether we have a double fit.

Arend

[kenrexford]

The reason why checkback is incompatible with 3H as natural is redundancy in a tight auction. With 5-5, you "should" be allowed to bid 3C, hear 3D, and THEN bid 3H. This negates the necessity of 3H as natural. Hence, a cuebid.

If redundancies exist, bid 3NT. With so many HCP's, 3NT wins at IMP's and MP, usually, and averts the risk of a set through club ruffs. You have insufficient values and tools to seek a difficult club slam. For that matter, partner "should" open 2NT with the "right" 19-count, so slam is far off.

[mikeh]

Hate the methods: but I have been asked to fill in.

So 3♣ checkback it is. I hope I am not playing with a partner who opens 1♣ with 4=4 in minors, because (if not) I can interpret a 3♦ rebid as showing 5+♣ (no 3 card ♠ suit and no 4 card ♥ suit), and that would get me to move srongly towards 6♣.

If he bids 3♥, I bid 4♣, which I assume has to be setting trump and forcing, but not committing to slam. On that auction, I will pass should he bid 4N at some point.

If he bids 3♠, I suspect that my methods leave me with no good bid. Probably stuck with 4♣ as a cuebid, altho that begs the question of how I am supposed to set ♣ as trump if I only hold 4♠.

Hate the methods

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 27 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

Hate the methods: but I have been asked to fill in.

(...)

Hate the methods

Uh oh. What is Mike gonna say when he reads echo's thread over in the B/I forum...

[Echognome]

LOL arend. Unfortunately, these were actually our methods. I agree they could be better, but not sure it's worth agreeing too much in such a casual partnership. Have been playing in this monthly competition for 5 sessions and it was the first time it came up and it was a hypothetical as partner actually rebid 1NT showing 15-17 as he miscounted his points.

This went:

1♣ - 1♠
1NT(15-17) - 2♦ (ART GF)
2NT - 3♣
3♦ - 3NT
All Pass

I didn't feel I was worth more than one slam try opposite a 15-17 bal hand. I then realised it wouldn't have been much easier if partner had rebid 2NT.

And to make Mike feel even better, partner's shape was 2=3=4=4. 6NT was on a (making) finesse. 6♣ had no play as clubs were Kxxx opposite ATxx.