[david_c]

Scoring: IMP

---

This is an excellent slam, but we stopped short:

1♦ (4+, unbalanced) - 1♠
2♣ (artificial: shows hearts) - 3♠ (forcing - 2♠ would be invitational)
3NT - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
4♠ - pass

The first three bids are automatic in the system, but after that something went wrong. What should have happened differently?

[kenrexford]

The bidding looks fine, if the assumptions I have are right, up to a point. Starting with 3♠:

3♠ (forcing, suit playable opposite a stiff)
3NT (void, with club values for 3NT)
4♣ (playable opposite a void; club control)
4♦ (two of the top three diamonds)

Now, the problem. Whatever 4♥ shows (last train or cue), it seems to me that North should complete his picture by bidding 5♥. This isolates the club "notrump control" as Q10x(x) or QJx(x), the diamonds as assuredly AK or AQ, and the heart K. That's enough for South.

There is an argument for South taking over after the 4♦ cue, but I'm assuming that 1♦ could be much weaker, even with two top diamonds. Unless 2♣ was a big bid, that is.

[mike777]

david_c, on Apr 22 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K874 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKJ63 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> QJ74 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AKQJ853 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 952 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->
This is an excellent slam, but we stopped short:

1♦ (4+, unbalanced) - 1♠
2♣ (artificial: shows hearts) - 3♠ (forcing - 2♠ would be invitational)
3NT - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
4♠ - pass

The first three bids are automatic in the system, but after that something went wrong. What should have happened differently?

North's third bid was a natural 3nt? Disagree I would just bid out my shape with 4clubs.

After that I expect partner to place the contract I guess.

If your 3nt was natural I fail to see how south stayed out of a spade slam? She has a 5 loser hand and you opened the bidding, yes?

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Apr 22 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

david_c, on Apr 22 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K874 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKJ63 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> QJ74 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AKQJ853 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 952 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->
This is an excellent slam, but we stopped short:

1♦ (4+, unbalanced) - 1♠
2♣ (artificial: shows hearts) - 3♠ (forcing - 2♠ would be invitational)
3NT - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
4♠ - pass

The first three bids are automatic in the system, but after that something went wrong. What should have happened differently?

North's third bid was a natural 3nt? Disagree I would just bid out my shape with 4clubs.

After that I expect partner to place the contract I guess.

If your 3nt was natural I fail to see how south stayed out of a spade slam? She has a 5 loser hand and you opened the bidding, yes?

Mike -- my guess is that you are missing the point of the 1♦ opening promising an unbalanced hand. Unlike completely natural systems, the initial promise of shortness somewhere means that 3NT shows what you would normally show if you bid 4♣. Not sure, but I'll guess that 4♣, instead, would either show greater strength or would possibly even agree spades.

[jdonn]

South definitely didn't do enough. North probably has no spades so south knows north will never move beyond game. Once north made an encouraging noise with 4♦ I would have just bid keycard as south.

[david_c]

Jlall, on Apr 23 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

Seems like south didnt do nearly enough when his partner bid 4D. He has a great hand and his partner has cooperated, what else can he want?

When you say "co-operated", do you think North is obliged to cue-bid in this situation when holding a diamond control, or does it show some additional enthusiasm? (This is a matter of agreement, obviously, but I'd be interested to hear what people thought was normal in this sort of situation.)

[whereagles]

Seems like South didn't quite know where he stood. Posters above mentioned some alternatives to bidding, but I might have tried setting a game force in diamonds (guess 3♦ instead of 3♠ would do it) and then think about whether to sign-off in diams or spades.

[Edmunte1]

There are 2 important issues here:

1) Does 3♠ shows a semisolid suit (AKQ10, KQJ10, AQJ10) playing in front of a void for maximum one loser? There it was another systemic possibility for showing a strong hand with spades (for example using a 2♥ relay, then bidding 3♠)? Then probably North could have shown a little enthusiasm earlier by bidding 4♦)

2) Let's suppose that 3♠ bid can show a suit with 1 1/2+ losers. Now 3NT is a mandatory negative. The 4♣ cue confirms now the semisolidty of the suit. Is 4♦ a sign of enthusiasm or an almost forced cue-bid? This is a matter of partnership agreement

So i don't see this as a mistake matter, but more as a systemic matter.

[mcphee]

South was a wimp, with just short of a 2C opening bid slam can't be bad, especially when partner bid D the spot he needs help.

[Fluffy]

South could better show ♦ support instead of spades, then in the end rectify to spades at the apropiate level. Not sure if it is better on the long run, but would work on this deal.

[Codo]

I have no idea how south can pass 4 Spade. If he is unsure about 4 NT (natural or RKC) he should just blast to 6 Spade.
Pass is no option.

[kenrexford]

The problem with this post is that people are making assumptions without explanations of calls. I am also making assumptions without explanations of calls.

The key lurking question, seriously in need of an answer, is what the meaning of 3♠-P-3NT-P-4♣ is, as to the spade situation.

You are using an unbalanced diamond opening. If 3♠ shows a suit playable opposite a stiff honor, and if 3NT denies a stiff honor, then the rest of the auction has one set of inferences. If 3NT shows a void (3♠ showing a suit playable opposite a small stiff), then 4♣, apparently a self-cue, has a different implication for the trump suit. If 3♠ showed a suit playable opposite a void, then 3NT should logically have a different meaning. Do you have a checkback meathod, perhaps 3♣, to handle this problem?

