[hammberry]

Matchpoints, favorable vulerability.

Partner dealt, with the opponents silent
I held: ♠QT975, ♥Q9, ♦AQ75, ♣K4

Part Me
1♥ 1♠
3♣ 3♥
4♣ 4♦
4♥ ?

Partner is an intelligent Life Master & we're playing
a simple 2 over 1 approach. This is our first opener's
jump shift auction.
Was 4♦ OK?
What should I do now?

[helene_t]

4♦ was a cue, rather than last train, right?

I wonder which suit is trump now. Your 3♥ apparently did not promise real support. So 4♣ was natural. 4♦ cannot be a cue for clubs, since you have no forcing way of setting hearts as trumps.

You could easily be missing a spade control. I don't think p has denied a spade control: since 3♥ did not set trump, 3♠ by partner would have been natural.

At IMPs I would try 5♣ which should be non-forcing but positive. At matchpoints I might have bid 4NT (quanti) instead of 3♥. Having bid 3♥, I see no alternative to 4♦. I would pass now.

I wonder which of 5♣ and Blackwood are more likely to lead to the right slam/noslam decision. I suppose a simulation could be illuminating.

I prefer a style in which 3♥ promises real support and this hand bids 3♦, waiting. I realize this is not standard. Also, such a waiting bid in the 4th suit should apply only when it's the cheapest bid.

[han]

Difficult hand. Slam could easily be laydown or we could be off two spade tricks. I think I would bid 5H, showing futher slam interest without spade control. I think the 5-level will likely be safe.

[mike777]

hammberry, on Oct 18 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Matchpoints, favorable vulerability.

Partner dealt, with the opponents silent
I held: ♠QT975, ♥Q9, ♦AQ75, ♣K4

Part Me
1♥ 1♠
3♣ 3♥
4♣ 4♦
4♥ ?

Partner is an intelligent Life Master & we're playing
a simple 2 over 1 approach. This is our first opener's
jump shift auction.
Was 4♦ OK?
What should I do now?

As others have said difficult hand.

Prefer 3D over 3H

Yes 3D does not promise D 100%

Of course that may just create other problems but at least I am bidding my suits in order of length and have hcp in my bid suits, that may help.

[jdonn]

I would just assume spade control and bid 5NT now (assuming all the prior choices would have been the same, which is a little dubious.) Is it really worth adding more vague torture to this already torturous auction because of the fear that of the missing 27 high card points partner doesn't have the ace or king or shortness in spades and they are going to lead one? Han bids 5♥, Helene bids 5♣, so the only thing that really seems sure is no one knows what any of these bids really mean (including me!) Therefore I don't bid them.

Another idea is 4NT natural (what that is supposed to mean, for sure) over 3♣. The hand is fine on values (well ok, perhaps too heavy) and shape but the problem is we don't have enough of our hand in spades. By which I mean partner will downgrade a singleton spade and miss cold slams when we hardly have any strength in spades. But it might be worth it to avoid this torture, which I admit would not have happened had partner's third bid been either 3♠ 3NT or 4♥. I think a perfect 4NT bid would be something like AQxxx Jx KT9x Qx (better spades, a hair lighter, worse overall potential than the actual hand) so I wouldn't do it, but it should at least be crossing our minds.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Oct 19 2007, 12:32 AM, said:

hammberry, on Oct 18 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Matchpoints, favorable vulerability.

Partner dealt, with the opponents silent
I held: ♠QT975, ♥Q9, ♦AQ75, ♣K4

Part              Me
1♥                  1♠
3♣                3♥
4♣                4♦
4♥                    ?

Partner is an intelligent Life Master & we're playing
a simple 2 over 1 approach. This is our first opener's
jump shift auction.
Was 4♦ OK?
What should I do now?

As others have said difficult hand.

Prefer 3D over 3H

<snip>

Yes, the alternative being 3S.
3H should show support and set trumps.
Given that one holds Q9 in hearts 3H is not
bad, but I prefer 3D, followed by 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

hammberry, on Oct 18 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Matchpoints, favorable vulerability.

Partner dealt, with the opponents silent
I held: ♠QT975, ♥Q9, ♦AQ75, ♣K4

Part Me
1♥ 1♠
3♣ 3♥
4♣ 4♦
4♥ ?

Partner is an intelligent Life Master & we're playing
a simple 2 over 1 approach. This is our first opener's
jump shift auction.
Was 4♦ OK?
What should I do now?

5H, quantitative try for 6H,
most likely asking for a spade
control as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

I'd have bid 4NT quantitative over 3♣. The alternative being 3♦. Can't see that any convoluted sequence after supporting one (or both) of partners suits will help out in any reasonable way.

[han]

Yes, I would also have bid 4NT with a good partner but I wouldn't risk it with an unknown intelligent life master.

[Fluffy]

I like 3♥ to show real support, but I believe this is not standard among BBF posters.

