[Apollo81]

♠Axxx
♥---
♦Axxx
♣Kxxxx

all red, imps

1♦-(pass)-1♠-(2♥)
Dbl*-(pass)-3♥-(pass)
3NT-(pass)-4♦

*support

Please comment on the auction so far, particularly the 4♦ bid.

[pbleighton]

Assuming 3H agreed diamonds, then 4D was wrong.

Why ask partner a question if you won't accept the answer?

Peter

[jchiu]

I usually play the double in this sequence as "competitive", usually showing a non-minimum hand with no other useful alternative bid. After the competitive double, limit bidding principles apply. So I agree with 3♥, since most other bids show weaker hands. The rest of the auction looks fine.

[mikeh]

pbleighton, on Feb 22 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

Assuming 3H agreed diamonds, then 4D was wrong.

Why ask partner a question if you won't accept the answer?

Peter

why would 3♥ agree ♦s? S has not yet shown anything. 3♥ is a generic game force, conveying no information beyond that S doesn't have the ability to suggest a resting spot based on what he has heard so far (which isn't much, since the support double does little to define N's hand beyond the length of the ♠ fit).

So 3♥ was NOT asking for a stopper: it was saying: we're going to at least game, and I need a dialogue.

Thus 4♦ was a continuation of a natural conversation, albeit that S may be developing a nasty feeling that he has overbid this one. If partner is minimum 3442, 5♦ may prove awkward.

As for the original bid... it is close between bidding 2♣ or 1♠. Give me good interior spots (A109x void A108x K109xx) and I'd bid 2♣ IF 1♦ promised 4 cards (I am one of those who open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 shape) but, given the x's as posted, I agree with 1♠. As for 3♥... it's close but it gets my vote... after all, there really is no alternative that makes as much sense.

[jtfanclub]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

♠Axxx
♥---
♦Axxx
♣Kxxxx

all red, imps

1♦-(pass)-1♠-(2♥)
Dbl*-(pass)-3♥-(pass)
3NT-(pass)-4♦

*support

Please comment on the auction so far, particularly the 4♦ bid.

My extremely unexpert opinion....

The opps couldn't find it in their hearts (if you'll excuse the pun) to bid 3♥, in spite of my void. Either they're far more conservative than my opponents usually are, or they don't have a 10 card fit. So I think partner has 4 hearts.

So that makes the majors known- 4 hearts, 3 spades. The minors could be anything from 6 diamonds and 0 clubs to 3 diamonds and 3 clubs.

But partner bid 3NT. That doesn't look like the obvious bid to me with a club void. With a 4-3 fit in spades, I don't think a 4-4 diamond fit is going to be worth 3 extra tricks. And I'm awfully minimum for my bidding so far.

I'll pass the 3NT. Maybe it's just my MP ways, but 4♦ sounds slammish, and I think partner will be disappointed.

Edited to add- it seems like you're guaranteeing playing in diamonds, with the 4♦ bid, unless you like the Moysian. I think if I was going to insist on diamonds, I'd bid 3♦ instead of 3 hearts. I don't think this hand has the power to force to the 5 level.

[Apollo81]

This was another GNT hand my opps had. There were hesitations on double and 3NT, so I thought bidding on here was at best little sketchy. 6♦ was cold (push); partner has a 3442 18-count (I think). Didn't call director since 4♦ looked reasonable and very consistent with the player making the bid.

[whereagles]

Bidding seems fine so far. Tad optimistic, but ok (I would have passed 3NT).

[skjaeran]

Apollo81, on Feb 23 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

This was another GNT hand my opps had. There were hesitations on double and 3NT, so I thought bidding on here was at best little sketchy. 6♦ was cold (push); partner has a 3442 18-count (I think). Didn't call director since 4♦ looked reasonable and very consistent with the player making the bid.

3442 18-count??
He can't bid 3NT with that. When I force to game vs a possible minimum opening he's got to bid 4NT over 3♥ to show such strenght.
3NT should be the same distribution (or 3343) and (11)12-14. 4♦ is slammish, with 3♥ an advance cuebid. My hand isn't worth that. I'd guess 3NT works better than 5♦, and thus would pass.

[mike777]

I guess the bidding was ok but I would have just bid 4d over the double.

[joshs]

The auction looks automatic to me.
I guess you can pass 3N but in my mind thats a big position and I would never consider it at imps. Partner doesnt have to have 2 stoppers. If partner did not bid 3N you can practically force to slam, so cue-bidding did get you useful info.

The only question is whether you should bid 4D directly or bid 3H first. Depending on style the difference in sequences might be:
a. Heart control or not
Or
b. Strength of the diamonds (maybe 4D direct should be at least Hxxxx?)
Or
C. maybe a different distinction, perhaps 4D direct is a distributional invite that had no interest in 3N, so is not even forcing? So a hand like AQxx - QJxxxx xxx?

(I have conflicting rules here:

rule a: absent competition that forced you to compete to 4m, bidding 4 of a minor is forcing whenever you didn't try for 3N (so for instance all jumps to 4m)

rule b: In a competative auction, where my side has opened and responded but hasn't shown game INV or better values yet, all strong auctions start with x or a cue-bid. Jumps show extras but are not forcing.
)



Josh