[dburn]

Scoring: IMP

---

East-West are a partnership whose experience is confined to the 80 boards they have so far played together in this tournament (I was West, Justin Hackett was East, Jason Hackett was in bed with the flu).

There doesn't seem to be a facility for showing auctions here, so you will have to make do with the following narrative.

North passed and East opened 1♣ (four-card majors, strong no trump, weak hands will open 1M if balanced and may open 1M with a longer minor).

South passed and West bid 1♦ (not Walsh - no guarantee of game-forcing values if a major is held).

North bid 1♥ and East doubled (exactly three diamonds, no other information vouchsafed).

South bid 2♥, West bid 2♠, North passed and East bid 3♦ (minimum).

South passed and West bid 3♥ (stopper-asking). North passed and East bid 4♣ (natural).

South passed, and West bid 5♦, which ended the auction.


Now, Justin and I are not a regular partnership, but these questions occurred to me:

(1) At what point if any had this auction become forcing to game? For example, would East-West be allowed to bid:

Scoring: MP

---

like this:
...Pass-1♣-Pass
1♦-1♥-Double-2♥
2♠-Pass-3♦-Pass
3♥-Pass-4♣-Pass
4♦-All pass

Not that we'd necessarily make it if we did, but it would be the best we could do.

(2) If West had "raised" 4♣ to 5♣ in the given auction, would this clearly be a control bid, begging for a heart control? Or can East-West play in 5♣? It seemed to me that at no point had East-West actually asserted that they had more than a 4-3 diamond fit, while they might have a pretty good club fit (West cannot bid a forcing 3♣ over 2♥ - or can he?)

(3) Once East denied a heart stopper, it never entered my head that he might have a heart singleton. Can it be that we should not bid as much as we think we should bid, just because it's against the Law not to?


For amusement only: at the other table North passed and East opened 1♣. South, Artur "The Great" Malinowksi, overcalled 1♦, a psyche. West bid 1♠, North passed, East bid 2♣ and West bid 3NT. North led... a low heart.

[mike777]

I am non expert by far but once west bids 2 spades I think we are in a game force.

I assume WC partner and 5 minute discussion.


I spend most of the 5 minutes telling partner what I open hands on in first and second seat and my style of leads and discards.

I will not comment on the opening bids assuming a pickup WC partner in both of your examples for fear of being banned from bbo forums.

[kenrexford]

It is hard to assess what someone else must mean for their particular auction, but here's my take.

2♠ did not establish a GF. I imagine that it forces, but only one round.

3♥, however, is a strong call. Forcing to at least four of a minor.

Here's the rub. 3♦ should have set diamonds as the minor strain of choice. Opener did not bid 3♣ after 2♠, so diamonds is it as far as minors are concerned. I think that spades may still be in picture, or notrump, but not clubs.

After 3♥, I'm not sure that I'd bid 4♣, opting instead to show the Moysian spade support. This will not promise hearts, but it does make a stiff heart somewhat more likely.

Had Opener bid 3♠, I'd expect Responder to bid 4♥ as a general slam try. The call would suggest a signoff in spades or at 5♦, or a cue of 5♣ in support of diamonds and furthering the slam try. I'd opt 5♣ with Opener's hand.

When Opener bid 4♣, this seems like a reconsideration of the original 3♦ call. However, maybe Opener wants better spades to call 3♠. In any event, however, 4♣ has to be slammish, IMO, which suggests the stiff heart.

All very subtle, of course, in an under-established partnership, considering that I am guessing as to what each thinks in a 4-card major system. However, I think that the impropriety of bouncing between the minors once settlement is reached may have caused this misunderstanding.

[cherdano]

I should start with the disclaimer that I have only a very vague idea of how different my brain is to that of bridge players who grew up with ACOL limit bidding...

I agree there are auctions where you can stop in 4m after trying for 3N, but I don't think this is one of them. 2♠ shows at least an invitational hand, 3♦ pretty much denies a stopper. After that 3♥ should establish an absolute GF, otherwise it seems a waste of a bid.

Obviously East failed to bid out his shape, but if you think 3♣ instead of 3♦ would show extras, then there probably just isn't enough room to show it with 11 working hcp.

[the hog]

This isn't Acol. The Hackets play a system loosely based on "The Science"; 4 card Ms, frequent canape openings with weak hands, 14-16 NT. I assume this is what David and Justin were playing.

I would argue that the auction became a gf after the 3H bid. Rather than bid 4C, as we are in a gf situation I would bid 4H. Undiscusses, I don't know whether this would show a H control and offer a choice of games, but I guess it would. Now a 4S cue should get you to 6D.

[Walddk]

dburn, on Nov 10 2007, 05:06 AM, said:

North bid 1♥ and East doubled (exactly three diamonds, no other information vouchsafed).