I prefer 3♦, on a good day you can raise 3NT to 4 and make it clearer.


As the things are now It seems we will have to make tricks in both hearts and clubs, and our holding on those suits tells us that it is easier to ruff a club than a heart, so IMO our best contract will be in hearts as Han and Ube suggest. I like 5♥

[Codo]

I ahd never ever bid 3 HEart. Why do I want to play 6 HEart in a 5-2 fit?
I had bid 4 NT.

IF I would believe that pd will take this a Blackwood( it of course isn´t), I try 3 Diamond followed by some inspired guess later.

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Oct 19 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Yes, I would also have bid 4NT with a good partner but I wouldn't risk it with an unknown intelligent life master.

Why? Do intelligent life masters play "4NT is always blackwood"?

[han]

Intelligent life masters come in a wide variety.

[whereagles]

agree 100% with gonzalo

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Oct 20 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 19 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Yes, I would also have bid 4NT with a good partner but I wouldn't risk it with an unknown intelligent life master.

Why? Do intelligent life masters play "4NT is always blackwood"?

Because intelligent life masters know that the worst thing that can happen in a new or pickup partnership is uncertainty as to the meaning of bids. So they give up some more intelligent treatments that make sense in the context of the auction in favor of certainty.

[mikeh]

4N over 3♣ would be the choice of S J Simon's unlucky expert. He'd have made the correct call but it would lead to disaster because either partner doesn't know what it means or doesn't know that you know what it means. And if he bids 5♣ or 5♥, you won't know what those bids mean either You'd have an idea as to what they should mean, but you'd be guessing not just about his skill/knowledge level but also about his view of your own skill/knowledge level.

I would have bid 3♦, but only because I have so much power. I have no objection, in principle, to a preference to 3♥. 3♥ does not, for me, fix trump and, more importantly, I'd never assume that partner thought it did (or that he thought that I thought that it did, and so on)

Now 4♦ might have been construed as LTTC, or maybe partner, being intelligent, decided that it might have been and so he bid as if it were, trusting that, with a real hand, you'd keep going.

And that's what I have.

So an easy 5♣.

This is completely unambiguous. I would never pull 4♥ to 5♣ at any form of scoring after bidding 3♥, no matter what 3♥ showed.

So when I pull, it is a cue-bid and it makes 4♦ retroactively a genuine cue. Had 4♦ been LTTC, I'd be passing 4♥.

And 5♣ really tells it all: I deny a spade control, I have slam interest with (therefore) Hx or better in hearts, the ♦A and a club control... and obviously some other working features to make the 5 level safe and slam within contemplation.

All told, the auction could not have timed out better, and I am now happy that I bid 3♥, even tho I wouldn't have done so at the table.

[jdonn]

Mike I find your post interesting because I bet a poll of experts would show near unanimous opinion of what 4NT means but a much wider variety of opinions of what 5♣ means. Could be wrong though, I'd actually be interested in seeing such a poll done.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Oct 20 2007, 02:31 PM, said:

Mike I find your post interesting because I bet a poll of experts would show near unanimous opinion of what 4NT means but a much wider variety of opinions of what 5♣ means. Could be wrong though, I'd actually be interested in seeing such a poll done.

I completely agree with your 'poll of experts' view of 4N. If I were playing with an expert I might well bid 4N (altho, frankly, I'd like better spades and less playability in hearts.. that Kx in clubs is potentially a full extra trick in hearts than it is in notrump).

However, the conditions of contest specified only 'an intelligent life master'.

Go around a popular bridge club, wherever you live in NA, and take a poll of the LMs: most would not have any real idea what 4N meant, and a lot would say Blackwood of some variety.

All experts (in NA) may be LMs but not all LMs are expert: to the contrary, I know players with 10,000 mps who are NOT experts....

And intelligence is not the same as possessing knowledge. No matter how intelligent the LM, I would not assume that a non-expert LM knew what 4N meant.

However, I am puzzled by your feeling that 5♣, after we bid 3♥, could be anything other than a cue bid. I'd like to hear (see) your reasoning for why we'd run from a ten trick major contract to an 11 trick minor contract that blows either 1 or 2 imps when both make (if we're making 12 tricks in clubs, surely we rate to make 11 in hearts and maybe we make 11 or 12 in both).

[jdonn]

Per 4NT, agree.

Per 5♣, I'm surprised you see it as such a certainty. Also I wasn't actually saying what I think, just that I wouldn't expect much agreement.

Don't you agree that many would bid 3♥ on a doubleton on very reasonable hands with 3 or even 4 clubs (4 especially if they intend to pass 3NT)? You can argue for 3♦ on such hands but some people might play it differently and others just might not agree. Maybe something like Qxxxx Jx Axx KJx where 3♥ could certainly be a reasonable bid, then you might decide you are worth one cuebid in support of clubs. You might (or might not) be right over what it 'should' mean but I can't believe there would be any real unanimity, which is all I was saying.