I mean, if Responder has already shown a solid seven-bagger, with a club control and a heart control, then North seems to be the culprit. If not, then perhaps South. The five-level is not safe is Opener can have void-KQJx-KQJxx-QJxx.

[david_c]

kenrexford, on Apr 23 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

The key lurking question, seriously in need of an answer, is what the meaning of 3♠-P-3NT-P-4♣ is, as to the spade situation.

Undiscussed, of course. I mean, if you were to insist on having explicit agreements about every bid in the third round of the auction it'd take years of preparation before you and your partner could actually sit down and play a hand!

But evidently it shows a hand which is still interested in playing in a spade slam despite the 3NT bid. Deduce what you like from that.

[kenrexford]

Well, then neither North nor South bid the hand properly, nor did either make a mistake, as there is no agreement here.

I'm being a tad sarcastic but also legitimate in my opinion, here. You simply will have unresolvable problems if auctions like these are not discussed. As I have played with several partners for some twenty years a 1♦ opening showing an unbalanced hand, I have had many occasions to discuss this issue. The solution the many of us have reached helps tremendously on this hand:

1. Notrump bids by an unbalanced opener are not pattern bids (as balanced is not possible) but show that partner's announced suit is the location of the shortness.

2. The greater the length, the greater the shortness.

3. 3♣ here would be checkback.

4. 3♠, instead, shows a suit playable opposite a small stiff.

5. 3NT, per the above, shows a void in spades. The failure to instead bid 4♣ limits the strength.

This is a workable style, if you reach agreements about rebids of majors in the face of likely shortness. Without it, opinions vary and guesses result.

[mike777]

I could not disagree more that nt bids by an unbalanced(100%) opener are not pattern bids. See "Simple Club System" in the Bridge Encyclopedia for more information. In fact that is just what they should be, showing some pattern given your agreements.

I see no reason why 3nt should promise a void here, unless that is their agreement. Seems I would bid 4c with a void(this hand) and 3nt with stiff or xx...depending on if 3s only promises 5 (not 6 100%).....since I am not told otherwise....I assume that.

I do note 3nt was not alerted and it hardly seems fair the opp should KNOW that 3nt promises a void on this auction.

[kenrexford]

Seeing as the auction featured a 3NT call with a void, I assumed that 3NT showed a void. Of course, you could play that 4♣ shows a boid, such that 3NT shows a stiff and therefore agrees spades. But, that seems counter-intuitive to my way of thinking about an unbalanced diamond system.

A simple example of this principle might help.

Assuming that 1♦ promises a stiff or void (or perhaps a rebiddable diamond suit or 2245/2254), what does this auction show:

1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT?

Obviously, as Opener declined to rebid diamonds or rebid 2♣, the normal understanding is that the known shortness is in spades.

How about 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT?

Now, Opener holds a stiff heart. The failure to bid 1♠ makes the most likely pattern 1354. In fact, we play that it guarantees 1354 pattern.

Same for jumps to 2NT, only stronger.

Using this principle, and applying a consistency idea, all NT bids isolate the shortness as the "worst" shortness, at least for partner.

On a similar vein. If the auction is 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠, we know that the spade suit from Responder is very good -- he's opting to play a simple 2♠ contract notwithstanding the known shortness. How aout 3♠? This is forcing and natural, with intention to play in a spade contract, even opposite the known stiff or void.

So, look again at 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT(1354)-P-3♥. Pattern is known (Opener's pattern), so 3NT has some other meaning. Possibly, this denies a stiff honor. Maybe this promises a stiff honor. Whatever.

What about 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-3♠? The same principle is at work. Opener will not likely have a void, as he'd bid 2♣ with 0454 and 2♦ with any hand featuring a 6-bagger in diamonds.

Well, if 2♣ removes all hands with 5+♦/4♥ from the normal 1NT response (or from the 2♦ or 2♣ responses, or from reverses), then the normal holding features a stiff spade. With 3451/3460, 3♣ from Responder will allow a 3♠ completion-of-pattern bid. 3♠, catering to a stiff, will likely feature a strange-sounding 4♣ call, indicating the unexpected club shortness (and hence probable 10-fit in spades). 3NT "declines" spades, again, with either a small stiff or a void, depending upon agreements.

Of course, this is not a required treatment, but it makes sense in the context of the unbalanced diamond opening.

[mike777]

IF David C plays that 3nt promises a void, that if fine. I do feel very strongly that 3nt should be alerted and the partnership understanding explained. I would think it is very unfair to expect the opp at the table to know this is "obvious bridge logic" that needs not be alerted.

[kenrexford]

I'm not claiming that 3NT as showing a void is obvious bridge logic. In fact, one could play that 3NT is serious, agreeing spades. I'd also agree that 3NT should probably be alerted if it shows that hand, as I would alert 3NT myself.

The "obvious" part seems to be that 3NT must obviously show a void in spades, or a stiff that is not an honor, as this was the bid at the table. If 3NT was not the proper systemic bid, then the original post would have noted that 3NT was a clear error, I would hope.