I may comment after I have been to the pharmacy to get 6 mg of Valium. David Burn playing support doubles!!?? Why is it that I thought that I would never see that on print?

I am in shock, and since pharmacies in Denmark are closed at 6:30 am, I guess I must accept to feel miserable for another 3 hours.

Roland

[joker_gib]

Given your agreements I think that the GF bid is 3♥.

Now the problem is to be sure it is GF and so be able to bid 4♦ on 4♣ to show a better hand than 5♦ and hear a ♥ control !

But is the hand really better ? Poor diamonds, two hearts....

I would have missed this one too!

Alain

[han]

I agree that 3H should set a gameforce. It's too small a target to allow for "you sound like you don't have a heart stopper but let me try once more and stop in 4D if you don't".

These are tough hands for a new partnership. I think that 4D should be forcing but I wouldn't risk it. However, I think that 4S is much better than 5D. Obviously we do not have a 5-6 hand (we would have bid 3S last round instead of 3H) and partner does not have 3 decent spades (he would have bid 3S last round, not 4C) so this cannot be a suggestion to play 4S. It has to be a slam try in diamonds, and partner should be able to kick it in.

[Halo]

Personally, I think I'd want to cue after the support double, to emphasise diamonds, and create some space to find out about hearts.

[helene_t]

How could Justin be so cruel to make a support double after the farmacies had closed?

Anyway:
1) 2♠ is a 1-round force, 3♥ is GF
2) 5♣ would have been to play.
3) I can only blame S for violating the LOTT.

Agree with Halo that W could better cue than bidding spades. If not playing Walsh, I think the support doubles denies spades even if the general agreement is that support doubles are "mandatory".

[jdonn]

Wouldn't east have bid 2NT instead of 3♦ with a heart stopper? If he had bid 3♣ I could understand that he might want to show a shape feature like long clubs even holding a heart stopper, but since the 3♦ bid didn't convey any distributional information it seems to me like it should never have a heart stopper. I think that makes a big difference and changes the nuances of every later bid in the auction.

Although I see that 3♦ promises a minimum. Does that mean other bids deny a minimum? It seems obvious to me that absent agreements to the contrary (but maybe there were some?) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ should all show a minimum, and an otherwise appropriate hand for the bid.

[whereagles]

Not playing walsh, 3♥ definitely is the GF bid. Now East can bid 4♥ if he's feeling lucky, but 4♣ is ok too. After 4♣ it requires some inspiration to try for slam, and even then it's risky to bid 4♦ since pard might take it as a signoff with lack of heart stop.

Under the circumstances, the auction is sound and I believe many experienced players would reproduce it. Except for the support dbl of diamonds, that is...

[skjaeran]

I think Justin made it very hard for David here.
A 3♣ rebid over 2♠ followed by 3♠ over the GF 3♥ would be better, but it's still not obvious for David to bid the slam - he'll know about Justin's distribution and the ♠K, but can't be sure about both ♦ honours.

[FrancesHinden]

3♥ set up a game force. Life's just too short to stop in 4D when you are 26 high (particularly as on your sample hand would much rather play in 4S than 4D anyway).

I don't like East's bidding, which sounds like a 3334 or (23)35 weak NT. Over 2S I don't see what's wrong with bidding 3C: he has already shown three diamonds but not long clubs.

Having bid 3D he then didn't know what to do over 3H, but 3S would have had the advantage of being step 1. Mind you, obviously if West was confident they were game forced he could have bid 4D over 4C then East would have cued hearts.

Alternatively, if West knew there was some uncertainty as to the forcing nature of the auction he could have just given up on playing 3NT and bid 4D earlier in the auction to set trumps unambiguously. I know we can construct hands where 3NT is the last making game, but I bet there aren't that many of them, particularly as I'm sure you were capable of stopping in 4NT opposite Kx Qxx KQx Qxxxx

Quote

2) If West had "raised" 4♣ to 5♣ in the given auction, would this clearly be a control bid, begging for a heart control? Or can East-West play in 5♣? It seemed to me that at no point had East-West actually asserted that they had more than a 4-3 diamond fit, while they might have a pretty good club fit (West cannot bid a forcing 3♣ over 2♥ - or can he?)

3C over 2H is definitely non-forcing. And 5C does sound like an attempt to play there (if it could be natural, it is natural). And anyway if you had a forcing hand with diamonds you could have bid 4D....

[Fluffy]

I would rather bid 3♠ than 3♥, my agreements say 5-6 bids 1♠, probably yours don't.

Still 3♠ looks more descriptive than 3♥.


I'd take 2♠ as GF (double was there for invitationals).

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on Nov 12 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

I'd take 2♠ as GF (double was there for invitationals).

I can't speak for David & Justin, but double might well have been penalties (it would be for me).