[han]

So I bid 4H and partner had AK109xx AQJ J98xx -. Do you agree with 3S?

Given 3S, what would you bid over 4H?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 3 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

Saying it more slowly doesn't make it not-insane, it just makes it insane and slow

1. Good
2. Impossible, if you had diamond support you raised diamonds last round. If you personally are playing that 2♦ doesn't promise diamonds then don't look at me, I have no comments about nonstandard treatments here.
3. You didn't bid 2NT over 2♦. Think about it.

1. We agree. (That's the easy one)
2. I'll agree that this situation requires a potentially-waiting 2♦ call. If you do not use this, then this would not be a problem. Even if you do, you probably would raise diamonds anyway, inferring extra club length. Maybe that one doesn't make any sense. It's why I called it "weird." So, I'll concede that one.
3. This one I don't get. Sure, you did not bid 2NT the first time. But, is there no 1336 hand that you'd want to make a Quantitative 4NT here if you could? Why does 4♣ need to show more clubs than already shown? Or, would you bid 2NT with any 1336 hand that would want to bid Quantitative?

[kenrexford]

SoTired, on Sep 3 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

2. I have a lot of clubs and I also have diamonds.  I did not mention the diamonds yet, for some reason.  But I have them.  Maybe we play that your initial 2♦ might be "funny" but that your spade rebid "proved" the diamond suit.  Maybe I have a slam-swan hand.  Whatever.  I have a weird diamond-club canape.

Not me. Slam bidding is difficult enough without a partner that makes cute, clever bids rather than raising and setting trump. So 4C does not include hands with 4♦ because those hands would bid 3D directly over 2D (or splinter). It also does not include hands with first round diam control and a dblton spade with dim slam thoughts.

Either I forget slam and bid 4S or I bid a 4D q-bid.

Yeah -- I agree about the diamond-club canape. Bid the diamond support.

[Fluffy]

3♠ doesn't show anything but a suit able to play opposite singleton.

4♠ no wis a huge underbid, we have extras and unexpected support


In my view 3♣ denied ♦ support, so 4[DI and 4♥ are both cues agreeing spades. 4♣ I'd take it as nat (but wouldn't be surprised if the contract gets rectified to spades later by the club bidder).

[kenrexford]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

So I bid 4H and partner had AK109xx AQJ J98xx -. Do you agree with 3S?

Given 3S, what would you bid over 4H?

I'd sign off if bypassing 4♦ denied a diamond card.

[han]

You know my hand Ken, do you think it was our agreement that 4H denied a diamond card?

[mike777]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

So I bid 4H and partner had AK109xx AQJ J98xx -. Do you agree with 3S?

Given 3S, what would you bid over 4H?

Yes agree with 3 spades.


I have never played this 4H bid is a slam try but does not promise a heart control. Have seen it mentioned here in the forums. Look forward to the responses.

I would have just bid 4s not 4H with that responder hand. With opener's hand I would continue slam try since responder has just about what I expect.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

3. This one I don't get. Sure, you did not bid 2NT the first time. But, is there no 1336 hand that you'd want to make a Quantitative 4NT here if you could? Why does 4♣ need to show more clubs than already shown? Or, would you bid 2NT with any 1336 hand that would want to bid Quantitative?

It is way way better to bid 2NT with that, then you are well placed over whatever partner does (in particular, 4NT over 3♠, 4♣ over 3NT). Anyway even on that example, your 4♣ bid is natural, it's just a choice you make where there is no better choice.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 3 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

3. This one I don't get.  Sure, you did not bid 2NT the first time.  But, is there no 1336 hand that you'd want to make a Quantitative 4NT here if you could?  Why does 4♣ need to show more clubs than already shown?  Or, would you bid 2NT with any 1336 hand that would want to bid Quantitative?

It is way way better to bid 2NT with that, then you are well placed over whatever partner does (in particular, 4NT over 3♠, 4♣ over 3NT). Anyway even on that example, your 4♣ bid is natural, it's just a choice you make where there is no better choice.

Isn't that what I was originally saying, way back when? LOL

[kenrexford]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

You know my hand Ken, do you think it was our agreement that 4H denied a diamond card?

Not now, but I got confused as to who was saying what somewhere.

If 4♥ is a general slam move, and 4♦ something else, then I think so. I have the unknown heart stop, and even a second stop. I hope we have some way to find out about this glaring diamond problem.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Isn't that what I was originally saying, way back when? LOL

lol, it doesn't look like you were saying that at all, the opposite in fact, but is it really a big surprise that I have no idea what you were saying?

BTW, say you do play the method you describe with 2♦ bid as some sort of artificial wait and that then 3♠ confirms diamonds, and that you also play responder could still have a diamond fit here. Then it seems obvious in those methods to play now 4♣ by responder natural, 4♦ by responder natural support, and 4♥ artificial strong spade raise. So I would still think you were insane with your meaning of 4♣, I mean assuming I actually have an idea what you're saying.

[kenrexford]

I have thought this thing through a bit more, and, after speaking with my mentor, I have a slightly different view, now.

1. Opener supposedly had ♠AK109xx ♥AQJ ♦J98xx ♣void. This is a real problem hand, having 14 cards. Just realized that when giving Opener's hand.

2. Opener probably really had ♠AK109xx ♥AQJ ♦J98x ♣void. If so, then 2♦ was the problem. This seems like a 2♠ rebid, which yields 3♠ and lots of room for conversation. 2♦ was a horrible rebid.

3. 2♦ as a rebid makes a lot more sense with something like ♠AK109x ♥AQJ ♦Kxx ♣xx than with the actual hand. Both may be wrong for most people. I'd bid 2♦ with the Kxx holding fairly routinely if allowed by the partnership, but I'd bid 2♦ with Kxx before I'd bid it with the actual hand even without allowance for that call.

4. 4♣ should be natural and self-playing. I agree with jdonn that 2NT may make more sense with hands that will face a problem after 3♠ because they would want to maintain notrump as the best strain if opener's next call is not to support vlubs.

5. I now am convinced that 4♦ by Responder shows diamond support, but it also shows solid clubs -- a swan with relatively poor diamond support. This should be a hand where Responder does have diamond support but where clubs plays well opposite a stiff.

6. This leaves 4♥ as inference-free last train. A general slam move.

7. Opener, with the actual hand, messed up. Having messed up, he cannot pass 4♥. His only hope seems to be to bid 5♥.

8. I also agree that I cannot bulk up all my hands into 4♣. I have to sacrifice 4♦ as a cue to be able to handle the club-diamond swans.

[han]

Partner had AK109xx AQ J98xx, thanks Ken. I wouldn't have raised to 3S over 1S-2C-2S by the way, but that's irrelevant since partner was indeed 6-5.

I'm going to think about some of your other comments.

[matmat]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

Partner had AK109xx AQ J98xx, thanks Ken. I wouldn't have raised to 3S over 1S-2C-2S by the way, but that's irrelevant since partner was indeed 6-5.

I'm going to think about some of your other comments.

Partner was an idiot for not going past 4s after correctly fielding 4h as a good spade raise.